Book Summary/Review: Day the Revolution Began (NT Wright)

 This is not an official book review—more of a summary of key points. Others have done much more in depth reviews (usually to point out their own critiques and complaints), but one of my goals here is to try to wrap my head around what NT Wright was saying (including his main ideas, implications, other systematic questions that are affected, etc)

I definitely enjoyed reading Surprised by Hope better, since I sort of knew what to expect, the main premise was obvious, I agreed with where he was going the whole time. I think perhaps some of my confusion regarding The Day the Revolution Began (DTRB) stems from the phenomenon of the atonement in general. So many theories, ideas, uncertainties, and pieces to fit together. No one can do it justice. In fact, his opening few chapters comment on how the cross is such a central symbol throughout history, and even if people don’t understand the story fully or can “explain” it, they are affected by it somehow. 

Ok, here we go. What’s the main premise of the book? Many of NT Wright’s critics accuse him of denying penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). I have now read the book, watched at least ten YouTube videos of various conversations/lectures, and read articles on his website. I don’t see how that’s the case. He talks about substitution, representation, Jesus taking sins for the people all over the place. He, of course, answers his critics, but he more focuses on why he words things the way he does. Why he emphasizes these themes. 

One of my favorite paragraphs of the book was the epitome of NT Wright. He uses a C chord as an example (sorry if you don’t know music). The C and G are naturally significant, but that middle E makes the chord. He says if you move the E down just a half step, it’s a minor chord and sounds completely different. The E doesn’t give the whole picture but it’s an essential component. (This is PSA to NT Wright). However, if you stop playing the C and G, and only hammer on the E or even make a new chord from it, you miss everything.

So, NT Wright loves the themes more of Jesus conquering the enemies of God’s people, whether physical or (more importantly) spiritual. He frees them from bondage, rescues them from extended exile. Forgiveness of sins is certainly part of this, since wickedness is how they got into exile in the first place. But the overarching narrative of redemption through the people of Israel is Wright’s bread and butter. And he’s going to focus on Jesus being their representative, to do “what Israel could not,” and be established as king over all things. Then in new creation, those who are in Messiah fulfill their mission and purpose all along. Rule and reign with God in their midst.

To be clear, my response to this book was about like everything else by NT Wright. 70-75% I fully understood and agreed, though I may have had to reword thing in my own biblical/theological categories. 10-15% I mostly understood but was begging for more clarification, even though he repeated himself multiple times throughout the book. My questions were not being answered, so it doesn’t mean I disagree but need to do more digging to reach his conclusions. 5-10% were a bit of an overstatements. Maybe caricatures that he’s attacking or conclusions that don’t necessarily follow from the passage. These may not be detrimental to his argument.

His repeated caricature (some would call it straw man) of PSA is that we sinned; therefore God has to punish everyone; He’s full of anger and wrath and sin has to be “dealt with”; Phew, Jesus gets in the way of all that punishment; we get to go free with forgiveness of sins and a “home in heaven” (see Surprised by Hope for why Wright hates this so much. It’s clear from this book why eschatology and soteriology are so closely connected. More on that below).

Those who have been raised in church and have heard sermons on the cross a million times would probably be confused by Wright’s presentation. So what’s so wrong with that? Sounds pretty biblical. He has several pages pointing out logical and biblical fallacies (some incredible, some could go either way, some not so persuasive). His big critique is emotional. Yes, God must confront sin, wickedness, etc., but how we speak of God’s wrath should not give us joy. Wright famously misquotes John 3:16 as the broad public must be hearing it: “God so hated the world that he killed his only son Jesus.” A story of a hateful and angry God presents a whole different story than what Wright sees playing out from Gen - Rev. And adding the words “he did all this out of love” may be true, but if it’s tacked on a story that misrepresents the truth, people may find this God weird, unstable, or even abusive.

So here are some questions that Wright’s view requires answers. Some were answered in the book. Some I’ve done more research. These are his thoughts, not mine.

What is the fundamental problem of humans? This was when I realized the fundamental difference in Wright’s train of thought. PSA proponents will say mankind has sinned. They cannot approach God’s holiness. They are disobedient and wicked, and from Adam they inherited this sin nature. Spiritual death/separation from God resulted/results, and we obviously cannot save ourselves.

Wright calls that the “works contract.” Do good things/be perfect and see God. Fail to obey and be punished. The fact that Jesus was perfect only shows that a “works contract” remains in tact. He just doesn’t see this as the story Scripture is telling.

Wright: Humans were made in/as the image of God, a royal priesthood, to reflect God’s glory and dominion over the world. Likewise they were to reflect the praise of creation back to God. They chose idols and other things to worship. The main problem is idolatry, which grants power to the idols and gods behind them. This naturally leads to all sorts of wickedness and breaking of relationships. Wright doesn’t say God requires perfect obedience. 

What about original sin? Not going to get into Augustine’s mistranslation here or working with Latin vs. Greek text. This is a major question that deserves books, and there’s deeper questions whether we share Adam’s guilt or whether we inherited “sin nature” or whether Adam just introduced sin into world and now we are all sinners. There’s a “5 views” book on it. 

I know this is not NT Wright, but he would agree with Pete Enns, who was the first to make it obvious to me that whatever we say of Adam, it’s clear that the only two passages that talk about Adam again are Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Important passages nonetheless, but it’s interesting that as we read Scripture the assumption is that people can obey. When Cain kills Abel, his defense isn’t, “Well, what did you expect me to do—I was doomed to be a sinner because of daddy?” Prophets existed for a reason—to call Israel to obedience. They were supposed to follow commands (even if we know they were really sinners). So original sin is one of those topics that really depends on how you define it. NT Wright doesn’t really use the term in his writings. Perhaps because the Bible doesn’t focus on the how or the origin, or the mechanism. It’s more of the current situation: all are inclined to sin. The world is a mess. And those Romans and 1 Corinthians passages probably start with the solution (Jesus offers life for all) and argues back to Adam…if the solution is for all, then the problem must be just as grand).

What’s the relationship between Old and New Covenants? This is where NT Wright focuses on the metanarrative. He doesn’t like the individualism of “I’m a sinner. I’m separated from God. Jesus died for me. Repent and go to heaven when I die because Jesus died in my place.” All of that may be true. But it misses so much of the story. When humans ruined their place in God’s world, His mission was to restore them and it back to its original state (and even better). He longs to dwell with humans. Adam failed to complete his given tasks, so God chose Israel to display His glory as a light to the nations. To be “image bearers.” They also failed. But One would come to be the perfect Israelite, to purify the people, to bear their sins, to cleanse the meeting place between God and man, so that the idols could be conquered, and all could have access to God. 

Gentiles could then be brought into the family of God. Israel would fulfill her mission. And eventually, God would live with humans in a perfect state. There’s much more to fill in the gaps, but this is the story that NT Wright sees. It’s much more cosmic in nature. 

What metaphors surround Jesus’ death? I don’t have the line in front of me, but his repeated statement is that when Jesus tried to explain His death to the disciples, He didn’t offer theories, seminars, lectures, etc. He gave them a meal. And it wasn’t so much a redefinition of the Passover as filling it with new meaning. Thus, the Exodus from Egypt is interwoven in the passion narrative. The evil oppression of Pharaoh is seen not only in Pilate and Herod but in the demons, devil, and “powers” that have oppressed Jesus throughout His ministry. Yes, Israel has been in extended exile since the 6th century BC, but there are spiritual forces that overwhelm them even more. So Wright sees this as a freedom narrative.

But they went into exile because of their wickedness. So forgiveness of sins must play a role in their redemption. Jesus even says this at the meal. Cup = my blood for remission of sins. There are several interwoven themes in the gospels, and piecing them together can be difficult.

How does forgiveness of sins work in this line of reasoning? Wright relies heavily on Isaiah 40-55 (including of course, ch 53). This is the section that talks about the redemption of Israel, mentioning new covenant, restoration after exile, some servant songs, etc. Identifying the Servant is difficult, and I have another post on that. Wright seems to agree with my conclusions—identified with Israel sometimes, but also as opposed to Israel sometimes. Regardless of its/his identification, rescue will come from suffering. This quite clearly is substitution or at least representation. One will suffer instead of many. And instead of conquering, receiving glory or power, the path to victory is suffering and disdain.

Furthermore, this suffering brings forgiveness of sins. We still don’t get exactly how this works. We still don’t see “law court” imagery—imputation and all that. But we at least see forgiveness coming through suffering. All sin is gathered in one place and cleansed. The people are purified.

What was the purpose of sacrifices in OT? I had read about this before, but it was a good review. If we go back through Leviticus, etc, we see that sacrifices didn’t cleanse people but cleansed tabernacle/temple. Sins weren’t “forgiven” per se, but because these building were where God came to meet people, He could not come to a polluted meeting place. Particularly, He could not “sit” on a mercy seat (Ark of Covenant) that was stained. So many sacrifices were given to purify the tabernacle and the mercy seat.

When we think of Passover, most point to the lamb as sacrificial instead of killing the firstborn son. Well, maybe, but it’s not like Jewish fathers were going to kill their sons. God did require sacrifices and the tribe of Levi as the “firstborn,” but that’s a stretch to think these lambs during the 10th plague were true sacrifices. And even if so, there’s never any “sin” connected with Passover Lambs. 

The only sacrificial lamb that takes sins from people is on Day of Atonement. There’s two lambs. One is killed, and the blood is sprinkled in the sanctuary like normal. Then the priest places “sins of the people” on the other lamb. It’s not killed. It’s released into the wilderness. 

So it’s weird to think about sacrifices as not really forgiving sin. They cleanse the meeting place. 

What is propitiation/expiation/mercy seat? From Romans 3:21-26 and others. The word is translated as one of the three options above. Wright and the NET favor “mercy seat.” Other translations favor interpreting what the “mercy seat” was there for, as in the blood on the mercy seat “satisfied God’s wrath.” But putting Jesus forth as a “mercy seat” means that He is the new “meeting place” for God and humans. And sprinkling His own blood on the mercy seat means humans have access to God.

What is the “righteousness of God” (see Rom 3:21-26 and other passages)? Wright and Piper famously wrote back and forth books on this. Wright is much more New Perspective on Paul. Piper is much more traditional/forensic. Wright goes to Romans 1:16-17, saying “righteousness” is what God reveals in the gospel, basically that He is “righteous/just” and that “He has been just/fair/faithful.” He has done what He said He would do. Romans is not how someone gets saved. Romans is about how God has been faithful to His plan all along, including the family of promise (Israel). 

So Wright translates “righteousness” as “covenant justice,” showing that God has used Abraham’s family to extend blessings to all nations. Ultimately this meant the perfect Jew Jesus. And these blessings affect all (Romans 5:12-21). 

Faith in Jesus vs. Faithfulness of Jesus. Obviously another NPP issue, but even the NET says Wright and others are likely on track here. The Greek construction could be taken either way. We clearly need to have faith in Jesus for salvation, but our faith is meaningless if Jesus was not obedient and faithful to His mission. So it comes down to what the author is emphasizing in the passage. In many texts, “faithfulness of Jesus” is perhaps the better choice.

What was the point of the resurrection? From Romans 1:3-4, Jesus was declared to be the “son of God with power.” Without resurrection, we have nothing (1 Corinthians 15). Resurrection conquered final enemy of death. It proved Jesus was not a liar. It established the kingdom. It enabled the enthronement of the king in the ascension. Obviously an essential event.

What is the gospel message? Wright starts with 1 Cor 15:3-4 “Died for our sins and buried and rose again ‘according to Scriptures.’” But he goes back to Romans 1:3-4, where Paul says in v. 16 he’s not ashamed of the gospel and vv 3-4 probably show some of the themes of the gospel. Jesus died and rose in power. Wright laments that when we discuss the gospel or atonement we jump straight to Paul or Hebrews and leap over the Gospels. The story should enlighten our understanding of the event. 

The title over Jesus on the cross “King of Jews” was satire but all important. This is the message. The king has come. He is Lord. The kingdom is here. God’s new creation is expanding. Forgiveness of sins is possible and rescue can be found. God is restoring His world. Join Him. 

When does wrath of God come or did Jesus face God’s outpouring of wrath? This was one of the aha moments of the book. Paul says “Having been justified by faith we will be saved from wrath.” This seems to suggest wrath is future. Call it hell. Call it ultimate judgment. Call it whatever you want. Those who are not in Messiah face wrath. Condemnation. Damnation. All the verses we want to fit into that category. And we will not face that. That time or place or situation is where God unleashes wrath, or vindicates justice on the world’s corruption. (And we could tidy up the language to account for more views of wrath but I digress). 

But if the outpouring of wrath is future, what did Jesus endure? In the converse, if Jesus endured the outpouring of God’s wrath (so that we could be justified), what wrath is future? 

This requires an understanding of justification, in that the final verdict is at the end. We know this. We will stand before God. We will be justified, yet Paul says we “have been justified,” in that the final verdict has come early through faith. We are quite confident of God’s decision because of our faith. So we will be saved from wrath.

What then did Jesus “endure”? We can’t say separation from Father. That’s Trinitarian heresy. Could still be some punishment on our behalf, but this just shows the intricacies of the atonement. Wright would say He was cleansing the mercy seat, per se. He was opening access to the Father. No punishment. Suffering on our behalf. Taking away sins. Through suffering comes victory.

Why say soteriology and eschatology are linked? From Surprised by Hope and DTRB, it’s clear Wright’s main theme in writing is to prove that God’s mission is not to grab some souls, clean them up, and rip them out of this world. It’s to renew and restore all creation (i.e., this world) by rescuing humans and restoring them to the place of dominion and reign they had in the beginning. If we teach the former, then a gospel of I’m separated from God, God has to punish me, Jesus died for me, believe and go to heaven makes sense. And again, none of that is necessarily wrong. But if we understand that latter “gospel” story as more correct, we will emphasize the global church, the unity of the church, the restoration of all things, the mission of the church to rule and reign now, etc.