N.T. Wright's Theology In Under 9 Minutes

Breath-taking.

JVG 1

C.S. Lewis defined an unliterary person as someone who reads books only once.

In honour of my second reading (yes, that makes me better than you) of N.T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God (JVG), I'm going to post some selected quotes as I go along. Expect maybe one or two a week. If you've read the book already this will be a nice refresher. If you haven't, then perhaps something you read here will spark enough interest to make you go out and get a copy. You would not be wasting either your time or your money should you do so - that's a guarantee.

The point of having Jesus at the centre of a religion or a faith is that one has Jesus: not a cypher, a strange silhouetted Christ-figure, nor yet an icon, but the one Jesus the New Testament writers know, the one born in Palestine in the reign of Augustus Caesar, and crucified outside Jerusalem in the reign of his successor Tiberius. Christianity appeals to history; to history it must go. The recognition that the answers we may find might change our views, or even our selves, cannot and must not prevent us from embarking on the quest.

Speaking Of Literal

Here's a video of N.T. Wright on the issue at hand.

Breathing the Same Air

There are few places I'd rather be this Friday at 3:15pm than Wheaton, Illinois. In the Edman Chapel at Wheaton College, N.T. Wright and Richard Hays will be clearing their throats and testing their microphones as they prepare to take part in a panel discussion including audience Q & A. I don't know what they will be discussing. It could be the subtle differences between Lidl and Aldi for all I care. When those two are breathing the same air, that's worth checking out if you have ears to hear.

I have three favourite Christian scholars/authors. The above make up two of those three, with Walter Brueggemann being the third. I like to think each bring something important to the table which complements the other two, but with all three sharing much the same vision for the faith and its scholarship. Brueggemann is an Old Testament scholar, whose writing is simultaneously rooted in age-old faith but also capable of stirring up radical newness. Wright is Mr New Testament. He can say more in a sentence than most can in a book. The church is blessed to have him among us, though I think future generations of Christians will be more blessed by Wright than we are. We are too close, too stuck in the tired, old ways of thinking that Wright strives to root up. Hays, then, completes the trinity. He is like a mixture of the other two, with much of his work bridging the gap between old and new testaments. He is also a remarkable reader of texts, capable of the kind of imaginative reading (and writing) that brings words to life. Moreso than the other two, I can read Hays simply for pleasure.

I don't have a set theology. I don't have a view on baptism, I don't subscribe to either side of the predestination debate, and I haven't even begun to plumb the depths of a theology of the cross. To be honest, I don't have much time for systematic theology, with all my doctrinal i's dotted and all my doctrinal t's crossed. Perhaps this is naive of me, but at the moment I'm happy not to be one of those people with a long list of beliefs that must be defended at all costs. In other words, I'm happy not to be reformed. (Zing!)

Credit (or indeed blame) for this lack of a rigid theology must go to the above three authors, along with biblical scholar Arden Autry. They have taught me a way to read the Bible that avoids using it merely as a source for doctrine, and instead uses it as a means for knowing and engaging with the living God. Doctrines have their place, but even demons have doctrines (note to self: a good title for a future book). What they don't have is God as Father and fellowship with his sons and daughters, and all the possibilities these relationships entail. Brueggemann, Wright and Hays always bring such possibilities to light. They are able to spark a conversion of the imagination by bringing it into contact with an unsettling God, leaving one ever surprised by hope.

Planting Roses

You are not oiling the wheels of a machine about to roll over a cliff....You are not planting roses in a garden that's about to be dug up for a building site. You are -- strange though it may seem, almost as hard to believe as the resurrection itself -- accomplishing something that will become in due course part of God's new world. Every act of love, gratitude, and kindness; every work of art or music inspired by the love of God and delight in the beauty of his creation; every minute spent teaching a severely handicapped child to read or walk; every act of care and nurture, of comfort and support, for one's fellow human beings and for that matter one's fellow nonhuman creatures; and of course every prayer, all Spirit-led teaching, every deed that spreads the gospel, builds up the church, embraces and embodies holiness rather than corruption, and makes the name of Jesus honoured in the world -- all of this will find its way, through the resurrection power of God, into the new creation that God will one day make.

- N.T. Wright, Surprised By Hope

Do Justice To The Event: A Battle

- Where are you goin’?

- I’m goin’ to pick a fight.

One of the words not often associated with the death of Jesus is “battle”. N.T. Wright makes a good case for the importance of this association.

Wright is careful to highlight the consistency between Jesus’s death and his ministry up to that point. Jesus’s prophetic announcement throughout his career was “The kingdom of God is at hand”. In other words, “At long last YHWH is becoming king”. And if YHWH was becoming king, the present rulers of Israel (and the world) needed to be relinquished of their power; they needed to be defeated and dethroned.

Here is where a double twist occurs.

Jews saw Rome as the enemy, the pagan nation that needed to be defeated. If YHWH is to become king, they thought, then the Roman empire must be put to the sword. This was to be the task of the Messiah, after all.

Jesus thought differently, however, and as we saw earlier, that is part of the reason he was killed. For Jesus, Israel’s enemy in need of defeat was the satan; the evil one who went about stealing, killing, and destroying. The mission of Jesus, therefore, was to confront and defeat this enemy. It was the satan who had gripped the hearts of Israel and turned them against YHWH; it was the satan who caused sin and death to reign; it was the satan who made it always winter but never Christmas. But with the kingdom of God at hand, the satan’s time was coming to an end, his spell was being broken. Through Jesus, YHWH was bearing his teeth and winter was meeting its death. Through Jesus, YHWH was shaking his mane and spring was returning once again. The kingdom not of this world was replacing the present kingdom, but it would take a decisive battle to seal the victory.

This leads to the second twist, which is that the battle scene was in fact the hill of Calvary where Jesus died. Jesus went to pick a fight with the following vision: death was to be defeated through a death; victory was to be achieved by a righteous victim; the suffering servant was to be the surprising messiah who would conquer the reign of sin and death once and for all.

Rome was not the enemy, and triumph would not come by the sword. Jesus died because he envisioned a different sort of battle with an enemy even fiercer than ruthless Rome; and more than that, he died because he knew that only his own undeserved death at the hands of evil could complete his life’s work. N.T. Wright phrases it like this:

…Jesus took his own story seriously - so seriously that, having recommended his followers to a particular way of being Israel-for-the-sake-of-the-world, he made that way thematic for his own sense of vocation. His own belief about how the kingdom would come through his own work. He would turn the other cheek; he would take up the cross. He would be the light of the world, the salt of the earth. He would be Israel for the sake of the world. He would be the means of the kingdom’s coming, both in that he would embody in himself the renewed Israel and in that he would defeat evil once and for all. But the way in which he would defeat evil would be the way consistent with the deeply subversive nature of his own kingdom-announcement. He would defeat evil by letting it do its worst to him.

What Jesus talked about throughout his ministry, he demonstrated thoroughly on the cross. But although Jesus called his disciples to take up their crosses follow him, only he could do what he did at Calvary. The hopes of Israel and the hopes of the world rested on his shoulders alone. Neither Israel nor the world recognised this of course. Their human wisdom could not solve the mystery of the cross, so all that was left for them to do was either taunt “The king of the Jews” as he was crucified or mourn bitterly over the death of the one many had hoped would redeem Israel.

To both groups -- the mockers and the mourners -- the battle was lost. Rome had won again, and things would go on as normal. Though Jesus died for different reasons -- the selfish rule of Pilate, the upholding of justice by would-be Law observers, the sense of vocation he himself possessed -- the simple fact was that he died.

On Saturday, the question “Why did Jesus die?” was merely academic. Sunday, however, would change that. Sunday would bring the question to life, and offer answers to be given from that moment on; answers that would demonstrate Jesus to be who he said he was and to have accomplished what he said he would accomplish. One of those answers was given by Paul, who could write roughly two decades later that Jesus "loved me and gave himself for me".

Do Justice To The Event: Double Drama

Why did Jesus die?

We played the blame game in the first couple of posts by casting stones at the Romans and then the Jews. Jesus was executed under a Pontius Pilate looking out for number one, but he was brought to the attention of the Roman procurator by influential Jews who saw this pseudo-Messiah breaking The Law and who decided that the law-breaker needed to get got.

But events were not so simple. This law-breaker claimed to be the law-fulfiller, with his death being the finishing touch to his life’s work. So what can be said of Jesus’s mindset in the lead up to his crucifixion? Can we say that “Jesus embraced a worldview…within which his own death would make sense, and would indeed make more sense than anything else”? As good a place as any to find the answer is the final meal Jesus shared with his friends: the Last Supper.

N.T. Wright calls the Supper a “deliberate double drama”. Being a Passover meal, it retold the old Jewish story of the exodus from Egypt and looked forward to the future return from exile. But, in a shocking twist, Jesus now included himself in this story as its central character. Israel’s story was being incorporated into his own, with long-awaited benefits not only to Israel, but to the world. “Jesus saw the meal as the appropriate way of drawing the symbolism of Passover, and all that it meant in terms of hope as well as history, on to himself and his approaching fate”, says Wright.

All that the Supper symbolised -- forgiveness of sins, the enthronement of YHWH, etc. -- was happening through Jesus. The words spoken during the meal (which display complete disregard for the “No talk of religion or politics at the dinner table” rule) reinforced this kingdom-at-hand story. Jesus spoke of a “covenant” initiated through his death; a death which would bring about “the forgiveness of sins” (Mt. 26:28c). These words are clear echoes of biblical prophecies made during Israel’s exile in Babylon; prophecies which speak of “a new covenant” in which YHWH “will remember your sins no more” (Jer. 31:31-34).

What, then, was the intention of Jesus that night in Jerusalem? Wright has a convincing answer: “Jesus intended to say, with all the power of symbolic drama and narrative, that he was shortly to die, and that his death was to be seen within the context of the larger story of YHWH’s redemption of Israel”.

When contemplating his ministry, Jesus didn’t merely expect to talk; he expected to die.

The 13th Disciple

Reading N.T. Wright's Christian Origins and the Question of God series is like hopping through the eternally cool doors of the Delorian and being whisked off to 1st Century Palestine in order to become the mystery 13th disciple who will form the cornerstone of Dan Brown's next novel. Or, it's like taking part in this. Anyway, I've just finished part deux, and continually found my heart strangely warmed as Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed before me as historical.

The next book in Wright's series is his treatment of the resurrection. This is supposed to be the text on the subject. You're basically not allowed to discuss the resurrection unless you've read this book.

But instead of starting straight into it, I'm going to turn to Wright's more popular series, which started off with Simply Christian and continues with Surprised By Hope and the recently released After You Believe.

Are you sufficiently bored yet? No?

So, the light broke on our refrigerator the other day. It was okay during the day because it wasn't dark, but when I came down to the kitchen in the middle of the night to fix up a glass of orange juice I couldn't find the carton, so I had to turn on the light in the kitchen.

Okay, I'll be getting my coat now...

Do Justice To The Event: Led Astray

He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.

That’s a mild way of saying that Jesus’s fellow Jews wanted him dead, deceased, demised. They were pining for Israel’s restoration via strict Torah observance and so given Jesus’s rambunctious ways they wanted him passed on, expired and gone to meet his maker; they wanted an ex-Jesus. (Not to be confused with ‘exegesis’).

The Babylonian Talmud says that Jesus was killed because “he led Israel astray”. According to Jewish Law -- e.g. Deut. 13 -- such national deception was punishable by death. Therefore given Jesus’s seemingly lax if not antagonistic attitude to what Wright calls “some of the most central and cherished symbols of the Judaism of his day”, and, moreover, “his replacing of them with loyalty to himself”, Jews thought they had no choice but to brand him as YHWH’s mortal enemy.

After all, look at his attitude and actions toward the Temple in his last days. He talked about its destruction, and even symbolically acted it out by turning over the tables within and pronouncing it corrupt. The modern day equivalent might be walking into the New York Stock Exchange and writing “Socialism is here to stay” in big red letters, or perhaps walking into St Peter’s Basilica and shouting “Luther was right!” repeatedly. Of course I’m not suggesting Jesus was a socialist, or Reformed for that matter. His criticism came from within Judaism. It came from one of their own, a fellow Jew, which is why it was so scandalous.

Of course the Jewish authorities presented Jesus to Pilate as a threat to Caesar, a disturber of pax romana, but they were not in the least bit concerned about his being such. In fact, if he was a genuine threat to the Roman Empire they might well have embraced him. Their Messiah was to be their great liberator from pagan oppressors. Jesus, though claiming Messiahship, did not fit the bill and so became a hindrance rather than a help.

I asked previously what Jesus’s crucifixion would have looked like to watching Jews. It would have looked like a false prophet getting his comeuppance. It would have looked like a man enduring the curse, the wrath, of YHWH, and justifiably so.

And yet, Jesus had said that he intended not to abolish the Law, but to fulfil it. He had said that doing YHWH’s will was his life’s work. What, then, are we to say about his death’s work? Was it somehow or another part of the Law’s fulfilment? Was it the will of Israel’s God? Why, according to Jesus, did he himself die?

Wright Is Usually Right When He Writes

...or speaks, as the case may be. Have a listen and see what you think. Then pop over here to read Peter Enns writing about the same thing in more depth (and perhaps a touch more controversially -- Oh Peter, when will you learn?). If you have even a passing interest in the Bible these will be well worth your time.

By the way, one commenter under a Tom Wright YouTube clip warns that reading the Bishop's work isn't safe. To this I say: Safe? Who said anything about safe? Of course it isn't safe. But it's good. How much more should this apply to our reading of Scripture, and yet how often do we settle for a safe reading of the text?

But that's a whole other blog post!

Do Justice To The Event: Liquidating Undesirables

What have the Romans ever done for us?

One thing not contained on the list was crucifixion. At Calvary the story of crucifixion and the story of Jesus met. What, then, was the story told by the cross? According to Wright,

Crucifixion was a powerful symbol throughout the Roman world. It was not just a means of liquidating undesirables; it did so with the maximum degradation and humiliation. It said, loud and clear: we are in charge here; you are our property; we can do what we like with you. It insisted, coldly and brutally, on the absolute sovereignty of Rome, and of Caesar. It told an implicit story, of the uselessness of rebel recalcitrance and the ruthlessness of imperial power. It said, in particular: this is what happens to rebel leaders. Crucifixion was a symbolic act with a clear and frightening meaning.

What is often neglected is the light that this story sheds on the story of Jesus.

Jesus was executed as a rebel against Rome.

He was an undesirable who was liquidated, falling on the same sword as a political renegade. As Wright suggests,

When Jesus was crucified, the general impression in Jerusalem must have been that he was one more in a long line of would-be, but failed, Messiahs.

Here was the man who was supposed to redeem Israel from her pagan oppressors, the man who would usher in the age of Ross YHWH. But after his crucifixion, hope turned to bitter disappointment (Lk. 24:13-21).

However, was Jesus worthy of crucifixion? Was he a real threat to Rome? Though executed as a rebel, he was surely not guilty of the charge in the conventional sense of the word. After all, what kind of rebel insists on turning the other cheek and going the extra mile? Nonetheless, his announcement that YHWH was becoming king carried with it some sort of threat to all other kingdoms. YHWH’s kingdom may not have been a kingdom of this world, but it was a kingdom that Jesus prayed would be manifested on earth as it is in the heavens, to the detriment of present earthly kingdoms.

Pontius Pilate must have contemplated such things as he was warned by the Jewish authorities that do fail to execute Jesus would be to make oneself an enemy of Caesar. Pilate didn’t want to do what the Jews wanted him to do (apparently he never wanted to do what the Jews wanted him to do), but he also didn’t want to make Tiberius angry. He knew Jesus was innocent of the charges laid against him, he knew he wasn’t the rebel the Jews painted him out to be, but…

And so caught between a rock and a hard place, he washed his hands in an attempt to absolve himself, but the fact remains that under Pilate’s watch, Jesus was crucified. Therefore,

In terms of the Roman authorities, the answer to the question ‘why did Jesus die?’ is that Pilate not only put cynical power-games before justice…, but also, on this occasion, put naked self-interest before both.

Jesus died under the sovereignty of Rome, charged (rightly or wrongly) with sedition. To onlookers, his crucifixion was nothing less than his utter degradation and humiliation at the hands of the empire. The question now becomes, what did his crucifixion look like to those Jews who did their utmost to get him hanging on that cross? Why were they so desperate for Jesus to die?

Do Justice To The Event: Dealing With History

Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who announced to Israel that YHWH was becoming king, and who saw himself as having a special role to play in that inauguration.

This is the first 539 pages of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God in a nutshell; this is the story into which the question at hand -- why did Jesus die? -- fits. It is no timeless question answered in timeless truths, but a question which transports us into “the fullness of time”, and a question which yields to us timely answers.

As Wright remarks, by asking “why” we are involving ourselves in the pursuit of human intentionality. There are four such humans to consider: The Roman authorities, the Jewish authorities, Jesus of Nazareth, and 1st century Jews who subsequently became loyal to their crucified Messiah - Jews who could confess not long after Jesus’s death that “he loved me and gave himself for me”. Why, according to these people, did Jesus (have to) die?

And given that he did die, who was responsible? The Romans? The Jewish authorities? What about Jesus? What role did this troublesome but non-violent prophet have to play in his own downfall? Was it an integral part of his vocation, linked with all that went before it? Or was it simply the inevitable consequence that would befall anyone who rocked the boat as much as Jesus did, nothing more and nothing less?

When dealing with these questions we are dealing with history. Real, human history. Not nice ideas or religious jargon, but actions and events within space and time. Of course as with all human history precision is not an option, but complete ignorance doesn’t make anything go away. The death of Jesus remains part of the human story whether we acknowledge it or not; it may even be the pivot, the point at which all that went before it converges and all that comes after it diverges.

Society is not served by suppressing truth or inventing falsehood. The stories must speak for themselves.

The next installment will chart the role Rome had in the story of Jesus’s death.

Do Justice To The Event

Why did Jesus die?

Roughly 1,980 years ago a Jewish man from the insignificant village of Nazareth in Galilee was put to death in a roman cross. Not long after, a tidal wave swept across the Roman empire as the message of Christ crucified began to turn the world upside down. What did these message bearers see in Jesus's death? Of all the would-be Messiah's on all the crosses in all of the Roman empire, why this particular one?

The historical, political and theological answers to the opening question might just provide the clues to why Easter Sunday continues to be celebrated by millions of Christians around the world.

With Easter Sunday not long away now, I thought I'd lead into it by doing some posts (roughly one a week) on a chapter in N.T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God that deals with the intentions behind Jesus dying a disgraceful, humiliating death.

It's impossible to extract just one chapter from Wright's magnum opus and retain all of its significance and depth, but I will try my darnedest to do justice to the text that is Wright's attempt to do justice to the event.

The Nature of Myth

A while back I did a series on Peter Enns's Inspiration and Incarnation (a series now available in my new book at mark-down prices), which looked at issues like the historicity of Genesis, the nature of myth etc and so on. If you want to hear N.T. Wright sum up the thrust of my own series better than I ever could, hop over to this post at the Science & the Sacred blog.