We often view the afterlife in very narcissistic terms, as some kind of self-centered, individualistic reward for personal holiness. Bishop Wright blows that theory right out of the water. Its not about us at all, but the Kingdom of God and our expanding role in it. Having just finished this excellent book, I highly recommend it to anyone interested in learning more about what the Bible actually teaches about what resurrection really means for the life of the world. You may be surprised, as the title says, but I have no doubt that you'll also find it quite inspiring. The cost of this book is money well spent.

The premise of this book is that most people, including most Christians, don't understand the revolutionary nature of the faith's core beliefs. Those beliefs being, Christ physically died, Christ was physically resurrected, and that Christ will come again to physically raise the dead, who will then live on a new earth that is cojoined to a new heaven.

The first part of the book attempts to prove -- without success -- that most Christians don't understand these core beliefs. The subsequent sections go through the historical and social context of the resurrection and how surprised the first believers were to be faced with these ideas. The final sections consider what believers today armed with the "full" revelation on life, death, and life after death is dead, should be doing in the world now as a result.

While the book has a few interesting sentences, most chapters could be reduced to a paragraph or two. Better editing would have been a plus. The author has a few peculiar theories, but does state they are his personal theories, and are without any foundation in scripture. Ditto his pet peeves.

Non-Christians may perhaps be surprised by the information in this book. But most Christians and denominations already know this information, in some form or variation, and are actively and appropriately engaged in the work Wright seems to think needs to be done. The latter fact, makes the book overall disappointing and made the final sections seem very out of touch.

The book is worth purchasing only if you are looking for detailed information on early Christianity and the resurrection. These sections could be a help to individuals who need a stronger, more scholarly foundation for their faith or for their evangelism. "You're a sinner and need to be saved to avoid Hell," while scripturally true is but a small part of the Christian faith. Wright's book will help you get the big parts back in play.

Basically Wright's re-thinking is simply a returning to the dirt standard, traditional Christian beliefs about life, death, and what happens after. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that 95% of Christians know all this already -- because they've read the Bible, including i Cor 15, which is the prime text of this work -- and are walking it out as the mission of their lives.

British Anglicans have strayed pretty far from orthodox Christian belief in the last 150 years, so for them, I guess this book is a revolutionary re-thinking. For the rest of the Christian world? Nope. So is this book worth reading? It depends on what you want to get out of it, how hard you're willing to work for it, and how good you are at separating sheep from goats. I expect this book is best suited to modern Anglicans and that's it.

Most of the book's problems are down to 2 factors: modern (vs traditional) Anglicanism as a viewpoint and poor editorial control over the author. This work is meant to stay within the lines the modern Anglican viewpoint, Wright is a modern Anglican bishop after all. But the modern Anglican position isn't actually anything like a traditional orthodox Christian position. So, to the extent Wright veers away from the factual study of the early history of the faith, and gets into his personal theories, the book is a flop. As for the editing? The book attempts to be scholarly, popular, and theoretical. A good editor would have done told Wright, 1 book at a time. This blending of the 3 makes the book a real mess.

Most Christians will find this book hugely long-winded, even condescending, because they know the core tenets of the faith. Personally, I can't imagine why or how you could become a Christian without knowing these central facts. And you certainly couldn't have stayed one long without being introduced to them. You only have to read 1 Corithinians 15 to sum up all 250+ pages of Wright's book. But it is true that a person might not know the original cultural context or history of their faith. So, anyone like that might find certain chapters of this book fascinating and of help.

Non-Christians might benefit from learning about the core beliefs of the Christian faith in its historical context. But, these folks will be treated to an assortment of unfounded, unscriptural, unorthodox theories about other facets of the Christian faith, like hell or evil, which they perhaps won't recognize as purely Anglican fluffy thinking, and not real Christianity. So it's perhaps better non-Christians avoid this book.

It also has to be said, sadly, that the book suffers from good doses of arrogance, ignorance, and tackiness. Wright spends whole chapters in the beginning arrogantly fact twisting in his attempts to prove how "needful" his book is to people of faith. It was a huge turn off. I know it's pretty common among scholars to do this sort of thing: "prove" there's an issue, and then address it. So I guess he had to twist facts in order to prove all the other denominations were as screwed up as his. It was very offensive.

The ignorance is harder to explain. Wright seems to have no idea what's actually going on in the worldwide Christian community for the last 20-30 years. Absolutely clueless about all the Christians around the world authentically walking out the mission of the church. Saving souls and redeeming the earth, reclaiming the space for Christ. Just clueless. One must also mention he lacks genuine understanding of the beliefs of both non-Anglican Christians or those of non-Christian faiths. But still insists upon rambling about them -- mistakenly.

And then there are some down right tacky anecdotes, which though singular events involving singular people, are used to paint whole swaths of believers. He is particularly sweeping in his ridiculous misconceptions regarding American (north, south, and central) Christians. But then it's clear he doesn't really know anything about Christianity communities outside Britain, or even non-Anglican Christian communities in Britain. So, I'll let that pass.

What I had hoped to find in this book -- and didn't -- was a careful biblically and historically based re-think on the essential tenets of Christianity. What he gave me was a long, boring restatement of the origins of orthodox Christianity -- which apparently his church didn't know about. I slogged through this part of book in the hope that, after he had realised the patently obvious at last, he'd have something surprising to say at last. But no, what followed was a fairly typical and peculiarly Anglican twisting of things. Apparently the modern church should slide into the acceptance of modern British social norms and ideas of political correctness, as a belief system replacing authentic orthodox Christianity and walk that out by cancelling 3rd world debt.

I regret to say that any central but awkwardly orthodox notions relevant to the discussion of mission were simply passed over. Take for example sin. Pretty straight forward for most Christians. Not so for Wright. Never once, in the entire book, does Wright clearly and emphatically state that evil = sin = what God says is sin. He constantly refers to "evil," but he means things that modern British society sees as evil. Things like not living an authentic fulfilled human life. He never touches on God-defined sin. How can you discuss the church's mission without admitting sin exists and God defines it?

I admit I expected there to be some fluffy thinking in the book when I picked it up. Like Wright, a large portion of Western 1st world Anglicans are not orthodox in their thinking. They just don't admit sin, as defined by God, exists. This issue is currently splitting the Anglican Communion into 2 groups: orthodox Christians and moral relativists. The bishop is trying to be on both sides of his denominational fence here, and it doesn't make for easy reading. You can almost hear the rail creaking under his tortured sentences.

In summary: If you're an traditional Christian interested in contemporary British Anglican thought, read this book. It will likely be very surprising to you.

If you're a Christian interested in the early history of Christianity in its social religious context, read the relevant few chapters and then toss.

If you're a non-Christian interested in core Christian belief regarding Heaven, the Resurrection or the Mission of the Church, visit any traditional church [including any traditional Anglican one].

N.T. Wright is a professor at Oxford and Cambridge and a highly respected New Testament scholar. This is one reason I picked up this book. Another reason is I wanted to read his views on Darwin. I was pleasantly surprised to find his coverage excellent. Wright notes that Darwin was not a so much a great new thinker but "rather the exact product of his times" (p. 83). He adds that evolution was in Darwin's day "already widely believed; it was a deeply convenient philosophy for those who wanted to justify ... everything from eugenics to war." He adds that "many Christian thinkers went along for the ride on this apparent incoming tide of progress." Even worse, many clergy "embraced Darwin's ideas as a way of solving... some of the problems they felt about the Old Testament. Many eagerly expounded social Darwinism as the way forward for the world, with some even encouraging the pursuit of war as the proper way to test who in the human species were the fittest and hence the most deserving of survival." p. 83. Clergy today condemn this behavior yet how many have climbed on the bandwagon to condemn those who correctly recognize that Darwinism does not explain how life got here nor does it explain the Origin of Species as Darwin claimed (actually we are often looking at genus level, since putative species crossing is now common, such as the Liger, a hybrid cross between a male lion and a female tiger). I predict that fifty years from now when Darwinism has gone the way of Freud and Marx, the church will also be condemned for getting in bed with the Darwinism pseudoscientific idea.

"Surprised by Hope" is a briliant study, it challenged me to rethink some important issues like Heaven, Resurrection and Life after Death. Bible speaks clearlly about NEW heaven and NEW Earth, and the topic that we will have NEW bodies is often negelected issue influenced by our dualistic Greeak heritage. Understood rightly those concepts (Heaven, Bodily Resurrection, Ascension, New Creation) are challenging the mission of the Church today. N.T. Wright brings NEW hope into the understanding and interpretation of the Hope! You might be surprised!

This excellent work from N. T. Wright is a more popular treatment of his message that started with his book "The Resurrection of the Son of God." In this work Wright emphasizes the hope of new creation through resurrection. There is currently a move away from the orthodox view of the bodily resurrection toward a more Platonic view that says that we die, our bodies stay in the grave, and we go to heaven and stay there in disembodied bliss. Wright, who is a great exegete, theologian, and historian sets the record straight about the resurrection of Jesus as well as the resurrection of all those in Christ. Wright shows how that new creation began at the resurrection of Jesus and how that we are to live in light of the resurrection, looking forward to new creation. I strongly recommend this work.

I loved N.T. Wright's newest book, Surprised by Hope. He explores the meat of the Christian hope, what he calls the after-afterlife.

Wright addresses the misconceptions (a.k.a. bad theology) that's infiltrated not just the world (i.e. reincarnation), but also Christianity (i.e. when we all get to heaven).

The belief in Jesus' physical resurrection is on the line here, folks. If you believe in Jesus' physical resurrection, if you believe that he is the firstfruits, than you have to believe that we do will experience that physical resurrection. The whole earth (which now groans) will experience it.

Wright turns the gospel message upside-down. No, he turns how we talk about the gospel message upside-down. It begins with an overarching story--God's plan of redemption for all of creation. Within that, individual salvation fits.

He then talks about why it's important in the here and now, in areas such as justice, art, and evangelism (are you getting a feel for why I'm passionate about this?). He's hard on all sides. Somehow Wright is one of the few people who can point out the faults of everyone specifically (moderns, you're doing this; postmoderns, you're doing this; liberals, you're doing this; conservatives, you're doing this) and still be liked by all parties. Personally, I'm a dispensationalist (which means, in my view, that Wright and I may disagree on some middle stuff, but we absolutely agree on the end, we absolutely agree that this end is the important part, and we absolutely agree on our present course of action). Wright's hard on dispensationalist (and for good reason). I will say that he has a generalized and limited view on dispensationalist. Maybe he understands more but for simplicity's sake boils it down. Maybe he only hear's the loudest dispensationalist (with whom I probably don't agree). But that's beside the point to me.

The point is, Jesus' resurrection leads to the resurrection (redemption) of the world, and somehow our participation in God's kingdom work in the present contributes to that (although it doesn't bring it about--God brings it about).

I recommend this book for a solid look at eschatology and its integral part to our daily theology.

Surprised by Hope by Bishop N. T. Wright is a defense of the traditional eschatology of the mainstream church. Wright is quite eloquent and I always learn something when I read his books. This one is no exception. Here Wright journeys through the good, the bad, and the ugly landscape of current eschatology and compares it with his take on the beliefs of the early Christian believers. From time to time on this journey he ventures briefly onto more progressive roads-less-travelled, but (frustratingly for me!) he always retreats back into the safe haven of traditional orthodoxy. Wright does envision a future with hope - a hope based squarely in the resurrection of Christ - but he comes short of embracing the radical hope of a complete and ultimate cosmic renewal and unity in Christ, saying, "One cannot forever whistle 'There's a wideness in God's mercy' in the darkness of Hiroshima..." (p. 180). Those who still espouse that particular "wideness" will be disappointed by Wright's theory of hell: one in which sinners are stripped of their humanity and become "beings that were once human but now are not" who are "beyond hope" and "beyond pity" existing forever in "an ex-human state... no longer [exciting] in themselves or others the natural sympathy some feel even for the hardened criminal" (p. 182-183). This, despite the book's title, is not the kind of hope that entails the glorious vision of God as "all in all".

There are hints of Jurgen Moltmann in Wright's thoughts and concepts, but the hope which surprises him is not nearly as startling and comprehensive as that put forth by Moltmann. Consider this from Moltmann's The Coming of God: "True hope must be universal, because its healing future embraces every individual and the whole universe. If we were to surrender hope for as much as one single creature, for us God would not be God." (p. 132). The parts of the book that reflected Moltmann were the most enjoyable to me.

Let me also add that one of my concerns in this book is Wright's caricature of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. It is either a caricature or Wright does not fully understand Teilhard. Chardin comes across in this book as something of a secular progressive who was looking starry-eyed into a glorious future accomplished by a godless evolution alone. This is simply not what Teilhard taught or believed.

Having mentioned a couple of my concerns, let me happily say that there are some great concepts and paragraphs throughout the book - too many for me to quote here. But I will indulge you with one on the subject of what Wright calls collaborative eschatology: "Because the early Christians believed that resurrection had begun with Jesus and would be completed in the great final resurrection on the last day, they believed that God had called them to work with him, in the power of the Spirit, to implement the achievement of Jesus and thereby to anticipate the final resurrection, in personal and political life, in mission and holiness. It was not merely that God had inaugurated the 'end'; if Jesus, the Messiah, was the End in person, God's-future-arrived-in-the-present, then those who belonged to Jesus and followed him and were empowered by his Spirit were charged with transforming the present, as far as they were able, in light of that future" (Page 46).

My take on the book is that it is very well written, it is a joy to read, and it will be especially appreciated by those who want to see an outstanding apologetic on orthodox amillennialism from a perspective they may not have encountered before.

As an even more hopeful companion to this volume, I would highly recommend William H. Willimon's newest book, Who Will Be Saved? (ISBN-10: 0687651190).

Surprised by Hope by Bishop N. T. Wright is a defense of the traditional eschatology of the mainstream church. Wright is quite eloquent and I always learn something when I read his books. This one is no exception. Here Wright journeys through the good, the bad, and the ugly landscape of current eschatology and compares it with his take on the beliefs of the early Christian believers. From time to time on this journey he ventures briefly onto more progressive roads-less-travelled, but (frustratingly for me!) he always retreats back into the safe haven of traditional orthodoxy. Wright does envision a future with hope - a hope based squarely in the resurrection of Christ - but he comes short of embracing the radical hope of a complete and ultimate cosmic renewal and unity in Christ, saying, "One cannot forever whistle 'There's a wideness in God's mercy' in the darkness of Hiroshima..." (p. 180). Those who still espouse that particular "wideness" will be disappointed by Wright's theory of hell: one in which sinners are stripped of their humanity and become "beings that were once human but now are not" who are "beyond hope" and "beyond pity" existing forever in "an ex-human state... no longer [exciting] in themselves or others the natural sympathy some feel even for the hardened criminal" (p. 182-183). This, despite the book's title, is not the kind of hope that entails the glorious vision of God as "all in all".

There are hints of Jurgen Moltmann in Wright's thoughts and concepts, but the hope which surprises him is not nearly as startling and comprehensive as that put forth by Moltmann. Consider this from Moltmann's The Coming of God: "True hope must be universal, because its healing future embraces every individual and the whole universe. If we were to surrender hope for as much as one single creature, for us God would not be God." (p. 132). The parts of the book that reflected Moltmann were the most enjoyable to me.

Let me also add that one of my concerns in this book is Wright's caricature of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. It is either a caricature or Wright does not fully understand Teilhard. Chardin comes across in this book as something of a secular progressive who was looking starry-eyed into a glorious future accomplished by a godless evolution alone. This is simply not what Teilhard taught or believed.

Having mentioned a couple of my concerns, let me happily say that there are some great concepts and paragraphs throughout the book - too many for me to quote here. But I will indulge you with one on the subject of what Wright calls collaborative eschatology: "Because the early Christians believed that resurrection had begun with Jesus and would be completed in the great final resurrection on the last day, they believed that God had called them to work with him, in the power of the Spirit, to implement the achievement of Jesus and thereby to anticipate the final resurrection, in personal and political life, in mission and holiness. It was not merely that God had inaugurated the 'end'; if Jesus, the Messiah, was the End in person, God's-future-arrived-in-the-present, then those who belonged to Jesus and followed him and were empowered by his Spirit were charged with transforming the present, as far as they were able, in light of that future" (Page 46).

My take on the book is that it is very well written, it is a joy to read, and it will be especially appreciated by those who want to see an outstanding apologetic on orthodox amillennialism from a perspective they may not have encountered before.

This book can be summarized in three words: "Resurrection fuels mission." The resurrection of Jesus is the beginning of God's new creation, God's renewal of all things. Believers draw hope from this for their mission of establishing justice, nourishing beauty and declaring Jesus as Lord of all.

Wright's arguments will challenge people on the left and the right:

For the religious liberal who says the resurrection is an inspiring tale, Wright responds that without a bodily resurrection the event was useless because it had no connection to our world of space, time and matter.

For the religious conservative who tends toward a private pietism, Wright says God's program of new creation, anticipated in the resurrection of Jesus, prods believers to tireless effort in mending the present creation from the damage of injustice and sin.

My only critique is that toward the end the book felt like a movie that's a half an hour too long. But that's probably inevitable in tackling large topics--resurrection, mission, eschatology--in one volume.

More than any other I've read recently, this book is causing me to reflect on what the salvation Christians believe in is all about.

Yet again, NT Wright has written a provocative, mind stretching book that awakens for me a much more realistic resurrection hope for the people of God. It is easily readable but still deeply rooted in firm biblical traditions. His linking heaven and the resurrection with the mission of the church on earth raises the earthy role of the church to dizzying heights. Wonderful! Refreshing! Missionally inspiring!

"Surprised by Hope" is a good book when N. T. Wright expounds on biblical sources of revelation as to what happens to believing Christians after death. Our mainstream view of heaven as a place of eternal incorporeal bliss, he says, is mistaken. What we call "heaven" is only a short intermediate stage, before the Second Coming, and the resurrection of all who have believed, who will then be fully new creations, and live in the earthly Kingdom of God. His long discussion of this issue is revelatory, and extremely important. This book is well written and (I think) orthodox in its statements on the bodily resurrection of Jesus; the Ascension; the new creation;the first fruits; the resurrection of the dead and the Kingdom of God. His views on Final Judgment, hell, purgatory and the importance of the writings of most of the Church Fathers and theology developed during the long history of Christianity are confusing; sometimes garbled; often summary; overly speculative and in a few places incorrect. For one thing, Karl Rahner, S.J. was not a conservative theologian! The fact that Wright seems not to countenance even the possibility of any revelation of the Holy Spirit in the Church after, maybe, Origen or Tertullian seems a bit short sighted, and is probably intentional. The fact that his briefest of references to Thomas Aquinas are essentially dismissive is one of the problems with the later half of this book. On theological matters Wright is no Aquinas. On a number of major theological questions, Wright allows his own speculative mind to run free, leading to a number of dubious conclusions based on modernist sentiments, while at the same time he seems to criticize Aquinas and others for the same thing (engaging in speculation, while being men of their own time). The orthodox Christian will feel the need to part company with Wright on a number of topics including his belief that for most people, there are no real consequences of their sin, once death occurs. The only issue is whether the person who dies in sin has in his life consistently and contumaciously chosen the fundamental option (not his phrase, but that's what he means) to reject God and do evil, such a person's got a real problem Wright believes, but Wright is sure it's not the fires of hell. All other unrepentant sinners not brazen enough to full reject God, whose lives were not holy or good, but not all that bad either, go directly to the heavenly hotel as full-fledged saints, equal in glory and majesty to the Virgin Mary and all the martyrs. So in a sense there is no Divine Justice that must be appeased, and hope of Wright's type flows without a thought for guilt or recourse to the unrepentant of many stripes. A final judgment: Wright is excellent when he stays within his element: scriptural scholarship; but theology in the lager sense is not his strong suit. This is a good book on the issue of life-after-life-after-death, which he writes about very convincingly.

In three sections of equal importance (and, roughly, of length), this book gives the historical context, biblical basis and and contemporary significance of the Christian hope. When compared to much folk religion - Christian, demi-Christian and otherwise - Wright's book does indeed yield surprising, yet hopeful insights.

Wright establishes just what resurrection meant in the ancient Near East for both pagans and Jews who rejected it and for Jews who taught it; showing the disparity between this and the dominant contemporary understanding. He shows how early Christians drew from the singular resurrection-affirming position, and how their distinctive Christian intensifications and developments remain consistent with the original thinking. Similarly this clarity stands in contrast to the confused 'muddle' (this quaintly British term gets a lot of use) in contemporary pop culture, especially pop religion. Finally, he demonstrates how a truly Christian hope competes with the other secular and religious hopes, and makes exclusive demands.

Mostly down-to-earth, but occasionally budding with artistry, his style is - as usual - conversational: easy to read if difficult to quote. This book is almost certain to draw predictable criticism from neo-fundamentalists.
In the face of secular and religious stances that fluctuate between fear-inducing and facile, here is, a well-crafted case for a hope that is neither ineffectual nor irresponsible, a sustaining and surprising hope.

I remember reading through N. T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God last spring and thinking about how critical it is to the Church today to have a revitalization of her understanding of resurrection, heaven, and eschatology as a whole. As I read this book I lamented all the errors of eschatological thought and teaching in the Church. I loved the book and I wanted all of the Church to read it. But at its daunting 800+ pages, I knew that its impact on the Church would be limited. I wanted the book to be smaller and more accessible. I longed for the book to reappear in another, shorter form. This spring, when Wright's Surprised by Hope came out, I got my wish.
This book is simply marvelous. Wright begins by noting the confusion throughout the world right now regarding questions about life after death. He talks about how this confusion has seeped into the Church. We in the Church have, for long time now, forgotten what the Bible actually teaches about heaven, hell, and the resurrection. We have settled for an escapist eschatology that sees the ultimate purpose for humanity as being sucked into the sky for some disembodied eternal bliss.
This eschatology, or lack of, has been horribly detrimental to the Church. It has taught us to either flee from the realms of ecology and social justice because God is concerned about the "spiritual" and not the physical (Conservative Protestantism) or to care about them without much good theological reason (mainline Protestantism). If we want to actually appreciate, care and love creation and each other, then a reworking of our eschatology is in order.
This is not simply a question about millennial views, it is a question about how we view the world, it is about the cornerstone of our faith, the resurrection of Jesus. We must first ask the question, `Did Jesus rise from the dead?' and, if he did what does it mean? Wright answers the first with a resounding yes. This does not mean that he proves the resurrection beyond a shadow of a doubt. He knows that this appeals to history, but is appeals to so much more:

"What I am suggesting is that faith in Jesus risen from the dead transcends but includes what we call history and what we call science. Faith of this sort is not blind belief, which rejects all history and science. Nor is it simply - which would be much safer! - a belief that inhabits a totally different sphere, discontinuous from either, in a separate watertight compartment. Rather, this kind of faith, which like all modes of knowledge is defined by the nature of its object, is faith in the creator God, the God who promised to put all things to rights at the last, the God who (as a sharp point where those two come together) raised Jesus from the dead within history, leaving evidence that demands an explanation from the scientist as well as anybody else." (p.71-72)

I appreciate both his commitment to orthodox Christianity and his denial of the rationalism of the Enlightenment project. He proposes a new (or very old) way to approach the epistemological question of the resurrection and parallels each to an encounter with the risen Christ: faith (Thomas), hope (Paul), and love (Peter). (p. 72-73)
"Love is the deepest mode of knowing because it is love that, while completely engaging with reality other than itself, affirms and celebrates that other-than-self reality." (p. 73)
So what does the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth mean? Everything in the world and outside it, according to Wright. Our exclimation when we hear that Jesus is risen from the dead should not be, "We can now go to heaven"! But should be, "New Creation has begun!"

"Hope is what you get when you suddenly realize that a different worldview is possible, a worldview in which the rich, the powerful, and the unscrupulous do not after all have the last word." (p. 75)
"In a world of systematic injustice, bullying, violence, arrogance, and oppression, the thought that there might come a day when the wicked are firmly put in their place and the poor and weak are given their due is the best news there can be." (p. 137)
The good news of Easter is that this has already happened. And the good news of the second coming is that it will happen. This is inaugurated eschatology at its finest. Jesus has already conquered the powers of the world and the power of death, and he will conquer them when he comes again. Until then, Jesus himself remains both present and strangely absent from the world.

The bridge between the resurrection of Jesus and the second coming is the Church. Our job is to proclaim in our words and actions that the enemy, death, has been defeated, and a day will come when all will be renewed.
"[T]he task of the Church between ascension and parousia is therefore set free both from the self-driven energy that imagines it has to build God's kingdom all by itself and from the despair that supposes it can't do anything until Jesus comes again. We do not `build the kingdom' all by ourselves, but we do build for the kingdom. All that we do in faith, hope, and love in the present, in obedience to our ascended Lord in the power of his Spirit, will be enhanced and transformed at his appearing." (p. 143)

It really does change everything. Wright writes (no pun intended, I promise) at the end of the book about practicing resurrection. He says it should change our view of worship, scripture, prayer, justice, mission, beauty, and everything else. When we came out of the grave of baptism, we entered a whole new world that was started by the resurrection of Jesus and will be completed when he returns. Our job is to live in that world.
I would highly recommend this book to all. Whether you have read a lot of Wright, Moltmann, Pannenberg, and the like or whether you have never touched a theology book. I would recommend this to an amillennialist and I would require it for a premillennialist.

"The universal early Christian belief was that Jesus had already been demonstrated publicly to be Israel's Messiah and the world's true Lord through his resurrection. That, as we have seen, is the whole point of the Christian story. And if we believe it and pray, as he taught us, for God's kingdom to come on earth as in heaven, there is no way we can rest content with major injustice in the world." (p. 216)

Friends call him "Tom" -- and, at this point, Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright has friends around the world, eagerly looking for his next visit and his next book. There's an air of C.S. Lewis about the bishop of Durham.

Nearly a decade ago, he became a sensation among American journalists for touring the country with Marcus Borg, the two of them cast as a pair of dueling Bible scholars and co-authors of a still very popular book, "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions." What drew headlines coast to coast was that, in each city along their tour, the crowds were larger than anyone envisioned. I recall reporting on this myself, double checking to make sure the claims were true -- that thousands of people, rather than hundreds, were hungry to hear truly gifted scholars debate details of Jesus' life and ministry.

That year, Borg played the provocateur, skeptical about many traditional claims concerning Jesus. However, since that time, Borg's own path has veered right into what he calls "The Heart of Christianity" and his recent books are read by thousands of regular churchgoers across the U.S.

That year, Tom Wright played what I can best describe as the C.S. Lewis role. In many of Tom's books, he even writes in Lewis' nuts-and-bolts voice and measured cadence. Many Americans may have forgotten the role Lewis played as a Christian titan in the popular media of his era. In his heyday, before "The Chronicles of Narnia" eclipsed everything else he wrote, Lewis was famous as "a Christian apologist," meaning that he'd go anywhere and stand toe to toe with anyone to defend his orthodox view of the faith.

The truth about this more recent pairing is that Wright and Borg both studied at Oxford and both share a passion for grappling with both the latest historical research into the biblical record -- and a passion for stirring up the church into a vigorous force for change in the world. The two "foes" still disagree on many points, but they're getting closer and closer to an all-out, rabble-rousing appeal to the Christian church to rise up, take a daring step away from its all-too-individualistic focus on saving "my" soul. They both want to see Christians creatively dive into the work of healing this broken world.

What's Tom saying now that's so daring and urgent?
There's no way to fully capture a book so full of fascinating insights as "Surprised by Hope" in just a couple of lines. But, hey, I'm a trained journalist, so I'm going to try. Before we turn to our Q and A with Tom himself, here are a few lines from his new book that I think suggest the daring voice that speaks from this volume.

By the time these lines appear in Tom's book (around page 200), he already has argued that Christians have a sadly muddled view of what the Bible and classical Christianity teach about resurrection, heaven and the mission of the church. One core stone in that foundation is that we are called, not to focus on escaping from evil bodies and an evil Earth into a heavenly realm -- but, instead, we are called to work with God to heal and renew his Creation in a glorious new way.

Tom writes: "As long as we see salvation in terms of going to heaven when we die, the main work of the church is bound to be seen in terms of saving souls for that future. But when we see salvation, as the New Testament sees it, in terms of God's promised new heavens and new earth and of our promised resurrection to share in that new and gloriously embodied reality ... then the main work of the church here and now demands to be rethought in consequence."

Then, a little more than a page later, Tom links this argument with the New Testament in this way: "For the first Christians, the ultimate salvation was all about God's new world, and the point of what Jesus and the apostles were doing when they were healing people or being rescued from shipwreck or whatever was that this was a proper anticipation of that ultimate salvation, that healing transformation of space, time and matter. The future rescue that God had planned and promised was starting to come true in the present.
"We are saved not as souls but as wholes."

For many readers, it's time to rethink our assumptions about what Tom Wright is saying. I actually finished reading Tom's new book with a grin.

I'm thinking: I'll bet there are a bunch of people out there for whom this is the first Tom Wright book they'll own. And, I'll bet there are some pulpits out there from which this is the first Tom Wright book that'll be quoted in a sermon.

The title is thought catching, especially in view of the inferences aroused by the similarity with other titles of other good books.

This book is a great summary exposition of Early Christian understanding of Heaven. Sometimes it requires careful attention to follow the thought process. We read it aloud and it was a glorious experience. It is thought transforming and a wonderful antidote to the sentimental, airy-fairy way in which heaven has been thought of or discussed for a very long time.

The summary thought that I understood goes something like this: Wright reaffirms that God made a good world. It is not a disposable world. Heaven will gather up all the good that people have contributed through the ages (recognized or unrecognized) and add that material to another transforming and creative act that will enable Jesus to rule and for this world to become the good world God originally created. THe destiny of those who believe God is to be able to participate in that forever.

This is one of the most thought provoking books that I have read in a while! This is actually the first N.T. Wright book I have read, and now I have made it a point to read some of his others. I appreciate his ability to tie our faith and our social responsibility in this world based to what Jesus' resurrection really should mean to us as Christians. It really makes sense when you look at Genesis and the creation mandate for mankind to have authority (resposibility)over the good creation He made and that His intentions/plan for us before the Fall are renewed with Jesus'resurrection.

I am hesitant to recommend Wright's work, especially to those not firmly grounded in the gospel, but this is a great book. I always find him insightful, but have some significant disagreements with him, especially concerning his views on Paul.

Wright states in the preface, "Most people, in my experience-including many Christan's-don't know what the ultimate Christian hope really is. Most people-again, sadly, including many Christians-don't expect Christians to have much to say about hope within the present world" (xi). Wright's aim in this book is to do his part to straighten this out.

Chapter 1 sets the scene by describing the broader world's confusion about hope, then describes three popular views about the afterlife in the world: annihilation, reincarnation, and ghosts and the possibility of spiritualistic contact with the dead (new age stuff).

Chapter 2 describes the reigning confusion about hope in the church, which has oscillated between seeing death as a vile enemy or a welcome friend. Wright blames Platonism's influence on the Christian faith for much of the confusion and reason why so many value the soul over the body. He is concerned that not many Christians understand biblical hope, and rarely think about it, much less live in light of it. The biblical vision of "heaven" is not souls flying off to a spiritual domain but resurrected bodies reigning with Christ on the new heavens and new earth. He then lays out the effects of the confusion in our hymns (the ultimate vision is not us going home up there but Christ coming here), our celebration of the Christian year (Easter should be celebrated more than Christmas), and funerals. The wider implications of our confusion about the future have to do with how we live here and now, and the way we look at earth and our actions here. If one thinks God is going to destroy this universe, why care about it now? Wright rightly argues that there will be both continuity and discontinuity between this earth and the transformed earth, so that what we do here matters enormously.

Chapter 3 was very helpful, laying out the Jewish and pagan historical setting and their beliefs about resurrection around the time of Jesus. This whet my appetite for his big book on resurrection. The early Christians modified the Jewish belief in at least 7 ways. Jews were looking for one big end-time resurrection event, not one man in the middle of history before all others. Here we have NT inaugurated eschatology. Christ's resurrection was the first fruits (the first of the harvest guaranteeing the rest) securing the resurrection of all who are incorporated into him by faith (although Wright might say baptism).

Chapter 4 covers the Easter accounts in the gospels. Here Wright makes the case for the resurrection historically and apologetically. Ultimately, there is a clash of worldviews but all the evidence points to the fact that Christ has been raised. How will you respond? Chapter 5 covers God's future world and describes two worldly alternatives to hope: evolutionary optimism (the myth of progress that cannot deal with the rampant evil in the world) and souls in transit (with a negative view of all things material - Platonic & Gnostic - the "just passin' through' mindset). The next chapter lays out the Christian view of the future world, which is opposed to both. The fundamental structures of hope are the goodness of creation, the nature of evil, and the plan of redemption. God has raised Christ and has promised to not only raise us, but redeem the whole cosmos (Rom 8.18-25).

In chapter 7, Wright lays out the biblical teaching on the ascension, cosmology, and concludes with a brief comment on the second coming and the unfortunate effects of the "highly distorted" interpretations of dispensationalism (119). In chapter 8, he tackles the second coming, focusing on the son of man sayings, parousia (coming), and attention to 1 Thess 4.16-17, 1 Cor 15, & Phil. 3. Wright sees the son of man coming sayings as being fulfilled in A.D. 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem. The next chapter focuses on the coming of Jesus as judge. God in Christ will set the world to rights. Chapter 10 is on the future resurrection in Scripture. In order to distinguish his view from the popular view, he calls the resurrection "life after life after death" (148). Here he rightly focuses on 1 Cor 15. Our future bodies will be physical, and entirely animated by the Spirit. He closes the chapter by answering the practical questions of who, where, what, why, when, and how of the resurrection.

Chapter 11 answers the question of "Where are the dead now?" Wright knocks down the belief in purgatory, and also explains paradise, or the intermediate state. If we die before the Lord returns, we go to paradise, to be with the Lord until he returns to the earth to raise our bodies and renew the cosmos. Wright then argues against universalism, against annihilationism, and for a novel view of hell, where basically the person who was once human, become "ex-human." Chapter 12 deals with the practical implications of hope. He writes of the significance of our work here and now. He also says we should rethink what we mean by salvation by making it broader: "Salvation, then, is not 'going to heaven' but 'being raised to life in God's new heaven and new earth" (198). He closes the chapter with a theological and practical exposition of the kingdom of God.

Chapter 13 is about building for the kingdom. As mentioned, there will be continuity but we aren't told what this will look like. He seeks a middle way between the social gospel advocates and fundamentalists. He mentions the work of justice, beauty, and evangelism. The following chapter goes to the biblical roots for reshaping the church's mission looking primarily at the Gospels, Acts, and Paul. His exposition of Luke 24 is great. Wright concludes with a chapter on living for the future with the redeeming of space, time, and matter. "The mission of the church is nothing more or less than the outworking, in the power of the Spirit, of Jesus's bodily resurrection and thus the anticipation of the time when God will fill the earth with his glory, transform the old heavens and earth into the new, and raise his children from the dead to populate and rule over the redeemed world he has made" (265). He ends the book with 6 aspects of resurrection and spirituality (new birth and baptism, Eucharist, prayer, Scripture, holiness, love) and an appendix consisting of 2 Easter sermons.


80% of this book is excellent. Wright has immersed himself in the story of Israel and the sources of the 1st century. His writing style is excellent. The truth and glory of the resurrection needs to be emphasized more and more in our churches. Our people need to be a people characterized by hope, which motivates mission. God's people also ought to be holistic. Wright is right that the Christian mission consists of more than 'saving souls.' It is at this point however that I take issue with the book. The section on hell is far from the biblical text. It seems strange to me that with his knowledge of the text he can say that "Jesus simply didn't say very much about the future life" (177). Christ spoke more of hell than anyone else in the NT. Wright lacks categories for sin, and wrath. Dehumanization does not do justice to Scripture's teaching on final judgment. I agree that some verses speak metaphorically, but one cannot escape the conclusion that hell will consist of physical and psychological torment, an element that Wright's doctrine of hell certainly misses. He caricatures the traditional view, and waxes eloquent on his own view. This may also feed his de-emphasis on evangelism and 'saving souls.' But if all sinners will face is sub-humanity, the urgency of sharing the gospel decreases significantly. He seems more excited about political engagement than pointing sinners to Christ, who saves from the coming wrath (1 Thess 1.10). Wright is certainly on a program to move away from the individualism of modernity, but we ought not go further than the text. God is concerned with individuals as well as corporate structures.

Also, I certainly don't agree that Jesus never spoke of his second coming. Although difficult in places, the eschatological discourses of Jesus cannot be limited to the destruction of Jerusalem. The new perspective comes out in places as well. In the chapter on judgment, he writes that God's verdict will be on the basis of the "entire life led" which is another way of saying by obedience or works. I want to agree with Wright that obedience is absolutely necessary for salvation, but the basis of our salvation is Christ crucified and risen. Our obedience flows from a salvation given to faith in Christ. Finally, if one did not know better, you'd think that he was the first one who is actually teaching the biblical view of heaven as a new earth. Certainly, many Christians are confused on this issue but there have been many theologians before Wright teaching resurrection and a new earth (not least the Dutch Reformed tradition: Berkouwer, Bavinck, Hoekema, Berkhof, & Randy Alcorn and David Lawrence).

Wright addresses two questions. "First, what is the ultimate Christian hope? Second, what hope is there for change, rescue, transformation, new possibilities within the world in the present?" (pg. 5).

Wright argues that "there is very little in the Bible about `going to heaven when you die'..." (pg 18), and that it is misleading to use the word "resurrection as a virtual synonym for life after death in the popular sense" (pg 36). The popular sense being an eternity spent as disembodied spirits in some heavenly realm. Wright refers to his belief as life after life after death - a physical life in resurrected bodies on a new earth. "Resurrection in the first century meant someone physically, thoroughly dead becoming physically, thoroughly alive again, not simply surviving or entering a `purely spiritual' world, whatever that may be" (pg. 66).

Wright's "proposition is that the traditional picture of people going to either heaven or hell as a one-stage postmortem journey...represents a serious distortion and diminution of Christian hope" (pg 148).

Easter is the central event for Wright and the literal and bodily resurrection of Jesus is the basis of and model for his future (and present) hope. Wright holds to the historic Christian belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and that this resurrection was bodily. To be sure this resurrected body was transformed, spiritual, raised incorruptible, but it was also a "new kind of physical body, which left an empty tomb behind because it had used up the material of Jesus' original body and which possessed new properties" (pg. 63).

Of course Wright finds all sorts of ramifications, not the least of which is the Christian tendency to lean toward a Platonic Dualism. Platonic Dualism teaches that all matter is by its nature evil and only the spiritual is good. Christians fall into this trap when we so emphasize the spiritual that we overtly or covertly live and speak as if the world were something to be rescued from - as opposed to sin. "Creation was from the beginning an act of love, of affirming the goodness of the other. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good: but it was not divine" (pg. 94). In the same sense that Jesus was resurrected (cf. 1 Corinthians 15) so will all creation - "the gospel of Jesus announces that what God did for Jesus at Easter he will do not only for all those who are `in Christ' but also for the entire cosmos. It will be an act of new creation, parallel to and derived from the act of new creation when God raise Jesus from the dead" (pg. 99).

Another application is that this future hope "leads directly...to a vision of the present hope that is the basis of all Christian mission" (pg. 191). In other words the "mission of the church must...be shaped by the future hope as the New Testament presents it" (pg. 230). Wright sees this play out in justice, beauty, and evangelism. In terms of the anticipation of God's eventual setting to rights the whole world, which is the message of hope and new life that comes with the good news of Jesus' resurrection.

While I respect Wright's scholarship and some of his previous books, this one strikes me as notes and thoughts strung together in time to reach an Easter market. Some of his thoughts about the resurrection are interesting, even enlightening, but difficult to follow. As a teacher myself, I know I sometimes gather lectures from many sources and attempt to turn them into a coherent whole. One chapter might have sufficed for the theme of this book or even a good sermon. Maybe he should have followed the advice of a former teacher I had: "Keep it simple; it will get complex all by itself."

Rob Bell may have been right when he said that this book is N. T. Wright at his best.
With Surprised by Hope Wright begins with a characteristic examination of the New Testament idea of resurrection and then delves into Paul(mainly) to show how a proper understanding of a theology of New Creation will shape every facet of Christianity. The bishop scrutinizes most of today's popular notions of eschatology and does so by simply appealing to scripture. From here he offers, in light of his understanding of "inaugurated eschatology", what perhaps the new creation that has been set loose on Earth in the form of the Church ought to look like, with all of the social, political, sacramental, and other implications of that along for the read.
SBH also offers the reader insight into the whole of Wright's theology and you begin to see how well-intertwined all of his own thought is. He's never hesitant to admit where his own understanding on a topic is lacking--which is refreshing--but he's also constantly calling the assumptions of contemporary Christian thought into question on account of what the scripture seems to be saying. All of this is certainly typical of Wright's work, but, given the range of his application of this new perspective on eschatology and given the popular-level nature of this book, I think that Surprised by Hope may serve as a perfect introduction to Wright for anyone who has been interested in his work but hesitant to dive in. The frequent referencing of his own works would provide a nice spring-board into Wright from SBH for the new-reader, as well as more in-depth treatments of many of the book's topics for those curious to explore further.

I was impressed by the explanations that NT Wright gives in his book.

Wright is especially good on explaining the metaphors in Hebrews 1 :-

In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.

The heavens and earth will be rolled up and discarded, in the way that clothes are changed.

The old clothes that have perished are thrown away, and replaced with new clothes.

The old clothes are rolled up and thrown away.

As I said, Wright is very good on explaining this 'clothing' metaphor, which many people up to now have failed to understand.

This is a very wonderful book, which is poorly titled. I never quite found a hope for which I was surprised -- that is because Wright stayed close to Scriptures. The weak link in the book was when he fired off on the social agenda and tried to mask it with Scripture. I did not disagree with the reality of the problem, but I did disagree that it was the worst problem facing our world and faith. He weakened what would have been a 5 star book.

N.T. Wright has written another brilliant work echoing he previously published masterpiece on the resurrection. Wright's expounds on a Christian hope firmly rooted in the Biblical narrative that longs for new creation.

In a world where the radio orthodoxy of Christianity espouses a gospel of fire insurance, Wright correctly and articulates a gospel and hope for so much more than disembodied bliss. "God's Kingdom in the preaching of Jesus refers not to postmortem destiny, not to our escape from this world into another one, but to God's sovereign rule coming on earth as it is in heaven".

Our hope according to Wright is not "going to heaven when you die" but rather in life after life after death. We hope not for an escape from this earth, but to the glorious day when God will make all things new.

Readers of this book may find the lack of eschatological certainty within the book frustrating. In a Christian sub-culture where end-times charts and elaborate explanations of the book of Revelation are the norm, Wright is careful to show that Christian eschatology is not about a certitude of specific events yet to come, but rather a hope for a renewed earth. Eschatology must be viewed as sign posts guiding our way through a fog rather than a detailed map.

Wright's comments in chapter 12 on the meaning of salvation are worth the price of the book, and his restatement of the doctrine of hell in chapter 11 is worth twice the price of the book. How we view the gospel, and the death and resurrection of Jesus greatly determines how our definition and the outworking of salvation.

In short, this is N.T. Wright at his best. A foremost expert on the resurrection of Jesus and the implications of Christ's defeat of death on eschatology and future hope, Wright has given us a clear, readable, and deeply Biblical picture of Christian hope.

N.T Wright may be a great New Testament scholar, but he needs to keep his politics out of his books. I bought this to get some insights on how death as sleep reflects 1st century Jewish culture, or similar insights. Instead, Wright express his belief that the popularity of dispensationalism in America is explained as a political ploy to allow General Motors to pollute the environment. This opinion appears not once, but twice. In a 200 page book. The heroic assumption that all right thinking people will agree with his view is breathtaking. How about limiting yourself to one controversial assertion at a time?

Reading this book was interesting becasue his discussion of "Paradise" as being an intermediate state between death and ressurection. This is exactly on point with LDS belief on what happens after death.

The concept of "Paradise" as being an intermediate state, as articulated by N.T. Wright, is clearly explained in The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (Official Edition) in chapter 40 of the Book of Alma.

The Book of Mormon, first published in 1830, clearly teaches that "there is a time appointed unto men that they shall rise from the dead; and there is a space between the time of death and the resurrection"(Alma 40:9) and that "concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection--Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life." (Alma 40:11)

Now, N.T's Wright isn't LDS but a Angelican Christian. I don't know how Mr. Wright feels about an "LDS" reading/interpretation of his book in which one LDS reader sees much agreement between his book and LDS theology. Perhaps he would be happy by it or maybe he would be unhappy with the fact that his book happens to broadly reflect LDS theology on Heaven, Paradise and other theological issues of life after death.

I hope he understands my respect and enjoyment in his book and that it was refreshing to read this book since he provides well thought out explanation of Christian beliefs and uses evidence to back up his ideas. For me personally, I enjoyed it because much of what he explained in the book just happen to line up with LDS theology on life after death.

Bishop Tom Wright's explanation of what happens to the Christian after death is strikingly similar to that presented in the novel ACTS OF GOD, Book 3 of THE CHRIST CLONE TRILOGY. I am pleased to see this scholarly presentation of those ideas. There is, however, one thing that Bishop Wright has not factored into his account, to wit, God is not subject to the restrictions of time.

In truth, the Bible presents a paradox concerning what happens to the dead. From the following verses it is clear that the dead are unaware until their resurrection: Psalms 6:5 and 115:17-18; Isaiah 38:18-19; Job 14:12 and 19:25-27; Luke 14:13-14; Acts 2:29-34; I Corinthians 15:22-23 and 15:51-52. And, yet, the following verses indicate an immediate or near-immediate transition into God's presence: Luke 23:43; Philippians 1:23.

This is where the issue of time comes in. To make this simple, consider the 1960 movie THE TIME MACHINE with Rod Taylor. From his time machine Rod Taylor watched what was going on around him in fast motion because he traveled *through* time. Contrast that with time travel in BACK TO THE FUTURE. When Marty McFly and Doc Brown traveled forward in the DeLorean, they traveled instantly, jumping *across* time, from one point to another without experiencing any passage of time themselves.

When a Christian dies, he does not travel through time as Rod Taylor did (and as we all do, though at normal speed). The dying Christian closes his eyes to life and passes across time to the point of Christ's return and the resurrection. Why is it necessary to add this "science fiction" touch to Bishop Wright's thesis? Because, simply, it is the only way to reconcile the paradox without ignoring or discounting verses like Luke 23:43; Philippians 1:23.