Simply Jesus 7

Last updated on: November 30, 2011 at 7:58 pm By Scot McKnight

The question I kept asking as I read Tom Wright’s new book, Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters, was this: OK, so God becomes King in Jesus and God exercises his sovereignty through Jesus, but what does that look like today? where is that to be found today? How close are kingdom and church? How is it meaningful to say Jesus is the Ruler of the World? I found this chp fascinating.

First, Tom contends vigorously, and he anchors this from Genesis 1 to Revelation, that God exercises his rule today through the church, through us.

Jesus rescues humans in order to extend his kingdom and rescue project through those who are rescued. We are not helping him; he gives this task to us. He called his followers to be his witnesses in Acts 1. It was through them that the gospel would go to the Roman empire. Tom develops the temple them in Acts.

Second, the vital action of the followers of Jesus in this kingdom work is to worship the one and only God, and worship is the most political action the Christians are to perform. They are also to do good works as the way to implement the rule of Christ in this world. The church has surrendered too much of this to the State, forgetting that it was the church that did these things over its history. [I wondered here if Tom would consider the implementation of these elements by the state as evidence of the church’s ministry and mission being successful.]

I would ask you: Where is the kingdom manifested today?

Third, this means Tom is one of the important voices today in seeing the significance of the church in the kingdom of God in this world today; it means he sees an ecclesial shape to kingdom. He has some wise words about how the media talks about the church and observes that it might be a 1000 to 1 ratio of folks doing good things vs. the one bad egg the media decides to squat on. The church, he reminds us, is the society of the forgiven and reconciled and not the society of the perfect. (more…)

Calvinism: My History 1

Last updated on: December 5, 2011 at 7:29 pm By Scot McKnight

I was fortunate to have gone to college at Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, and one of the high fortunes was that Grand Rapids was filled with bookstores and book-reading folks. As a student I came into contact with some Calvinist friends, and that set me off into reading Calvinism, and beside the standard textbooks and theologies, the theologians I read the most were Calvin and John Owen. After four years, Kris and I moved to Chicagoland for seminary. When I got to Trinity in the Fall of 1976 as a student, the first thing I noticed was how tightly the theological discussion was ratcheted. These folks knew what they were talking about, and they knew biblical texts and theological discussions, and the history of the Church. It took some work just to be conversant. It was a challenge for which I am grateful to this day.

Calvinism was not a front-burner issue, but was on the stove top waiting for someone to say something uninformed. I had some wonderful lecturers: H. Dermott McDonald was an eccentric theologian from London who told us that our syllabus was the library and we should get over there and read up on “God, Man, and Christ” and then come take his exam at the end. David Wells taught Sin and Salvation, and began by telling us that his wife said that he could teach the first half of the class by giving an autobiography. McDonald was not a Calvinist; Wells was. My NT teachers didn’t raise such topics: Norm Ericsen and Murray Harris. But, then Grant Osborne came to TEDS. (So, I can blame this journey on Grant, which he’d be happy to take credit for.)

Here’s what happened. Grant is famous for his handouts, and he had one on Eternal Security. It was a lengthy handout and he asked me to work through it, add some bibliography, and generally re-write it. It was a big task for me, but it was the first real chance I had to do something at that level. To prepare for it, Grant suggested I read I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God. Which I did. From cover to cover; underlined it; took notes; checked commentaries. It took a good long while. When I came up for air in Hebrews I had been persuaded that I was wrong about Calvinism. Like C.S. Lewis getting on a bus and then getting off converted, but not knowing when or how, so with me: from the beginning of working through Grant’s notes to reading through Marshall and arguing with him until he wrestled me to the ground and pinned me, I had become convinced that I was no longer a Calvinist. Which didn’t mean I gave up the architecture of Calvinism, but I did then consider high Calvinism an inaccurate understanding of the fullness of the Bible. (more…)

Simply Jesus 6

Last updated on: November 30, 2011 at 7:02 am By Scot McKnight

In one chap in Tom Wright’s new book Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters, he sketches his views of the resurrection, of the ascension and of the second coming! But he does so through the lens of God becoming king in Jesus, and so it is all related to the grander cosmic scheme at work in Tom’s new book.

[You may have already noticed the snazzy new buttons Patheos has installed on the blog; they make “sharing” easier. Thanks Patheos. And they help spread the word in these posts.]

First, Easter is about new creation. Second, ascension is about the enthronement of Jesus as the king of new creation — it is not about Jesus, in some spiritual non-bodily state disappearing into heaven where spirit existence is established. Third, the second coming is not a “return” to earth so much as the reappearance of the Son of God where new creation will be finally established.

Tom’s books on resurrection (The Resurrection of the Son of God, Surprised by Hope) have already been digested by many of us, so I’ll avoid saying much except to say this: resurrection is not about some ethereal existence but about a physical, bodily existence.

The ascension, and I don’t believe I’ve read much about the ascension in Tom’s stuff, reminds us that heaven and earth are not far apart; heaven is the place from which the earth is run; the “vertical” movement in Acts 1 is metaphor for ascension and assumption of the throne; and the ascension mocks the rule of Caesar and announces that Jesus is the true king.

The second coming … well, Tom begins by saying most of North Americans are all messed up because they’re addicted to rapture stuff and they are not right. It is about the re-appearance (parousia) of Jesus Christ as King, it is about our (metaphorical but real) “meeting” him in order to escort him back to the new heavens and new earth to be with him (and he is now with us). (more…)

Simply Jesus 5

Last updated on: November 28, 2011 at 5:57 am By Scot McKnight

Perhaps the most perplexing issue in the historical Jesus debate of the last two decades was how to make a solid connection between Jesus’ kingdom vision and the crucifixion as an atoning death. How, some of us were asking, do we get from Luke 4:16-30, Jesus’ inaugural kingdom sketch, to Romans 3:21-26? Many historical Jesus scholars said there was no sound connection — those early Christians more or less made that atonement theology up because it did not come from Jesus. Others suggested Jesus died a tragic life because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time; others said it shows his exemplary love. A more recent view is that Jesus was the ultimate scapegoat who exposed the sickness of the systemic powers. In Tom Wright’s new book Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters, he provides the fullest expression of his view on how to tie kingdom to cross as atoning. (If you’d like to see my view, you can read it at Jesus and His Death.)

He goes fast — you can read it on pp. 179-189 — and I will try to capture it in an even simpler sketch. It can be called a “new/fresh perspective on the cross.”

How does Tom Wright’s sketch here help us in the atonement theory discussion? Does this take us forward?

Jesus over and over anticipated his own death, and in Mark 10:45 he opens up new soil by showing that his death will be a new kind of power. When Passover came Jesus revealed even more, and to do so he gave his followers a meal — “with a radical difference” (180). This mean pointed forward (not just backward) to the great sacrifice; is the real Exodus; the real return from exile; the new covenant; sins would be forgiven; a great jubilee moment; the era of blessing. His disciples participate in that event by sharing the meal. This is a new kind of presence of God — in bread and wine. It is a new Temple, and a new vocation as the royal priesthood.

“Jesus has taken Israel’s destiny upon himself and will now take Israel’s fate upon himself, so that Israel’s vocation can be accomplished” (181). He finds this best sketched in John 18-19 [after the jump I have the whole text], and he shows the interplay of Rome, Jewish leaders and the love of God in the cross.

So what models are we to use? Tom says it is easy to belittle the death: man crushed by system, example of love, just representative, transaction … yet, each of these says something right: he is an example, it is love, he did represent, there is a penal representation and substitution… but… there’s more, and if we want to get inside Jesus and his time to see what he was doing we need to explore this:

(more…)

Simply Jesus 4

Last updated on: November 24, 2011 at 9:52 am By Scot McKnight

The major themes of the Exodus are at the heart of Tom Wright’s new book Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters. But there’s more to say than that: Exodus is at the heart of the entire mission of Jesus. Because this Exodus theme is both cut up into its seven segments (more below) and because Exodus becomes more central, it is fair to say that Simply Jesus takes us beyond Tom’s well-known Jesus and the Victory of God. He puts it all together in this book….

First the seven Exodus themes are tyrant, leader, divine victory, sacrifice, vocation, divine presence, and promised inheritance. This is at the heart of this book.

Second, Tom sketches how three absolutely crucial (to Jesus and to the apostles) figures of the Old Testament illustrate these seven themes and therefore are instances of carrying forward the Exodus project. The three figures are the Servant of Isaiah 40-66, the Son of Man of Daniel 7, and Zechariah’s king, esp as found in the last half of Zechariah. You will have to take my word for it that he has given us an important sketch of exodus themes here.

Third, now the big one: Jesus’ mission is shaped by those same themes, and so I want to quote from what I think is perhaps the crucial paragraph in this whole book. Remember: it’s Exodus, Exodus from Moses through Isaiah, through Daniel, through Zechariah, and now reshaped and reconfigured for a new day in a new way by Jesus — the three-fold storm converging: Rome, Jewish leaders, and the new message about God becoming king in and through Jesus: (more…)

Simply Jesus 3

Last updated on: November 21, 2011 at 12:07 am By Scot McKnight

It is Tom Wright’s contention, in his new book Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters, that Jewish kingdom movements had two integral features: a battle and the temple. Tom examines those two themes in the Gospel records about Jesus.

First, the battle: “it was a different sort of thing, because it had a different sort of enemy,” and here Tom examines “the satan” in the Bible. There is so much battle with “the satan” in the records about Jesus that it has to be taken not only as an element but significant (Mark 1:13, 27, 34; 3:11-12, 22-27; 5:1-20; Luke 10:18; 13:16; 22:31; John 13:2, 27). To be sure, we may struggle with this stuff but that doesn’t mean they (or Jesus) did. That battle seems to have two stages: an earlier stage (the Temptation) and a final victory. The satan’s victory is the cross, but the victory was not to last.

How central are the battle and the temple to most of our understandings of Jesus? How central are space, time and matter? Do you think these ideas are supersessionistic or continuous with Judaism?

Second, the temple. Here Tom focuses on the “cleansing of the temple,” which is really a royal declaration of God’s judgment on the temple and its authorities. (more…)

Simply Jesus 2

Last updated on: November 13, 2011 at 11:53 am By Scot McKnight

Deep in the heart of Judaism in the centuries leading up to Jesus was a dual conviction: that God had elected Israel as creation-restoring agents and, right next to this, the manifold brokenness of creation and Israel and the Land and the priests and the Temple. What sustained their hope? One Story: the Exodus. They told its story, sang its songs and continued to celebrate God’s victory. Why? Someday that same God would do it all over again. So argues Tom Wright in his new book, Simply Jesus.

The Exodus Hope included seven elements: a wicked tyrant, chosen leader, victory of God, rescue by sacrifice, new vocation/new way of life, presence of God, and a promised/inherited land.

When you think of the Master Story of the Bible, the one that shaped the Bible and that shaped how Jews thought of themselves, what were the most important two or three stories? Which one do you think was most important? Which story most “controls” how your church thinks? [This is a big one folks, and it gets right to the heart of the meaning of the word “gospel” in the New Testament.]

Then along comes Jesus announcing God was becoming King. Jesus’ preaching then is the start of a campaign. Three actions pull this into focus: celebrations at meal time, healing of one person after another, and forgiveness. This is what it looks like — Jesus was saying — when God takes charge, when God becomes king. (more…)

Stress and the Jesus Creed (RJS)

Last updated on: November 10, 2011 at 6:35 am By RJS

A frequent reader sent me a link recently to a series of YouTube videos from a PBS special describing a body of research exploring the link between stress and human health (HT JG). One of the featured studies is a 30 year field study of a troop of baboons in Kenya led by Professor Robert Sapolsky. You can find a short report of his study in this news release from 2007: Robert Sapolsky discusses physiological effects of stress “We’ve evolved to be smart enough to make ourselves sick.” Prof. Sapolsky has written a number of books including Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers, and A Primate’s Memoir: A Neuroscientist’s Unconventional Life Among the Baboons. He is a very productive and well cited researcher. (The picture to the right is of a baboon troop in Tanzania, taken from wikipedia)

The PBS documentary looks at the link between stress, health, and hierarchy. The basic theme is straightforward – stress is bad for health, and hierarchy with its unavoidable stress is bad for health. The first video sets up the study:

Chronic stress can be linked to a wide range of adverse effects – from arteriosclerosis to ulcers to faster aging and degradation of DNA. Baboons troops are very hierarchical with the alpha males pushing the others around. Stress is more pronounced in those ranked lower in the hierarchy than in the higher ranked males. Of course the relationship is not simply higher ranked – less stress. An article published just this summer in Science magazine Life at the Top: Rank and Stress in Wild Male Baboons suggests that stress is higher than thought among at least some of the alpha males. Professor Sapolsky contributed a perspective Sympathy for the CEO.

Do you think that stress plays a large role in health?

If so, what do you do about it?

The kicker though – the reason that the reader thought this interesting is not the connection between stress and health, but what came later in the study.

(more…)

Michael Horton on The King Jesus Gospel

Last updated on: October 17, 2011 at 10:25 am By Scot McKnight

Michael Horton, well-known Reformed theologian, professor at Westminster-San Diego, has a post that reviews generously and extensively (in true Reformed fashion) my new book, The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited. I have reviewed a couple of Mike’s books here so turnabout is fair, and he’s fair — as he always is. I will be examining three kinds of soterians Wednesday on this blog so I’ll wait for that… now to Michael’s review.

Horton and I agree more or less on seeing the substantive problem in contemporary evangelicalism’s approach to evangelism.

Reformed folks share the same concern. Christ is both Savior and Lord: you can’t embrace one without the other. And we don’t make him Savior and Lord; he is Savior and Lord whether we embrace him or not. The goal of evangelism in our churches is to make disciples, not just converts. That’s why we don’t focus on a striking conversion experience [SMcK: the Puritan “relation” surely deserves to be mentioned in its experiential emphasis], but on Christ, and emphasize the Christian life as a constant living out of our baptism, in the communion of saints. Lifelong discipleship is not an individualistic affair, but a team sport.

But only a (Reformed, covenant-shaped) soterian can think the following sentence summarizes what I am doing:

To put it in terms of Reformed interpretation, McKnight is wrestling here with the relationship of the ordo salutis (salvation applied to individuals here and now) to the historia salutis (the history of redemption). (more…)

King Jesus Gospel Questions 4

Last updated on: September 22, 2011 at 5:36 am By Scot McKnight

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:

(more…)