So if we are going to approach Jesus himself in a fresh way and ask the right questions instead of the wrong ones, we need to get our minds and imaginations into Jesus's own day by examining another "perfect storm," the one into which Jesus himself was walking. What were the winds that gathered speed just then, rushing in upon him from various directions? What did it mean for him to be caught in the eye of this storm? As he rode into Jerusalem that fateful spring day, what did he think he was doing? [pp. 24-25]The gathering winds Wright describes are the prevailing thinking and agenda of the Roman Empire, the Jewish ideas about God and their national identity, God's will in the world, and Jesus' understanding of his role in accomplishing God's will in the world.
God had promised to come back, to return to his people in power and glory, to establish the kingdom on earth as in heaven. The Jewish people always hoped that this would simply underwrite their national aspirations; he was, after all, their God. They wanted a divine hurricane simply to reinforce their already overheated high-pressure system. But the prophets, up to and including John the Baptist, had always warned that God's coming in power and in person would be entirely on his own terms, with his own purpose--and that his own people would be as much under judgment as anyone, if their aspirations didn't coincide with God's.
Jesus not only believed that this was another of those moments where the true, prophetic vision of the divine hurricane would clash with the current national mood. He believed, it seems--the stories he told at the time bear this out quite strikingly--that as he came into Jerusalem he was embodying, incarnating, the return of Israel's God to his people in power and glory. [pp. 37-38]Wright sets up the second section of his book by posing what he calls "the ultimate puzzle of Jesus." Why is it that the first followers of Jesus, within just a few years of his death, "were speaking and writing about him, and indeed singing about him, not just as a great spiritual leader and holy man, but as a strange combination: both Davidic king and the returning God?"
First, why would anyone say this of Jesus, who had not done the things people expected a victorious king to do? Why, indeed, did Jesus end up being crucified with the words "King of the Jews" above his head? And why would anyone, three minutes, three days, or three hundred years after that moment, ever dream of taking it seriously?If these questions intrigue you, I'd encourage you to get a copy of the book and read with me. Incidentally, I think this is likely to be the selection for my first Valley book club of 2013.
Second, what on earth might it mean today to speak of Jesus being "king," or being "in charge," in view of the fact that so many things in the world give no hint of such a thing? [p. 54]
On Thursday, I will be posting a video of an N. T. Wright lecture on the Psalms of the Old Testament. I watched it over the Thanksgiving break and found it to be a nice overlap of many of the "prevailing winds" Wright describes in the first section of Simply Jesus.
Looking forward to the video! I read "Simply Jesus" over the summer before I picked up "American Soul". I read it quickly (it was a quick read). In fact, I remember reading it at the Old Chicago restaurant in our crew hotel in Grand Rapids, MI while I was on a trip. The title piqued the server's interest, and I tried to explain the book without blowing her mind. (Wright is pretty mind blowing because it makes you say "YES YES!" But then you think, "Wait, why aren't we hearing more of this perspective? It's so refreshing and logical!"
ReplyDeleteI may have to get a copy of this book for Book Club next year so I can re-read with the group. In the meantime, I am currently finishing up Greg Boyd's "God of the Possible" which is also making me say "YES!" but also serving up some good questions in my mind. (Reading a thesis on open theism after being raised in a conservative Presby church is like using a flamethrower to remove cobwebs from the eaves of your mind.)
I think there may be some good overlapping threads between some of Wright's theology and some of Boyd's. We should discuss ;-)
Yes, Kris. You need to read it again with the Book Club group. I haven't read Boyd's "God of the Possible," but I have listened to and read much of Boyd's open theism position. I think his open theism is much preferable to a strict Calvinist position, but it has some serious problems. In a way, it's an over-reaction to Calvinism but remains trapped in a linear time perspective. My personal view is much more in line with John Polkinghorne. Rather than an open theist view of the future not existing, I prefer to think of every possible future (nearly infinite from our point of view) being known to God. It's a big subject, but I think Open Theism fails in much the same way Calvinism fails. It is still preferable to Calvinism (at least current day forms of "Calvinism") because while it fails, it at least fails with a loving and redemptive God who is working to redeem ALL people and ALL things to himself.
ReplyDeletePolkinghorne is now on my research list. Thanks! Like I said, reading Boyd, and following his blog a bit, has had me asking some serious questions about the positions he makes. Right now where I am in the book, it's like he argues that some things are open, and some things aren't. But he tries to liken it to the framework of "Choose Your Own Adventure" stories. My problem with that is those types of stories are not truly open. They are limited to the options presented, and that analogy seems to be a shade of gray that may not be true O.T. The "infinite possibilities" is more where I am at as well, but I still have questions about how certain scripture can be understood in that context. Boyd has lots of arguments that counter the scripture-based arguments for determinism, and I think those are good building blocks for what I am trying to seek in clarifying my own view.
ReplyDeleteThe Calvinist says God foreknows the future, therefore the future is determined. The open theist says, there is no future for God to know, therefore, nothing is determined. The trouble is that the Scriptures are constantly referring to God's knowledge of the future. So how can God know the future, and the future still be free from determinism? My view, is that God knows ALL futures from wherever we are right now, and that he is redemptively at work within every possible future. He foreknows all futures, and every day, every thought, every act, of every person and thing determines which future will be realized. God knows more the THE future, he knows ALL possible futures. Foreknowledge and freedom are not mutually exclusive.
ReplyDeleteThe flavor of open theism Boyd seems to be serving in this book doesn't match up with your description, thus far. He is saying something more akin to your personal view actually, I think. His pitch seems to be that God has the overall framework of the creation/life story established and decided (determined) already. Hence, the existence and realization of prophecies, most prominently the realization of a Messiah in Jesus. But, getting to each point in history that has been already decided will take twists and turns that God has not decided.
ReplyDeleteFraming up the recurring stories of deliverance/exodus throughout biblical and post-biblical history as just another way to Christ (ultimate exodus and reconciliation and redemption with God) I think fits well with this line of thinking. Agreed, in the end, God is working to redeem all people and all things to Himself...the way is through Jesus. But to get to Jesus, many similar stories of redemption had to be (and will yet be) drawn out to their sub-conclusions. John was in line with this by starting out his gospel with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." True?
So, I think I am piecing together a better understanding of this....I think. The bridge between omniscience and limited determinism I think is free will. Scripture obviously supports omniscience and can be "proofed" to support 100% determinism. But we can also find examples of limits on God's final determinations as He defers to the will of man (mainly as a result of man's supplicative efforts) from time to time. The vast majority of this evidence is in the Old Testament, however, and I am caught wondering what New Testament scriptural guidance can be vetted in support. The exhortations of Christ and the apostles is to die to self, seek God's will, and so on. It almost seems to promote the deterministic side of the arguments.
Well, I will finish up Boyd's book and report more. :-)