N.T. Wright’s Simply Good News Filled Me with Joy and Confidence in the Gospel

Last updated on: April 13, 2015 at 7:34 pm by Rebecca Florence Miller

N.T. Wright’s Simply Good News Filled Me with Joy and Confidence in the Gospel 2015-04-13T19:34:36-06:00 Rebecca Florence Miller

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

There’s not really words to describe the joy and confidence I experienced as I read New Testament scholar N.T. Wright’s latest book, Simply Good News. In it, Wright argues that too many people (Christians and nonbelievers) think that the Gospel is “good advice” (how to live or get eternal life or be successful or whatever), but that in fact it is “good news“: “It is the news that something has happened as a result of which the world is a different place” (16). Wright points to the Roman world’s understanding of Gospel (an emperor’s proclamation of victory for the nation) in order to provide context for how the early Christians’ proclamation would be heard:

Starting with Octavian, the Roman emperors regularly used the words good news to describe both what they had already achieved and what life would be like as a consequence. When the early Christians used this language, they used it in a similar way (12).

Wright goes on to argue convincingly that the resurrection was in fact a real event that actually took place. He offers careful reasoning for why he believes Jesus’s resurrection was an actual event (and has made his argument in longer form in such works as the 800-page book , The Resurrection of the Son of God). One element that I found particularly helpful in his argument was his careful parsing of the difference between history and science as disciplines. In answering questions from readers, I think I have frequently missed that we can know the truth of the resurrection today through use of the discipline of history more than through use of the discipline of science. After stating that he regards the Gospels as basically trustworthy (another claim that he has substantiated in longer tomes), Wright says:

This isn’t to say that we can “prove” everything in them. Of course we can’t. Hardly anything in history works like that. The demand for proof often comes from people who have scientific proof in mind. But that’s not how history works. Science normally studies things that we can repeat: experiments, observations, laboratory tests. History necessarily studies things that cannot be repeated. It works from evidence and looks for high probability about what caused that evidence. Like science, however, history works by hypothesis and verification.

Wright argues that you can have a historical kind of certainty about the resurrection more than a scientific kind. He makes a number of other convincing points, but I found this one in particular tremendously helpful.

Previous Post

April 10, 2015

Religious Obsession, Gospel-Based Service, Parenting, and Orthodoxy: An Interview with Amy and Jonathan Hollingsworth

Next Post

April 15, 2015 On This Tax Day, I Choose to Give Thanks

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Books Charis Christian Witness Church Year Conversation Creativity Cultural Engagement Curiosity Current Events Film Jesus Lectionary Message Literature Lutheran Theology Politics Story Television Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 December 2016 October 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz