The Day the Revolution Began

Just this morning I finished reading N. T. Wright’s recent book, The Day the Revolution Began. In this volume Wright weaves together conclusions of themes that he has presented in several previous volumes and in so doing presents on a larger tapestry the earth-shattering significance of the crucifixion of Jesus.

While my Th.M. was done in New Testament exegesis which focused heavily on Greek syntax and grammar, learning exegesis I learned that context is a primary factor for accurate interpretation. My Ph.D. is in historical theology and it is in that field that I have labored for nearly 35 years. My training and work in the history of theology has made me acutely aware of the fact that we must always be cognizant of the historical context into which any text or event falls and to read the text through that historical context rather than impose later contexts onto the text of scripture. Wright himself is a master in second Temple Judaism (that era that begins with the building of the temple upon the Jewish return to Israel after the Babylonian captivity and comes to an end in A.D. 70 with the destruction of the Temple). This was an era of study that was not even on the radar when I began seminary in the mid-70s. Over a decade ago when I read Wright’s volume, The New Testament and the People of God, it felt like the scales were falling off my eyes. Placing the New Testament in the historical cultural context of second Temple Judaism opened up whole new vistas in my understanding of the New Testament.

Tom Wright is a prolific writer with wide interests in New Testament studies. Besides being a scholar, and professor he is also a churchman (he was for several years the Bishop of Durham) as well as a pastor. He is one of those scholars who has the rare ability to write some of his works to laymen who are unschooled in the Bible, as well as writing works that are highly technical, and everywhere in between. So prolific are his works that it is often joked that whenever Wright drops his pen (or in this tech age maybe we should say “his keyboard”) that’s at least one book he’s not going to get to write. He is also one of the most transparent and humble men I have ever met.

Having said all this, we also need to look at the context in which we who live in the 21st century live. The church has in many ways turned the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus into an ahistorical event, not in the sense that it is mythology, but rather it has been lifted out of the narrative of Scripture which points to a larger purpose of God than simply the salvation of individuals who go to heaven. Wright insists that, “The personal meaning is not left behind. I want to make that clear from the start. But it is contained within the larger story. And it means more, not less, as a result.” (Kindle Locations 267-268)

Beginning with Augustine in the fourth century the hope of the Christian was progressively refocused away from resurrection and a renewal of creation to a spiritual eternity spent in a spiritual/nonphysical heaven. We’ve all seen the images of sitting on clouds and strumming harps for eternity. The fundamentalist/evangelical tradition in particular has popularized this eschatological escapism over the past century and a half. In my formative years it was regularly asserted that the church was God’s heavenly people and the Jews were God’s earthly people. While in the scholarly realm this position is no longer asserted, the wild popularity of the Left Behind series testifies to the apocalyptic mindset that is deeply embedded in American culture. That apocalyptic mentality with its escapism has led to a worldview that sees little importance in caring for creation, a creation which was declared in the biblical creation account to be “very good.” In fact, a number of years ago one of my colleagues preached a sermon in a local church which said in effect, “we don’t need to be concerned about saving creation. It is all going to burn.” To say that I was dismayed is  a great understatement.

At the heart of Christianity is the cross, the symbol of the crucifixion of Jesus. Yet, in the first century the cross was not a symbol of victory, of forgiveness, reconciliation, but a symbol of the cruelty of Rome and of its dominance over any who would challenge Rome’s authority. Caesar was still Emperor and death still reigned.
“Except that in this case it didn’t. As Jesus’s followers looked back on that day in the light of what happened soon afterward, they came up with the shocking, scandalous, nonsensical claim that his death had launched a revolution. That something had happened that afternoon that had changed the world. That by six o’clock on that dark Friday evening the world was a different place. ” (Ibid. Locations 248-250)

In Jesus’s crucifixion (and his resurrection), his disciples came to understand that the God of Israel, the one only and true God, had initiated in history his revolutionary plan to rescue the world. While the resurrection was astonishing, it was much more than that. “The resurrection was the first visible sign that the revolution was already under way. More signs would follow. “ (Ibid. Locations 260-261.)

Wright is the master of putting events in their historical and cultural setting and letting the biblical narrative drive the questions and conclusions. In his writings he often (rightly) objects that contemporary conservative Protestantism has asked sixteenth century questions of a first century (NT) text and come up with answers that often miss or worse misunderstand the issues being discussed and the point(s) being made in the Bible. It is the biblical text in its historical context that must set the agenda, not our questions from a later historical context or our contemporary context.

Throughout the book Wright challenges our preconceptions about the significance of Jesus, the inauguration of his kingdom, and the part that we as human beings have to play in furthering that kingdom. Far from being future, the kingdom has already been inaugurated. Inaugurated not after the pattern of the world’s political orders, but through a suffering love into which all Jesus followers are called to participate.

I highly recommend Wright’s works generally, and this one in particular. As a Brit he comes to the text apart from presuppositions that we as Americans take for granted and never critically assess. Wright does not claim to be the final authority, he often quips that he is probably wrong in about 20% of his conclusions—he is just not sure which 20%. Nevertheless his work is always challenging, fascinating, illuminating.