Jesus Creed
Part two of the questions of clarifications in Ben Witherington’s interview with me about The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited:
Comment and Question Five: One of the important distinctions you make in the book is between the story of the Bible, the story of Jesus, the plan of salvation, and methods of persuasion. It led me to wonder— do you think we can reproduce either the exegesis of the earliest Jewish Christians, or that we should follow their methods of persuasion today?
Scot responds:
On the exegesis: we got into this with Richard Longenecker way back when we were youngsters, and Longenecker said no. But the theological interpreters today are telling us we have been caught up too much into the historical critical method and we’ve become intoxicated with our own reconstructions, and we’ve started listening too much to ourselves and not enough to the Bible’s narrative (you Wesleyans call this the plain sense of the Bible) and not enough to the church’s fundamental conclusions.
In some ways, I think we would do ourselves some favor in learning how the early Jewish Christians read the Bible, and we’d find that we’d not be that far from the early church Fathers (though they did some new things, and not all of them perfect or even all that great), and we’d be onto how the regula fidei shaped reading the Bible and not the reconstruction of history. I’m for this brother, and I’m honored that Zondervan asked me to be the General Editor for a new series of commentaries called the Regula Fidei New Testament Commentaries.
On persuasion… here’s my concern. We have chosen to reframe evangelism through the doctrine of salvation, and then we’ve sorted out the major elements of salvation, re-ordered them into a compelling package and then said, “There, that’s the gospel.” I’m convinced this is not the gospel and I’m not convinced this method of persuasion is nearly as effective as many think.
But, no, I doubt we can follow to the end of the line the rhetoric of Acts 2, 4, 7, 10-11, 13, 14, or 17. But we can learn from them that what we need to learn to develop – and I didn’t develop this in the book as much as I did one day at a lecture at Ashland Theological Seminary – more of a declarative rhetoric than a persuasiverhetoric. Put simply, the apostles announced Jesus was who he was (and they did this in a number of ways) and then summoned people to respond. That’s declarative rhetoric: declare and then summon. Our preferred method is persuasive rhetoric, and what we do is we figure out what is most emotively effective and affective in precipitating decisions and re-arrange all we have to say into that model of persuasive rhetoric. It does produce decisions, but it is neither biblical nor any where near as effective as many think. Decisions are not a good measure. Decisions are not enough. Our method is too much shaped toward decisions.
Comment and Question Six: You suggest that Jesus chose Twelve disciples to be ‘the new Israel’ however one may define that. While I recognize the number 12 has Israel valences, I wonder if it is adequate to say Jesus chose 12 disciples. In fact he chose far more than that, or at least acquired far more than that, not the least of which were the women mentioned in Lk. 8.1-3. Would it not be better to say he chose 12 apostles or agents or leaders amongst the disciples? Yes, I think 12 is a symbol of Israel alright. But Jesus chose these 12 to free Israel, not to be Israel. They are his changes agents meant to go out and proclaim the kingdom to a lost Israel. Comment on the above and explain briefly why it is important to note that Jesus doesn’t include himself among the 12.
Scot responds:
The Bible clearly calls out twelve as apostles, and that is why I mean by calling twelve as disciples. They are both apostles and disciples, and perhaps I generalized too much or assumed that folks would know I mean “apostle” when I mean “disciple.”
You will also know I’m using the profound studies in the 70s and 80s by such scholars as H. Schürrmann, B.F. Meyer and E.P. Sanders, not to forget either G.B. Caird again… that scholarship is behind that set of observations. Alongside that I did a longish article in BBR on the historical significance of the choice of twelve, and from that I concluded that Jesus’ use of “twelve” was a powerful symbol of a claim on Israel. To be sure, they are missional agents of Jesus, but they are as the “new” Israel in some sense. The choice of “twelve” fascinates me, and my conclusion is that it has powerful symbolic weight as well.
So fascinating that Jesus is outside and above the twelve. We have to guess because he doesn’t tell us. It is not really even much guesswork: he’s not one of them because he is above them. He is the final judge, they will get to rule under him (Matthew 19:28). He sends, they go. He dies for them, they die in him; he is raised for them, they rise in him. He is the true Israelite and they gain their identity and status in him. So, he’s not one of the Twelve; he’s the Messiah and Lord, the king.
Comment and Question Seven: On p. 123 you say the titles of Christ are terms drawn from the story of Israel? And you add “but they are more than clever titles; the use of these terms interprets the entire story in a way that recasts the whole.” In what way, and to what degree?
Scot responds:
When I look at Jesus as a 1st Century Jew I have to decide “who” he is, and the way I would have done was use terms that work in a Jewish world. If I say “false prophet” I interpret him and label him and dismiss him. If I say “prophet” I do the same but decide to listen to him. But I go further, and say he is “Messiah” or “Lord,” then I not only have interpreted him but have (in effect) forced myself to decide what to do with this Son of man, this man from Nazareth doing mighty deeds, this one who makes all these claims for himself, and then I have to decide either to live in that label for him or opt out of that label.
What we call Jesus, then, calls us to decision.
Comment and Question Eight—- I quite agree that we cannot understand the story of Jesus without the story of Israel. But we also need the story of Adam to understand his story as well. On p. 154 you focus on the temptation story, but I would insist it has to be both the story of Adam and the story of Israel in the background. For one thing, Jesus is being tempted as only the Son of God can be tempted. His temptations are frankly not of the same order as those facing Israel. Jesus was being tempted to act in a way that destroyed his true humanity, not his connection with Israel. Were he to succumb to these temptations he would be defying the limitations of time, space, knowledge, and power we all face, not to mention our mortality. So it’s both/and— we must hear the echoes of the Adam and Israel story here. Most importantly, this temptation story reveals Jesus to be Adam gone right, and on a lesser note, Israel’s representative getting it right. Not the other way around. Jesus did not come to be Israel, he came to free Israel and to some extent fulfill its mission, since Israel failed to be the light and savior of the world. Do you agree, or what nuances would you want with this statement?
Scot responds:
Well, on this one, Ben, we might disagree. Yes, by all means. Jesus came to free Israel and, yes, Jesus revolutionizes the “Adam experiment.” But what strikes me in this text as I read it is that every time Jesus quotes the Bible it is from one single narrative: Deut 6-8 and it’s experience in the wilderness.
Jesus doesn’t explicitly connect himself to Adam with any of his words. He doesn’t even allude to the Genesis 1-3 story. Instead, he’s got himself connected to the Israel wilderness experience.
To be sure, Ben, I agree Jesus is Second Adam and a Second Adam theology, first explicitly taught in Paul, can be used to read this text, but if we restrict ourselves to textual warrants in the text and especially if we go to the texts Jesus cites, I think there is an orderly emphasis given to the Story of Israel here.
But again, I don’t want to dichotomize Adam and Abraham, or Adam and Israel. As I read the Bible, the Adam story found a new chapter with Abraham but it’s the same story. And Abraham and Israel are the way God redeems all the Adams and Eves in this world. For me, I can suggest perhaps you have an either-or on the Adam vs. Abraham that I don’t, and perhaps I have the dichotomy in the Adam vs. Israel temptation narrative.
Comment and Question Nine: Towards the end of the book you point out on p. 156 that the story of Jesus continues in the story of the church? How so?
Scot responds:
Ah, the big hermeneutic one. Yes, in John 14-17 Jesus tells his disciples the Spirit will guide them into the future, and that is all I mean by the Story of the church. You and I are called to live out the Story of Jesus into our world – and nothing tells us better how to do this than Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 where he tells us he becomes all things to all humans in order to win them to Jesus. That’s what I mean.
Concluding Remarks:
Scot thanks so much for writing this good book, and for stressing the importance of our focusing on Christ and his lordship, rather than just on the salvation benefits he offers to us. I think you have done the church a good service in writing this book, and I hope and trust it will have an impact, make a dent on those who have settled for less than the whole Gospel of King Jesus.
Ben, a personal note now. It means much to me to have you say this. You are well known as one who cares about the Bible and it is Bible people that I appeal to in this book: what does the Bible say about “gospel”? And it means much to me to have you say this because you are one of two, at least that I know of, in our day who has written a commentary on every book in the Bible. (Ben and Tom Wright for those who may not know.) I’ll never do that; I’m too slow at commentary writing to accomplish that. But with that background to your statements, I can say that I’m humbled and encouraged that you say these things. This year in San Francisco!
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In