A Welcomed Admonition

In a Facebook post, I wrote that I “was learning to love admonition”. This may seem a curious thing to fall in love with. However, I have come to realize that repentance begins in me before any call to Christian unity can be valid. I wrote that status while in a class called “A Generous Orthodoxy”. Allow me to say a word of disassociation before I continue:

Brian McLaren’s book A Generous Orthodoxy is heavy on generosity, and light on orthodoxy. I feel that in this way, McLaren has hindered the ecumenical movement by unnecessarily offending those with which he has grown weary. I still appreciate McLaren for the freedom with which he explores difficult questions that are largely ignored or issues that are sometimes even contributed to by Christians (which is why he and I are arm and arm in my profile pic). 

I came to appreciate admonition while sitting in the first night of our class. I’ve stated something similar in other blog posts. I want unity in the body, but I do not want to cause further contention and schism in order to acquire it. I had repressed the sense that this was in fact what I was doing, yet I knew not how to do it any other way. I knew that I myself had become guilty of the very same things I was seeking to convict others of. For this, I repent and embrace a different approach to a generous orthodoxy. There are deeper reasons for having this contentious approach to orthodoxy. I will try not to spare myself from shame in order that I might better articulate them:

1.       A pecking order: I believe there is a an attempt among peers to establish a sort of rank or pecking order. In my mind’s eye I am thinking about twenty-something’s behaving this way. However, I have seen this type of behavior taking place at almost every level (I have seen seminary and Bible College professors engaged in this kind of rivalry, and I have been very disillusioned by it.) While it might seem petty and immature at a personal level, it is the thirst for superiority and power that has and will continue to divide us. As John Chrysostom stated: “Nothing will so avail to divide the church as love of power.”

2.      Superiority: We were taught superiority. When I look back as a younger man in my faith I reflected often on my paternal grandparents as a vicarious model for what I wanted to strive for in my own ministry. My grandfather is Irish Catholic, my grandmother was Methodist. Why was it that they could not rejoice over the core of their faith in Christ? Rather, their differences created a great tension. Something happened to me though, as I pursued a theological education. I became an anti-catholic. Where did I learn all of my anti-catholic rhetoric? It certainly wasn’t nurtured in my upbringing! I learned it through poor historical scholarship, and a hermeneutic of perspectival superiority (which claimed absolute objectivity, thus magically rendering it from any and all criticisms). John H. Armstrong says it best:

“Often people tell me that catholicity doesn’t matter anymore. They argue that what matters most is right doctrine, and we get right doctrine by a proper exegesis of the Bible. These folks will sometimes go on to insist that their church is right since they truly follow the Bible. Yet in many cases their church is less than two generations old. (Incidentally, this provides one reason why really important doctrines [the Trinity, for example] are not practically important in many American churches – they are not understood historically (Armstrong 82).”

Concerning poor historical scholarship, I was often taught that the Roman Catholic Church held antithetical views of protestant theology. As Professor Mangum pointed out, if we are to plum down into these debates we find out that many of the sides had a lot in common. So for example, we Protestants, in affirming the five Solas of the reformation wrongly believe that the Roman Catholic Church does not hold to “Sola Fide”, “Sola Grate”, and so on. This simply isn’t true. As Dr. Mangum stated in class, much of the concern from the church was this: “Brother Martin, if you go down this road of “sola-scriptura”, you will splinter the church into a thousand pieces. Each man will become his own interpreter, and each man will become a law unto himself.” The testimony of history has revealed that the concerns of the Church were correct.

3.       FALSE: Becoming generous in one’s orthodoxy means setting aside one’s own theological convictions.

To once again quote John H. Armstrong in speaking about the Apostles’ Creed as a means of unification he says:

“When we fail to utilize it as a basic guide for teaching the essentials of our faith, we practically invite disunity. Those who ignore the creed are generally left to focus on the truths they prefer to major on rather than the essential beliefs that have been universally believed and taught by all Christians (79).”

Many of the arguments and contentions that I have initiated, perpetrated, executed, and participated in were foolish and outright sinful. In receiving my own admonition, I offer a word of caution to those who are very much like me in this way…

4.       Theological debate for the sake of theological debate is not a fun past time, it is forbidden.

Titus 3:9 “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.  Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.”

I know that quoting a verse solves nothing, but hearing this verse being unpacked, as well as this one…

 ¹ Thessalonians 5:14 “And we urge you, brothers and sisters, warn those who are idle and disruptive, encourage the disheartened, help the weak, be patient with everyone. ¹⁵ Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always strive to do what is good for each other and for everyone else.”

left me feeling admonished… and in a good way! “Fights and quarrels” arise from the “desires that battle within you (James 4:1-2).” These fights are not about doctrine, they’re about us:

“This unfortunate idea – that the basis of spiritual unity must stand in uniformity of doctrine – has been the poisoned spring of all the dissensions that have torn Christ’s body. – John Watson

If I have frustrated you, if I have been contentious, factious, and/or quarrelsome, then I ask that you forgive me. I have realized that my behavior is a perversion to God. Let us, in one accord, affirm the nucleus of our faith, for our enemy hates a united church, and our Father longs for us to be one:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,

creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

born of the Virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

was crucified, died, and was buried;

he descended into hell.

On the third day he rose again;

he ascended into heaven,

he is seated at the right hand of the Father,

and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy catholic Church,

the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and the life everlasting.

Amen.

Racial Reconciliation

Something happened this past weekend that I won’t soon forget. I had the awesome privilege of M.C.ing Biblical Seminaries’ retreat this year. Our speaker, Al Tozin, challenged us all weekend long, speaking about issues of gentrification, urban and suburban ministerial partnerships, current trends in the urban/suburban context, racial reconciliation, and much more. It will take months to unpack all of the dialogue that we shared that weekend.

Dr. Tizon, in speaking about racial reconciliation, challenged us all that in order for the church to be united, apologies and forgiveness’ in the context of relationship must take place. He said it isn’t enough for those of us whose legacy is that of the oppressor to say “I never owned any slaves. I never did anything to those people, why should I have to apologize?” 

There was a time that Dr. Tizon’s words would have been lost on me. But having moved into the city, and being exposed to the injustices that are taking place within a few miles of where Amanda and I have grown up… having met and become a part of a community that we at one time did not understand… having befriended people we otherwise never would have known… and having the contents of our own hearts dramatically revealed… I realized that Dr. Tizon was right. 

Dr. Tizon went on to say, that if our legacy is on the side of the oppressor we must say, “in the name of Jesus Christ, I repent of the sins of my forefathers. Will you forgive me?”

And on the side of those who have had injustices perpetrated against them, the church must respond, “In the name of Jesus Christ, I forgive you.” 

His words cut so deep, my heart began to palpitate. Sunday morning, before our last session began, I made my way to the pulpit one last time to introduce our speaker. There was something however, so heavy on my heart, that if I did not share I would have regretted it for the rest of my life:

“I have spent more years than not believing that I was better than many of the people in this room. I have spent more years than not fearing, and even hating many of you. I am so ashamed of the man that I was, and of the things that I’ve done. I not only repent of the sins of my forefathers, I repent of my own sin. I ask, in the name of Jesus Christ, that you forgive me.” 

Dr. Tizon made his way to the pulpit and said:

“In the name of Jesus Christ, we forgive you Ryan.”

It’s strange, some of the burdens we carry without ever knowing it. I weep if I pause to reflect on this moment for too long. My brothers and sisters, in the midst of their own hurts perpetrated by people like me, embraced and forgave me. I know that many of these brothers and sisters of mine would have loved me even in times when I would have hated them. 

I want you to consider that through many of my younger years I did not think myself to be a racist. My words and my experience may be lost on you, but I challenge you that if you profess to follow Christ that you search your heart for the sin of pride, or the ignorance that induces fear, or perhaps even hatred for those whom you do not know nor understand. Renounce the ways of your forefathers and foremothers. These are your brothers and sisters who were created in the same image that you were, in the image of God.

May God have mercy on us all if we forsake the bride of Christ by rejecting those whom belong to it.

The Messianic Secret

I’m not very good at keeping a secret. That makes my current job very difficult as it requires a great deal of confidentiality. There is an element of discretion that complicates things. While I must always protect the confidentiality of those on my case load, there are some secrets I cannot keep as a mandated reporter.

Everybody seems to think that they have a handle on who Jesus was. It seems that Jesus has become the vicarious projection of the perfect person. There’s an artist by the name of Kidrock who, a few years ago, released an album entitled “Rock in Roll Jesus”. There are various sects of people who follow Jesus, sometimes claiming to possess exclusive access to him (denominations). The Koran makes claims about who Jesus “really” was. The intellectually endowed will oft times caricature Jesus as nothing more than an enlightened man and a good moral teacher.

We would be wise to acknowledge that through the centuries Jesus has remained at some level a mystery. Of course, I say this as a paradox. I believe and affirm that we may enter into a relationship with him, but that we do not fully understand him. The same is true of all relationships. I love my wife, but I wouldn’t always say that I fully understand her, and I think that she would most certainly state that I am not easily understood as well.

There is nothing unique about this struggle. Even those who interacted with Jesus during the incarnation, during the time that he walked the earth, were thoroughly perplexed by who Jesus was. And there was a reason for this; Jesus was keeping a very good secret. It was a secret that needed to be revealed in its proper time, but it is a secret that leaves those who know it as mandated reporters.

If a man is great, it is his nature to want others to appreciate his greatness. A great man will seldom shy away from the limelight. People were always amazed at Jesus’ teaching; they were amazed at his ability to cast out demons. So then, why is it that in casting out a demon who professes this Jesus as something far more than an average man, as the “Holy one of God”, Jesus would rebuke him to “be quite(Mark 1:21-28)”?

 As Jesus continues to heal the sick who had various diseases, and driving out demons, Mark continually emphasis’ that he silenced these demons because “they knew who he was” (Mark 1:29:34). Jesus touches a leper, and heals him. A practice which would have made people raise their eyebrows at him, because it was unacceptable to touch such a man. Jesus warns the man to tell know one of it, but rather to go to the temple and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for his cleansing “as a testimony.” Of course, rather than adhering to Jesus’ words, the man goes about telling everyone of his experience. As a result of this man’s inability to follow directions, Jesus becomes withdrawn from the people “in lonely places”

Over and over again, the story continues that Jesus’ audiences marvel at his teachings. Over and over again Jesus’ audience marvels at his healing miracles. But over and over again their response is simply inadequate to capture the fullness of Jesus’ purposes. Over and over again their intrigue with Jesus is akin to fascination with a magician, or the excitement that is generated by something new and different having been presented.

We may want to believe that Jesus’ proclamation has the purpose of revealing who he is. Isn’t Jesus trying to get the word out that he is something or someone that needs to be recognized? Isn’t he the one upon whom the Jewish people have pinned their hopes? Why all the secrecy? Why is Jesus withdrawing himself once people hear of his healing power?

 Jesus is keeping a very good secret. It is a secret that can only be revealed in its proper time. It is a secret that can only be understood at the stories conclusion. It is a secret that complicates matters far beyond anyone in Jesus’ day could grasp. As the story continues, the implications of the secret begin to give way to frustration on the part of Jesus’ audience.

Sure, for a while everyone is impressed with the novelty of a miracle, but the message that explained those miracles was a tough pill to swallow. There was one instance in particular that demonstrated to some very powerful people in Jesus’ time, just what this message entailed.

Before healing a paralytic man, Jesus says to him “Son, your sins are forgiven” (Mark 2:5). Now, there were some people standing there who were “experts” in the ways of God. They understood, as Mark records, that no one can forgive sins “except for God alone.” They accuse Jesus of blasphemy, a very serious accusation.

It is here, in Jesus’ response, that the fullness of who he is and what he is is revealed. Jesus says:

“Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins….’ He said to the paralytic, ‘I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.’ He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all.” Mark 2:8-12

And here it is again, the response of the crowed:

“This amazed everyone they praised God, saying, ‘We have never seen anything like this’.” Once again, the crowed marvels at the novelty of what they have seen to the detriment of understanding what it had meant.

What is sin that the religious leaders would be so offended at Jesus’ claiming to forgive it? Sin holds the power of death. Sin is the source of disease and despair. Sin is the source from which humanity has experienced all of its suffering as a consequence. Sin is rebellion against God, and therefore can only be forgiven by God.

What Jesus has just demonstrated is that he has the power to forgive sin, a power that only God possessed. This means that Jesus is claiming to be far more than just any ordinary man would dare to claim. To demonstrate the validity of his claim, he reverses the repercussions of sins curse. If the sin is forgiven, if the dept has been lifted, than so too will the affects of sin be done away with. The man, who was once crippled, will rise for the first time, take up his mat, and walk.

Jesus continued to offend his audience by being the antithesis of their expectations. He was accused of sharing the table with “tax collectors and ‘sinners’.” To which Jesus responds, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

And it is here in the story that Jesus begins to say peculiar things about “going away”, the meaning of which greatly evades his listeners. (2:19,20)

And I guess that’s the funny thing about expectations. We oft times have expectations of what people will be like, how people will behave and ways in which people around us will meet certain needs that we have. Sometimes, the most strenuous part of a relationship is having or not being able to fulfill someone’s un-communicated expectations. The people in Jesus’ time had an expectation of what the Messiah would be like. When Jesus begins to reveal his secret, most people realize that this isn’t the messiah they had signed up for.

All of this talk about the kingdom (the kingdom of God is like a farmer’s field, the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed) suits everyone just fine. The messiah would be a king who would restore the people to their proper standing with God. The novelty of Jesus’ miracles suite everyone just fine. Everyone likes Jesus when he’s feeding thousands of people, healing the blind, deaf, and mute, casting out demons, and raising the dead. When Jesus begins to speak of his own death, his audience is dejected and obstinate.

Peter, one of Jesus’ closest disciples rightly acknowledges Jesus as the Christ, yet Jesus charges his disciples not to tell anyone. What secret is Jesus trying to keep? It seems, as the story progresses, the disciples are having the same dilemma as everyone else. They may have confessed him to be the Christ, the holy one of God, the one upon whom they have pinned all of their hopes and expectations… but he is not the Christ that they or anybody else had wanted.

It is at this time that Jesus begins to teach his disciples “that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him (9:31,32).” So you see, just after having professed Jesus to be the Christ, Peter takes Jesus aside and rebukes him. Why? Because Jesus is not the person, not the messiah, not the holy one of God that Peter, or anyone else for that matter, had wanted. Who wants a dead leader? How can you show the legitimacy of your leadership and the power of your kingdom if you have succumbed to the defeat of death? The question of Jesus, having shared with his followers the contents of his secret is “How can you be the one who will restore all things as our people have anticipated with bated breath if you have been executed?”

As the story continues, we pause to take heed of something very important. We have been looking at the life of Jesus through the eyes of the gospel writer, Mark. In all of the chapters and portions of Jesus’ life that we have rapidly covered, I would like to point out that more than 30% of the contents of the book of Mark chronicles Jesus’ last week on earth.

As you patiently read Mark, as you wonder what all the confusion is about, and you wonder why Jesus will not receive the recognition for all of the works he’s performed, you get to the last third of Marks book, and realize what Jesus’ secret truly is.

Jesus will not receive recognition from any man, woman, child, demon, or otherwise; any recognition of this “holy one of God” apart from his death and resurrection, is no recognition at all. His followers, as many of us still are, remain in oblivion as to the true purposes of the messiah. Jesus reminds them, as they are approaching Jerusalem (the epicenter of all things Jewish) what they are going there for:

“We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise (10:32-34).”

Tragically, right after Jesus says this, two of his disciples request that he let one of them sit at his right, and the other at his left in glory. Jesus responds “You don’t know what you are asking.” His disciples, even after hearing Jesus’ words, still think that they are going into Jerusalem to be “victorious”, they believe they are going into Jerusalem with Jesus, and he will fulfill their expectations as they had hoped, and he will sit on the throne and restore Israel from Rome’s clutches, he will restore Israel back to right relationship with their God, and all things will be made right. Their plan did not include crucifixion. Their understanding did not perceive resurrection.

If Jesus enters Jerusalem and simply dies, than his disciples were right. Before Jesus is tried, mocked, flogged, paraded down the streets carrying his own cross-beam, and is crucified, his disciples have left him. Peter has denied him, his disciples have disserted and disowned him, and there on a cross, Jesus is nailed to an implement of capital punishment, left to die in the presence of those who would continue to mock him, and a few of his female followers (which is important to note, being that all of his male disciples were not present. If I had more time, I would explore this further).

As was stated earlier, sin is the plight of us all. Its affects are far reaching, and its grips are impossible to escape. Death, disease, pain, and suffering accompany our experiences as people. It is a debt that we must all pay, that is unless someone is willing to pay that debt for us.

Jesus was not simply a magician who performed tricks and miracles to demonstrate his ability. Jesus is the one who cancels our debt of sin, and thereby reverses its implication.  In his death, this Jesus has acquired a way for our sins to be forgiven. If the debt of sin has been cancelled, then death cannot contain him.

Jesus has risen from the dead, and in so doing begins his reign as king. In rising from the dead we know that the former way of things is passing away. We know that a movement has occurred whereby sins curse is cancelled and through the forgiveness of sin redemption, restoration, and reconciliation become the pattern of this rising kingdom.

Jesus is not the vicarious “everyman”.  Jesus was not simply a good moral teacher. Jesus was not just a prophet. Any recognition of Jesus that does not recognize his accomplishment, his atoning death and victorious resurrection, is no recognition at all. Jesus is the one upon whom all our hopes have been placed for true forgiveness, and for true resurrection.

Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear…

I consider the audience for this sermon to be very mixed. Some are familiar with the basic tenants of the Christian faith, and others have never been exposed to it. My theme is the “messianic secret.” I felt that this was important given that the entire narrative of the gospel of Mark is directing the reader to see the importance of Jesus’ death and resurrection. My hope was to give an overview of the basic themes in Mark in a rapid, engaging fashion whereby the narrative is made easy enough to follow for those who are unfamiliar with it. Yet, those who have become quite familiar with the story and, dare I say, bored and arrogant about their understanding might see that Mark has offered us a very different picture of Jesus than the one we have synopsized throughout our Christian upbringing. There was much that I wanted to say that I could not, but my purposes for this sermon limited what I could include.

Permit me to note that the only resources I used in the composition of this sermon was my bible. Though we have spent the past five weeks heavily engaged in other resources, I do not know at what point something officially becomes common knowledge. Therefore, as is always the case, flares of what I have read recently are present, but I have quoted no one (with the exception of the New International Version of the Bible) extensively and/or exclusively.

"Jesus, the final days"

Perhaps it is because in my own study, particularly through the book of Acts, I have found enough historical context to radically shift my thinking about the events of Jesus’ death and resurrection and what it meant to the early followers of Jesus. For three years apart from my regular undergraduate study, I buried my nose in the works of commentators like John Stott, Richard Longenecker, Mal Couch, Homer Kent, and John Calvin. Every moment I spent in the book of Acts, I found myself having to revisit the gospel accounts. It was in this study that I discovered that much of what I felt about the gospels and their implications was dramatically different from what it meant to the early Christians. I find Craig A. Evans and N.T. Wright’s book Jesus, The Final Days to be an affirmation of much of that story.

            Their intent for composing the book was for “the interested layperson, for clergy, for the undergraduate or graduate student, as well as for those who have academic specialties outside of one of these areas (ix).” What I think the authors of this book have succeeded in doing is being true to the interpretation of the gospel accounts through the lens of the original audience. In a “shotgun” fashion, they have given historical context enough to understand how a first century audience would have perceived these events. While doing this, they have offered a response to those who might seek to punch holes in the gospel accounts concerning Jesus’ execution, and his resurrection. This book therefore, functioned in two ways for me as I read it: First, as a fresh window through which to see these events that I have been familiar with. Second, as an apologetic as to why fabricating such a thing is highly unlikely. 

            Much of the evidences provided, becoming a common theme of both authors, comes from the observation that many of the happenings within the gospel accounts would be understood as embarrassing to the early church, and therefore would have been omitted if in fact their composition came from a later point and time and they were seeking to fabricate Jesus into super human, divine status.

            This can clearly be seen in Evans’ portion of the book regarding Jesus’ death and burial. Evans makes a big deal out of the scene of Gethsemane. “Here, we see the frightened Jesus fall on his face, begging God to take away the cup of suffering (Mark 14:33-36). This is not the stuff of pious fiction or dogma (11).” Evans goes on to note that stark contrasts between the Jesus of the synoptic and the Jesus in John’s gospel where “Jesus… communes with God in peace, prays for his disciples, and adds a prayer for all those who will follow after him (11).” Evans does not go on to elaborate this point further, but as we discussed in class, John is addressing his audience with an agenda, and is addressing the “sitz im leben” that Jesus was praying for the early Christians.           

            Further complicating the case that Jesus’ narrative is fabricated in the gospels is the nature and process of his execution. As stated above, the death of a reigning messiah is embarrassing enough, but chronicling the humiliation that Jesus endured only stands to add salt into the wound. That is unless something happened after his crucifixion that transforms the defeat of death into victory. The fact that the gospel writers belabor the point of his death indicates that it held special significance:

“In the cast of Jesus, his mockery began with the Jewish council. His face is covered and he is ordered to “prophecy” (Mark 14:65). After all, if he were truly a prophet, he would possess clairvoyance and, without benefit of sight, could identify those who struck him (25).” 

The gospel writers not only include the mockery of the Jewish audience, but also the mockery of the Romans:

“The purple cloak, the crown of thorns (resembling a crown of ivy), the reed with which Jesus is struck on the head, and the bowing in mock homage are all components of the apparel worn and homage received by the Roman emperor, who at the triumph wore a purple robe and laurel wreath and held a scepter (27).” 

            Wright’s observations as to the historicity and application of the crucifixion also derive a theme of the unlikelihood of fabrication. The first unlikelihood being that a suffering messiah who would later rise from the dead was not on the horizon of anyone in Jesus’ time. Wright observes (as did Evans in multiple locations) that the historical story of a person proclaiming themselves to be the messiah and getting themselves executed was common. Wright summarizes the assumption of people in the remarks of one of his friends:

“Oh, of course I have always taken the view that the idea of the resurrection was in the air at the time, and the disciples were so bothered by Jesus’ cataclysmic defeat and death that they more or less reached for that category as a way of coping with their grief (102).”

In establishing this straw man, Wright concludes that “We know, as I said before, of several other movements where the leader was killed, the one upon whom everyone had pinned their hope; but at no point do we find such movements then suffering from the blessed twentieth-century disease called cognitive dissonance, where they make up stories about something glorious that has happened in order to try to come to terms with their grief (102).” 

Another argument that solidifies this unlikelihood of fabrication is the lack of biblical witness to the resurrection. Wright observes that “This kind of account is without precedent. No biblical text predicts that the resurrection will involve this kind of body. No speculative theology laid this trail for the evangelists to follow, and to follow it in such interestingly different ways (99).” 

            Even if this was an expectation of first century Jews concerning the messiah, it would not necessarily negate its validity. Certainly, there were some messianic expectations that Jesus had fulfilled. There were, as we discussed in class, a compilation of passages that became the messianic hope that would be fulfilled in some then eschatological fashion. Some of these expectations however, are the very same things that led his disciples to be confused by Jesus’ language and actions. Wherefore, in other instances in which the flow of the gospel narrative matches these pre-existing expectations, it is the passion and resurrection narrative that deviate from this flow. Wright is concluding that the gospel writers are astonishingly accurate in describing the same event without a messianic outline to follow. Wright is also concluding that though these accounts are astonishingly similar, they are quite unique in their description. What one would expect in the narrative, had these prior expectations of messianic fulfillment been followed, would be coherent / comparable formatting with the same conclusions. Wright’s point: The accounts are similar enough to assume that they are explaining the same event. The accounts are unique enough to assume that they are explaining it without a pre-committed assumption of a fulfilled messianic prophecy. 

As I said before, the work of Evans and Wright’s in Jesus, The Final Days serve as a confirmation and a clarification to many of the dots I began to connect starting just a few years ago on my quest for holistic biblical clarity. My understanding before this quest was more of a caricature of the New Testament narrative than anything else. The assumptions that I had made about Jesus’ disciples was that they were idiots, and hadn’t read their old testament bibles enough to see all of the clear prophecies concerning this Jesus that was clearly trying to make himself known. As the book observes (particularly Wright), my understanding of Jesus began with the cross, and ended there. His atoning death paid for my sins, now I no longer sin so as not to disappoint this Jesus who died in my place, and the only thing I have to look forward to is my death when I will get to meet this Jesus in person. 

What really made the connection for me was actually a Metallica song that served once as my creedal statement against the Christian faith. The song was called “The God That Failed”:  the lyrics in the chorus read:

I see faith in your eyes
Never you hear the discouraging lies
I hear faith in your cries
Broken is the promise, betrayal
The healing hand held back by the deepened nail
Follow the God that failed

It dawned on me one day, while studying the book of Acts, and going back and reading the gospels, that this was exactly how the followers of Jesus felt. God had failed them. I realized that Jesus was not as clearly articulated in the Old Testament as I had once believed. If I were in the audience listening to Jesus’ teaching, I would have been one of the first to demand his execution. 

            Understanding that everything is not as neatly packaged as we want it to be, and having been separated by two millennia of time, I realize that Jesus is not as simple as I had once thought. What he said to his original audience and who he claimed to be makes me uncomfortable even as one of his devoted followers. I abstain from reducing the gospel to a few talking points of doctrine that need to be adhered to and believed. As we discussed in class, we ought not talk about our doctrines, we only wind up having to defend them. If we start by making a case for the bibles authority and historicity, we must spend our time defending it to our audience. We must speak of Jesus, and in order to do so accurately we give attention to the fact that the four evangelists have given us their testimony which is trustworthy. 

            I conclude by stating that it is not enough to limit our understanding of Jesus to these four accounts. The diversity with which they have been composed, and the liberty they felt to tailor Jesus to their audience, tells me that Jesus is vast enough to encompass far more than our perceptions of him. The testimony left by the evangelist’s tell us of a time that God became flesh and made his dwelling among us. The testimony of history suggests that the sweep of that story is being caught up in the implications of our Lord’s death and resurrection.