Summary: NT Wright, using his traditional tools of biblical narrative theology and 1st-century Jewish/Christian cultural understanding, assesses some of the areas where our understanding of the atonement differs from early Christian understanding of the atonement.
The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus’s Crucifixion is most connected to Wright’s earlier Surprised by Hope. It is not quite a sequel to Surprised by Hope, but it is in the same thread of Wright’s work. Surprised by Hope pointed out the way that the theology of the afterlife (eschatology), especially dispensational theology, distorts not just our understanding of our Christianity but how we practice our Christianity.
The Day the Revolution began is attempting to do the same type of analysis with our theology of the atonement. Many of NT Wright’s traditional critics will also disapprove of this book. Wright’s minimization of Penal Substitution (which has been evident in much of Wright’s writing) is explicit here. Wright is not saying that Penal Substitution is wrong. He says that the focus on Penal Substitution as the primary or only way to look at the atonement distorts our understanding of what Jesus did on the Cross.
My traditional approach to Wright is to listen to the book on audiobook once, then re-read it again later in print. This allows me to get an overview of the argument and then to focus more clearly on the parts of the argument on the re-read. This is certainly a book I will need to re-read to understand, maybe twice fully.
One of the reasons that many get irritated with Wright is that he keeps presenting his ideas as either new or the first return to ‘correct’ understanding in hundreds of years. If you are irritated about that, you will be irritated here. Wright’s strength is connecting the broad narrative sweep of scripture and the 1st-century era culture. I think if he started working with a historical theologian who helped him connect his ideas explicitly to the historical theological work of theologians after the first century, it would help tone down that irritating tic and help readers connect his thought to its historical roots.
Wright wants to help people think clearly about how their theology connects to daily life. That is one of his strengths. But part of what the church today needs is a connection of its theology to the historical church. But his description of his work as either new or a rediscovery of what is lost minimizes the connection to the church’s historical teaching. This is particularly true for low-church fans of his who do not already have a solid connection to the traditional church. Maybe this is a blind spot that Wright has because of his British Anglican setting. Wright has a strong sense of history and the worldwide range of the church, but many of his readers (and biggest fans) do not. (My reading of Thomas Oden, in particular, has convinced me of the importance of viewing the theology of the church as a continuum with historical teaching and not new.)








