Two Interviews

I cannot believe how long it has been since I have had time to blog—between family matters, starting summer school administratively, and now teaching a summer school course on Revelation while also finising my book on the Apocalypse—a book about which I will post more later.

Anyhow, though I don’t normally call attention to things like this. someone might be interested in an interview with me and one with N.T. Wright that mentions my work. Thanks to Nick Mitchell at The King and His Kingdom for doing the first one and for telling me about the second.

Nick has also recently posted at least 10 summaries of and reflections on my book Reading Paul.

11 Responses to “Two Interviews”

  1. T says:

    Glad to have something else in common with Wright . . . I too love Michael Gorman’s work! I also have several things to ask him, but I doubt they fall in to the “significant” category, at least academically speaking . . .

    Let us know if/when you two get to have that significant conversation!

  2. MJG says:


    You’re too kind….

    Unfortunately (I guess), my next conversation with NTW is likely to be at a conference this fall on Revelation, not Paul.

  3. T says:

    I’m looking forward to your work on Revelation and reading more of your work on Paul that is already out. At this stage of my life (self-employed, young children, church planting), I can’t hardly read as quickly as you and Wright alone publish!

  4. MJG-

    I recently read Reading Paul and thought it was fantastic. I loved your emphasis on reading Paul as scripture. I’m going to review your book alongside other introductions. Right now I’m including: Thiselton’s “The Living Paul” and Bird’s “Introducing Paul.” Though it’s older I was considering Sander’s introduction in the “Past Masters” series from Oxford Press or one of Wright’s introductions to Paul. Any introductions you’d like to see put alongside yours?

    I like the Gorman shout-out in Wright’s interview.

  5. MJG says:

    Thanks, Tyler. Sander’s is a good one to put there, along with NTW’s What St Paul Really Said.

  6. elias says:

    Hi Michael,

    Do you agree with Wright`s comment on the work of J. louis martyn?

  7. MJG says:


    I was a bit surprised by the strength of that comment.

    On a spectrum between covenantal/salvation-historical Wright) and apocalyptic (Martyn/Campbell) I am sort of in the middle as a both/and person, closer to Richard Hays than to either end of the spectrum. Richard thinks very highly of Martyn’s work, and I have benefited from it (and used it quite extensively), too. However, I think he often goes to far on the complete newness of the gospel and over-emphasizes divine initiative to the exclusion of human faith in salvation.

    A the Wheaton conference Tom was pressed about the role of faith in salvation (since for him it is the mark of the covenantal people and not the means of justification/salvation) and was asked, “So then what is the cause of salvation?” And he replied in one word, “Grace.” At one level, of course, it’s hard to disagree, but when one discounts the role of faith, it’s rather Martyn-ian. Ironic.

  8. elias says:

    I find it also intresting that three scholars (j. christiaan beker, Martyn and Kaesmann) who advocate an apocalyptic reading of Paul support the Latin american Liberation theology.
    I don`t think it is just a coincidence…

  9. MJG says:


    Do say more. (I studied with Beker, BTW.)

  10. elias says:

    I see a connection between apocalyptic reading of Paul, William stringfellow, Postliberal theology (Hans Frei) and Latin American Liberation Theology. The latter embodies what the former group thought about and wrote.
    the understanding that our world is a place occupied by anti-God forces or Idols makes sense of the OT, the story of Israel and the story of Jesus. understanding the story of Jesus as God defeating the powers and liberating humanity and the whole creation supports the praxis of liberation theology.
    I would say that probably Tom Wright would agree to all this, so that is why i was surprised by his comment.
    one last word about newness. If the messaiah is son of David and the expectation is to something like David then the Son of David, jesus is so unlike David (no money, unmarried, no political power, no military power) that you have to admit that it is a totaly new thing.
    Jesus is like the prophets but also unlike them! he dosen`t ask for God`s vegnance on his enemies (jeremaiah). This newness, I think, is because our world, because of the power of Sin and Death, is so unlike its creator that every time he acts it will be new and unsetteling to most of our convictions about God.
    I hope it wasn`t too long

  11. MJG says:


    Thanks. I’m in basic agreement and just wanted to hear you elaborate. And not at all too long.

Leave a Reply