“Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.”

- Jesus to Zacchaeus (Luke 19:9)

Zacchaeus was indeed a “wee little man,” and not only physically. He was a small man spiritually, a crook that ripped off his neighbors and pocketed his profit at their expense.

One day, Jesus informed Zacchaeus that he would be staying at his house. It was a visit that forever changed the undersized tax collector. After Zacchaeus hosted Jesus in his home, he proclaimed exuberantly that he would repair all he had broken in the world, restoring everything he had ever stolen. Then, Jesus exclaimed that salvation had come to Zacchaeus’ house!

Salvation came to Zacchaeus’ house because Jesus came to the house. Where Jesus is, there is salvation. Where salvation is, there is a renewal and restructuring of a person’s entire life. Zacchaeus’ encounter with Jesus led him to make restitution by paying back four times as much as he had stolen in his life. For Zacchaeus, repentance was not merely a feeling sorry for sin and a short, simple prayer. Repentance constituted a visible act that made amends and transformed evil into good.

When Jesus enters our lives, we cannot stay the same. Salvation cannot be reduced to our response to an altar call, or our filling out a decision card at church.

True repentance reaches into our checkbooks and makes changes, shuffling our priorities.

True repentance pushes us to our neighbor’s doorstep to ask for forgiveness for past faults.

True repentance cancels debts, transforms our priorities, reforms our desires, modifies our dreams, and heals our hurt and the hurt of others.

It was only after Zacchaeus expressed his change of heart and yearning for restoration that Jesus exclaimed: “Salvation has come!” What sin is lurking in your life that needs to be dealt with? In what area have you not allowed God to fully have His way? What are you holding back? Make the necessary adjustments, and the fresh winds of restoration will sweep over your life. Then, Jesus can say: “Salvation has come to this house! Salvation has come!”

first posted in February 2007

Yesterday, I posted a review of Dr. Michael Bird’s new book, Are You the One Who Is to Come?: The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question (Baker Academic, 2009). Today, I am interviewing Michael about his book and the implications of properly understanding Jesus’ messianic vocation.

Trevin Wax: Why do so many historical Jesus scholars shy away from affirming that Jesus understood his vocation in messianic terms?

Michael Bird: For a number of reasons.

First, belief in Jesus as Messiah was part of the early church’s faith and flowed from their conviction that Jesus was “made” Messiah by God upon his resurrection/exaltation (e.g. Acts 2.36; Rom. 1.3-4), and scholars see the early church as subsequently reading back messianic identity into the life-history of Jesus in the Gospels.

The reasoning is understandable, but flawed. Nowhere in any Jewish literature is there the inference: “resurrected” – therefore “Messiah”.

On top of that, Jesus’ messiahship does not figure prominently in the resurrection narratives of the Gospels. Short creedal summaries like Romans 1.3-4 imply the transformation of Jesus’ sonship to a new eschatological function that he did not possess before Easter, rather than signifying that resurrection suddenly marks the beginning of Jesus’ sonship, messiahship, etc.

Secondly, there aren’t many places in the Gospels which talk about Jesus as Messiah (except perhaps John 4.26, but John is rarely seen as historically valuable in reconstructing Jesus’ life by most historical Jesus scholars).

The problem here is that roles are more important than titles. It is principally what Jesus does, his “performative messianism” as I call it, that shows that he is placing himself in a messianic vocation. Claiming to be regathering Israel, ushering in the kingdom, rebuilding the temple, fighting Israel’s enemies – these are all messianic tasks.

At any rate, I do think that Jesus gives an oblique nod to messianic questions when posed to him like in Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi (Mark. 8.27-30) and John the Baptist’s question to Jesus posed through his followers (Matthew 11.2-6). It has to be oblique because, rather like a nominee to the Supreme Court before the Senate, you have to be careful what you say. Otherwise people will move on you faster than you can say “filibuster” if you utter something politically controversial or explosive!

Trevin Wax: How does the messianic expectation of the Second Temple period influence how we understand Jesus and his ministry?

Michael Bird: There are several things we need to balance together.

First, not all Jews were waiting for a Messiah, and not everyone believed in one or wanted one. You could have hopes for the future (eschatology) that gave no place to a Messiah at all in some Jewish writings (e.g. Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon).

Secondly, there was no single conception of “Messiah” waiting in the wings for Jesus to apply to himself so that everyone would have understood him as hoping people would say, “Oh look! Here comes the Messiah!” There was a great degree of diversity on this, as a mere comparison of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Psalms of Solomon, Philo, 4 Ezra, and the Parables of 1 Enoch suggest. A messiah could be royal, militaristic, priestly, transcendent, prophetic, etc.

Third, even given all of this diversity, it should not lead us to believe that these portraits of the Messiah(s) had no consistent or transferable traits. I find it interesting that similar texts like Gen. 49.10 and Num. 24.7, 17 come up again and again in the messianic exegesis of Jewish authors. Obviously the Messiah saves Israel, regathers the twelve tribes, ushers in a period of peace, renews the covenant, purifies Israel’s worship, crushes Israel’s enemies, casts out sinners, either subjugates or converts the Gentiles, etc.

So when we see Jesus as acting out this messianic role, saying things that are deliberately ambiguous as to what role he sees for himself in the kingdom, claiming to be greater than the temple and Solomon, referring to himself with the oblique self-reference “Son of Man”, and so forth, we need to put that into the context of intra-Jewish debates of what kind of eschatological deliverer there will be (if it will be!) and how Jesus taps into that background, affirms some elements, changes some, disregards others, and how that would be perceived by his contemporaries.

Trevin Wax: In what ways did Jesus redefine the role of Messiah?

Michael Bird: Probably the most interesting way is that Jesus seems to have combined the messianic role with the reference to the “one like a Son of Man” taken up from Daniel 7.

Now, this is a huge area of debate; it’s very controversial, and many will contest or protest my view on this. I swore that I would never go near the “Son of Man” debate in a million years because it is hairier than a Gorilla named Harry, but for this book, I just had to to do it.

So (deep breath) here I go: In Aramaic, “son of man” (Bar [e]nasha) basically means “human being” or “someone in my position”. It is like ben adam in Hebrew as per Psalm 8: What is man that you are mindful of him or the son of man that you should care for him? You can see how certain passages in the Gospels can make sense. For example, in Luke 9.58, you can easily change “Son of Man” for “I/me/those like me … have nowhere to lay their head”.

Similarly, in the Gospel of Matthew (that tends to re-Judaize Mark), in the story of Jesus’ healing of the paralytic by forgiving his sins (Matt 9.2-8), Jesus says that the “Son of Man has authority to forgive sins.” At the end, the crowd rejoices that such authority has been given to men! Matthew obviously sees the link between “Son of Man” and human beings because of his more Semitic pedigree than Mark.

Now, that said, Son of Man also has an implicit self-reference to the speaker as one particular example of the generic class. So, yes, human beings have the authority to forgive sins, but one particular human being is actually doing it and taking center stage.

The other thing to note here is that, in many cases, there seems to be a tacit hint of Daniel 7.13-14 behind Jesus’ usage of Son of Man. Daniel 7 is a tricky passage, and who the “one like a son of man” is, is debated (Israel, King, Messiah, Angel, etc.). But I think the “one like a son of man” is a royal and heavenly figure who represents Israel before God and achieves the tasks that God gave to Israel.

We see Jesus merging the Aramaic idiom with the Daniel 7 figure most clearly in several of his parables (e.g., Lk 19.10), the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13), and in his confession before the High Priest in Mk. 14.62.

Another way that Jesus redefines things (and I’ll be briefer here) is that from Jesus’ triumphal entry and Last Supper he seemed to link the Zecharian Shepherd-King of 9.9 with the smitten shepherd of 14.7. Zechariah seems to have influenced the final act in the public manfiestation of his messianic role, while Isaiah clearly provided the “script” for other aspects like preaching good news, healing the sick, sight for the blind, etc.

In other words, Jesus saw select themes and imagery from Isaiah and Zechariah has laying out the path that the Messiah had to walk, which showed that only through suffering and sacrifice would the new exodus that Israel needed and their salvation from the tribulation about to fall upon them, be achieved.

Trevin Wax: How does an affirmation of Jesus’ messianic understanding influence our overall view of Christ’s person and work?

Michael Bird: In two ways.

First, to call Jesus the “Messiah” means that we have to see Jesus as part of story of Israel. That means the history of Israel according to the Scriptures and also the state of Israel and Jews in the first-century context. It is no good to believe that Jesus simply is “the one” and his saving work can be ripped out of the Scriptural story-line or removed from the socio-religious context of first century Palestine.

To make Jesus “Messiah” means that he can never be a heavenly redeemer who floated down from earth and teaching bad people how to be good and how to get to heaven. Jesus can only be the Savior of Gentiles if he is first and foremost the Savior of Israel (see Rom. 15.8-9!). This is why some groups, Gnostic (like the Gospel of Philip) and proto-orothodox (like the Epistle of Barnabas) seem to undermine Jesus as Messiah, because they reject either the salvation of Israel or the authority of Israel’s Scriptures.

Second, Messiah simply means “anointed one” (though I like the title “appointed one” as a looser translater). The offices in the Old Testament that were anointed were Prophet, Priest, and King. In Christian theology we call this the munus triplex. To call Jesus the “Messiah” is to confess that he is the one who reveals God (Prophet), he reconciles us to God (Priest), and he rules at God’s right hand (King).

Trevin Wax: Are there any good books out there that would take this argument a step further, and make a convincing case that Jesus also saw his vocation as, in some sense, embodying the very presence of God himself? Can a case be made that Jesus saw his vocation as divine?

Michael Bird: That’s a good question.

Well, to begin with, Jesus did not cruise around Palestine saying, “Hi, I’m God, the second person of the Trinity, soon I’m going to die on the cross for your sins so you can go to heaven, but until then I’m gonna teach you all how to be good Christians”. That is wildly ahistorical, and yet it might be how many pious Christians read their Gospels.

One thing we do see is that Jesus speaks with a sense of unmediated authority. He doesn’t simply interpret Scripture; he authoritatively pronounces what Scripture means as if he were the author. In all the Gospels, we find the emphasis on Jesus being sent by God to perform certain roles and actions. But at the same time, you often get the sense that the line between author and agent has become blurred.

I would also point out that many messianic figures were thought to be pre-existent and transcendent, and we have to wonder if Jesus saw himself in this line, especially when some of the “I have come” sayings nudge in this direction. (See Simon Gathercole on The Pre-existent Son and the recent book by J.J. Collins and A.Y. Collins on the relationship between divinity and messianism as well).

For me the real “clincher” is a passage like Luke 19.41-45 where Jesus weeps over Jerusalem because it did not recognize the time of its “visititation” (most translations add the gloss “from God”). We have here the visitation of God through his prophetic agent for which the city is held to be liable.

When I read this, I think immediately of Ezek 34 where God promises to come and Shepherd his people, and then he says, I will send David to shepherd you. In other words, we have the coming of God in and through the arrival of his Davidic Shepherd King.

Related Posts:
A Bird’s Eye View of Paul
Having a Fresh Encounter with Paul: An Interview with Michael Bird

“What did Jesus know and when did he know it?”

Historical Jesus studies have long focused on Jesus’ assessment of himself. Did Jesus believe he was the Messiah? If so, when did he come to this knowledge? If not, why did the early church view him this way? The popular term for this concept is “messianic consciousness.”

Many historical Jesus scholars dismiss the idea that Jesus believed he was the Messiah. But Michael Bird’s newest book, Are You the One Who Is To Come?: The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question (Baker Academic, 2009) makes a persuasive case for seeing Jesus’ words and deeds as intentionally messianic.

How does Bird make his case?

First, Bird bypasses the usual investigations of Jesus’ self-consciousness. He writes:

“I do not like the term ‘messianic self-consciousness,’ since the mental states and psychological profiles of individuals from antiquity are beyond the bounds of historical inquiry. I prefer the phrase ‘messianic self-understanding,’ by which I mean Jesus’ identifying himself in a messianic role and couching his activities as messianic in character and purpose.” (29)

Bird leaves aside questions about what was going through Jesus’ mind, and instead focuses on the words and actions of Jesus. He combs through literature from the Second Temple period of Judaism in order to demonstrate the general features of messianic expectation during Jesus’ day.

“…What I propose then is that we identify an Old Testament text as ‘messianic’ when the plain sense of the text, designates a figure with royal qualities who is sent by God, and also that either the text itself was treated as messianic in post-biblical interpretation, or else the pattern of activity that the figure embodies corresponds to a pattern of activity often expected of messianic figures in antiquity.” (46)

Bird’s valuable criteria help us understand the messianic expectations of first-century Jews, a matter of vital importance for this discussion.

Next, Bird convincingly refutes the explanations that deny that Jesus could have seen his vocation in messianic terms. Bird resembles someone poking holes in a wall that is already crumbling. He exposes the paucity of historical argumentation among scholars who cling to the idea that Jesus did not see his actions in any messianic sense at all.

Finally, Bird seeks to put forth a plausible alternative to the scholarly skeptics. He argues that Jesus Christ actually did believe himself to be the Messiah. But Bird is careful in how he makes this argument. For example, in reference to Jesus’ self-identification as the “Son of Man”, Bird writes:

“I am not arguing that ‘son of man’ was a fixed messianic title in pre-Christian Judaism or even that Jesus’ self-reference a ‘son of man’ was clearly messianic in every utterance. What I am arguing for instead is that the son of man figure of Daniel 7 contributed to the construction of a messianic narrative; it was capable of sustaining a messianic interpretation and was occasionally interpreted as messianic in pockets of pre-Christian Judaism, and Jesus’ employment of the phrase taps into this background.” (84)

Bird’s careful distinctions are helpful. He is able to show that Jesus’ use of the “son of man” title can point to a certain messianic identity without carrying the full weight of outright messianic claims.

Bird makes the case that Jesus Christ spoke in messianic terms and performed actions that aligned with certain messianic expectations. In the end, he believes this evidence points to the fact that Jesus did indeed see himself as the Messiah.

Furthermore, for Bird, it makes little sense for the early church to have forced messianic categories back onto Jesus and his ministry unless they arose from Jesus’ own actions.

“The messianism of the early church was not an impromptu add-on to disappointed hopes; instead, it issued forth in a comprehensive reconfiguration of the Jewish belief mosaic on topics such as kingship, vindication, eschatology, restoration, and the fate of the nations. The messianism of the first Jesus followers was not merely the Christianization of a homogenous and extant Jewish messianic myth; rather, it involved the redefinition and transformation of a selection of pluriform exegetical traditions and apocalyptic narratives around Jesus.” (150)

My only quibble with Bird’s work is that, in seeking to demonstrate his objectivity, he writes as if denying Jesus’ messianic understanding does no harm to Christian faith.

“…My faith would not be particularly impaired or revised if Jesus had not claimed to be the Messiah and the early church had attached this title to him as merely one way of explicating his significance. The early church did, after all, attach certain roles and functions to Jesus – such as ‘Righteous One,’ ‘Prince of Peace,’ and ‘Firstborn’ – that Jesus did not claim for himself. I for one feel no compulsion to project those roles and titles into the ministry of the historical Jesus so as to somehow validate them…” (161)

I think I agree with Bird here. But the fact is… if the Gospels had portrayed Jesus speaking of himself as the Righteous One or the Firstborn and historical Jesus scholars were to reject the Gospel witness and claim that the early church was merely foisting these titles back on Jesus, then we would have a problem.

So, I agree with Bird that the idea of Jesus seeing himself as messianic might not be crucial to our faith in the abstract sense,  but precisely because of the very case that Bird makes (which shows Jesus accepting and redefining the messianic vocation), I want to say that this subject is indeed vital. If Jesus did not understand himself this way, then we are facing a problem in our view of biblical inspiration.

On a related note, I would love to see someone go further than the messianic question to the idea of Jesus’ divinity. “Did Jesus see himself as the divine representation of God? Did he see himself as the embodiment of Yahweh?’

Overall, Are You the One Who Is To Come? is a worthy contribution to historical Jesus studies. Bird’s case is rock solid. I am happy to recommend such a persuasive case for Jesus’ messianic self-understanding.

Last month, I preached the greatest sermon ever recorded in the history of the world. Greatest, of course, because it is from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself. On April 19, at the request of our senior adults, I delivered the Sermon on the Mount from memory for our congregation. (See the video below.)

I encourage other pastors and preachers to consider preaching large sections of Scripture from memory. Your congregation will be edified in a special way.

Here are some tips for getting started:

1. Choose a literal Bible translation.

I chose to preach the Sermon on the Mount from the English Standard Version, since it is my translation of choice. You might assume that dynamic translations are easier to memorize, but such is not the case. Word-for-word translations are easier to commit to memory, probably because they are closer to the original text, which was intended to be passed down orally.

2. Listen to the Scriptures on Mp3.

For several weeks leading up to delivery, I listened to a recitiation of the Sermon on my Mp3 player. When taking  a shower, when in the car, before going to bed… Find time to listen to the text you want to preach.

3. Read the passage out loud once or twice daily.

Listening helps solidify the words of the text in your mind. But nothing will substitute for the hard work of reading the text out loud and then trying to say it word for word. Try reading the text every night before going to bed. Sleep will help you retain the main ideas of the text.

4. Practice the sermon with someone who is not afraid to correct every mistake.

Corina was a big help to me as I prepared for the Sermon. Whenever I missed a word or phrase, she would let me know. Discovering where the difficulties are will help you be more comfortable as you continue the work of memorization.

An example: Many of Jesus’ words in the Sermon are in chiastic structure, not Western-styled outline form. (1) No one can serve two masters. For either he will (2) hate the one and (3) love the other, or he will be (3) be devoted to the one and (2) despise the other. (1) You cannot serve God and money. The chiastic structure is unfamiliar to us and can lead to easy mistakes. Understanding the structure helps you catch the rhythm of the ancient text.

Below is the video from my Sermon on the Mount delivery:

Part 1 (Matthew 5)

Part 2 (Matthew 6-7)

Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:4-6) 

Last November, Mumbai, the largest city in India, was the target of a series of coordinated terrorist attacks that killed 173 people. Two of the victims were from Brooklyn, New York – a Jewish Rabbi and his wife, both in their late 20′s. Kashmiri militants entered the rabbi’s home and slaughtered the parents. The nanny found their 2-year-old son, Moshe, sitting in a pool of his parents’ blood.

When the memorial service took place in Brooklyn, New York, the two-year-old boy cried out for his slain parents. “Ima! Abba!” he said, using the Hebrew words for mother and father. Little Moshe’s weeping wail echoed through the synagogue, drowning out the voices of the hundreds of people mourning his parents’ death.

Do you ever ask Why? Why does God allow this kind of pain? Why is it that the world is such a messed-up, broken place? And yet why is it that we can see so much beauty in this world together with so much ugliness?

I have often wondered what it must have been like for those suffering in the Holocaust to have witnessed a beautiful sunset from behind the barbed wire of the concentration camps. How do you look at a gorgeous sunset, and at the same time see smoke from the smokestacks rising to the sky, smoke coming from the piles of burning bodies of men, women and children?

Why do the innocent suffer? Asking this question leads us to Jesus. Why did Jesus, the Innocent One, suffer the way he did? Isaiah gives us answer as he focuses on the suffering Servant. It is an ancient prophecy about Jesus Christ.

And Isaiah says of his people: “We like sheep have gone astray, and yet God has laid on him the iniquity of us all!” In other words, we are to blame. Our evil is responsible for the brokenness of the world.

Our powerful God created us to reflect his image, to rule wisely over creation. And we rebelled. Our good God called out a people, the children of Israel, to be the light of the world, the people through whom his blessings would flow. And they rebelled.

But where we as humans rebelled against God, and where Israel revolted against the Lord, Jesus submitted to the Father’s plan. He laid down his life in obedience. Where we as humans failed in our task to reflect God rightly and where Israel failed in her task to shine God’s love to the rest of the world, Jesus remained faithful. He accomplished God’s will in its fullness.

So there he is, upon the cross. Crushed for our iniquities. Bearing our sorrows. Taking upon himself our sin, our shame, our evil, our pain. The perfect Son of God puts himself in our place, taking the evil we have perpetrated against God, and suffering its horrible consequences.

You see, the cry of little Moshe was once the cry of Jesus. “Abba! Abba!” he cried in the Garden of Gethsemane. “If it is possible, let this cup pass from me. Yet not my will, but yours be done.”

It is because of the cross that we know God is not absent from our suffering and pain. It is because of the cross that we can experience forgiveness and reconciliation and peace with God.

And so, as we see the evil of this world, and admit and confess the evil present in our own hearts, we too cry out: Abba! Abba!

Jesus is God’s answer to our cry.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2009 Kingdom People blog

Related Posts:
Let My People Go! A Meditation for Holy Week
It is Finished!

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.  (Titus 3:11-14)

Paul’s letter to Titus speaks of Jesus Christ giving himself for us in order to redeem us. When we think of redeeming things, we think of coupons. Or we may think of the slave trade in the United States two hundred years ago, and the possibility of buying freedom for a slave.

But the people in New Testament times would not have associated redemption with these things. When a first-century Jew heard about redemption, they thought back to the Exodus – that great moment in Jewish history when God delivered the Israelites from bondage in Egypt.

God appeared to Moses and promised deliverance, saying, “I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from slavery to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment.”

Moses went before Pharaoh, King of Egypt, with a message from the Lord, King of the world. God says, “Let my people go!” Pharaoh refused. So God poured out his wrath upon Egypt, destroyed the Egyptian army, and thereby rescued his people from foreign captivity.

Today, we do not find ourselves enslaved to a foreign nation. But the Scriptures teach that we are in bondage. Human beings are enslaved to sinful desires and lusts. We are in captivity to the Evil One, who is a greater Enemy than Pharaoh ever was. We are enslaved to the curse of death, as we watch our loved ones snatched away and realize that our own death awaits us.

But just like God destroyed the power of Pharaoh in order to rescue his people and take them to the Promised Land, God has now acted through the person and work of Jesus Christ to redeem us as well. The grace of God has appeared that we might be freed from our sinfulness. Jesus Christ has come to give himself for us, that we might be redeemed, bought back, no longer in captivity to the Enemy.

As Jesus was dying upon the cross two thousand years ago, the voice of God the Father resounded throughout the universe, sending the clear and unstoppable message to Satan and all the forces of hell – LET MY PEOPLE GO!

God delivers us from our sinfulness. He delivers us from our self-centeredness. He delivers us from slavery to the Evil One. He delivers us from condemnation, nailing the accusations of the Evil One to the cross where Jesus died. He even delivers us from death itself.

The passage we read before says that God is purifying for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. We have left behind our old way of life and are now on our way to God’s Promised Land.

We are delivered from evil for good works.

We are delivered from death for a new life.

We are delivered from sin for righteousness.

Our master is no longer Satan, but Jesus Christ, the King of kings. We now have hope. We now have peace.

And we await the return of Jesus Christ, when on the Last Day, the Day of Resurrection, even the curse of death will be overturned forever.

When the unveiling of Jesus Christ the King takes place, all who are in the graves will hear the voice of the Crucified and Risen Lord, and Death will be dealt its final blow, as Jesus shouts to the graveyards, “LET MY PEOPLE GO!” And those who hear the voice of the Son of God will live.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2009 Kingdom People blog

Yesterday, I reviewed a recent book by Nicholas Perrin entitled Lost In Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus. Nick is Associate Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College. I am delighted to publish this interview with Nick on the subject of his book.

Trevin Wax: What prompted you to write a book about the transmission of the Gospel accounts for the layperson?

Nick Perrin: Thomas Nelson approached me to do this project because they felt there was room for yet something else to be done in response to Bart Ehrman’s book, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. Because I am not a text critic by speciality I was initially inclined to turn the proposal down. But as I thought about it, and thought about what Ehrman was actually up to, I thought, Well, maybe there is something I can do here.

The book turns out not to be so much a blow by blow (here’s what you say about the Western text at this point, but here’s what I say — snooze); rather, I think someone needs to bring up the broader, epistemological issues and presuppositions that drive Ehrman’s reasoning. So often, the way we evangelicals go about thinking about the Bible feeds right into Ehrman’s epistemological Kool-Aid.

Trevin Wax: When confronted with claims from people like Bart Ehrman about changes in manuscript evidence, you say that the instinctive default mode of conservative Christians is to ignore the whole matter and hope that this unsettling talk about changes to the manuscript tradition goes away. Why is it that evangelicals tend to go this way?

Nick Perrin: By and large, Christians have taught themselves not to think historically or use their historical imagination. We are more interested in giving each other ‘the right answers’, but what we need to do is become better thinkers.

History can be messy business and there is a lot we don’t know. (I think Christians are afraid of that proposition, although — again if they are thinking about their faith rightly — they shouldn’t be.) In response to new intellectual challenges we need more Christians trained to think analytically and less Christians who claim to have it all sorted.

Trevin Wax: You write that “rules for doing Jesus scholarship don’t just materalize out of think air: someone – someone who wants to win the game – makes the rules.” What are some of the “rules” today in historical Jesus studies and where did they come from?

Nick Perrin: Historical Jesus studies today are at a bit of a crossroads, where certain scholars cling to certain methodological procedures which other scholars are finding more and more questionable. (The criterion of dissimilarity is a great example of this.)

My point in the book is to disabuse readers of the notion that Jesus scholars are scientists wearing white lab coats. Like everyone else, they want certain things to be true about Jesus and equally want certain others not to be true of him. I’m included in this (I really hope that I am right in believing that Jesus is both Messiah and Lord.) Will this shape my scholarship? Absolutely. How can it not? We should be okay with that.

Trevin Wax: You write that the Gospel accounts are indeed interpretive, and yet you also believe we can trust their historicity. Why do you reject Ehrman’s assumption that sees interpretation and observation as mutually exclusive?

Nick Perrin: For a long time now Gospels scholarship has been laboring under the false alternative of theology versus history. In other words, if, say, Luke is doing theology and interpreting Jesus theologically, then he cannot, it is said, have much interest in history. Indeed, we must expect he fudges the ‘facts’ as he sees fit.

This kind of false antithesis is in some ways a legacy of the modernist distinction between fact and value; in some ways, it is a failure, when Christians fall prey to this, to grasp the incarnation, where theology and fact merge.

Trevin Wax: How do you deal with the apparent contradictions in the Gospel accounts?

Nick Perrin: I think the first thing to say about apparent contradictions is that there is no ‘one size fits all’ rule. You have to work through the synopsis case by case, make decisions about what the evangelists are trying to do, make decisions about lines of influence, and make decisions as to whether, say, Luke and Matthew, are actually reporting the same events, or two different events that have a lot in common, etc.

In my book, I raise a few tricky inconsistencies, and ask readers to consider at least every once in a while to say, “I don’t know.” Better a humble “I don’t know” than a contrived and far-fetched resolution.

Nick Perrin: For years the Jewishness of Jesus as been conveniently ignored and this has really given us a very skewed picture of who Jesus was. Historical figures never operate in a vacuum; there is always a context to be considered. By denying Jesus’ Jewishness, you are ripping him right out of his context: you are bound to have some real distortions.

Getting Jesus-out-of-context is tempting because it positions you to conform Jesus to your ideology (liberal, conservative, whatever). But Jesus is his own ideology.

Trevin Wax: You write about the temptations that accompany the acquisition of knowledge. “When you know something other people don’t know, you feel powerful.” How can seminary students and pastors avoid this temptation to use knowledge in the wrong way?

Nick Perrin: It is often tempting for recent seminary grads, especially young and bookish grads who were — rightly — excited about all they had just learned, to go over the top when they land in a church. By this I mean that they come to see their job as being a kind of seminary prof to their congregants. Generally speaking, this is not what people are looking for. They are looking to be shepherded, not for an informal MDiv.

I think what really makes learning exciting is not getting all the answers, but getting a fresh set of questions. On my intellectual and spiritual journey, I am in a much better place when I am long on questions and short on answers, rather than vice versa.

Interview with Nick Perrin  © 2009 Kingdom People blog

In recent years, I have noticed that many of the twenty and thirty-somethings in my circle ask very pointed questions about the accuracy of the biblical text. Some of the questioners are devoted Christians; others are outside the faith, challenging the foundation of our belief system. Regardless of their background, they are familiar with History Channel documentaries about the Gnostic or Lost Gospels and they have seen movies like The Da Vinci Code.

C.S. Lewis famously argued that Jesus must be either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. There are no other legitimate options. Despite the brilliance of Lewis’ trilemma, his apologetic falls apart if one disposes with the historical data of Jesus given to us in the Gospels. The Jesus of the canonical Gospels must be either liar, lunatic, or Lord. But once you question the historicity of the biblical picture of Jesus, his identity is once again in dispute.

Enter Nick Perrin, former research assistant to N.T. Wright and now the Assistant Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College. Perrin’s book Lost In Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus takes on the recent critics of the Gospels’ reliability in a winsome and readable manner for laypeople.

The impetus for Lost in Transmission is the recent work of Bart Ehrman. Ehrman has made the argument at the popular level that the words of Jesus have been corrupted beyond recovery – intentionally tampered with by the scribes who handed down the words of Jesus.

Readers of Ehrman are struck by the personal nature of his writings. Ehrman cannot reconcile the existence of a good God and the existence of horrifying, unspeakable evils. Perrin’s response is just as personal. He recounts his own spiritual journey as he dismantles the illogical theses of Ehrman.

Writes Perrin:

“This book is for different kinds of people. It is for the countless people out there who, though interested in Jesus, are afraid to believe because they think that we cannot know anything about him or his words. It is also for Christians who are afraid to think because they believe we cannot know anything about Jesus. And it is for Christians who, being unafraid to believe or think, have dared to ascend the intellectual climbing wall of their faith, but who, having been harnessed into the Enlightenment understanding of historical evidence, are unaware of the fragility of that harness.” (x)

Perrin believes that evangelicals need to do business with historical research. We dare not ignore the historical challenges to our faith: 

“When people succumb to that temptation of ignoring challenges to their faith, they are in the end demonstrating that they are more committed to the feeling of having a lock on truth than they are to truth itself.” (xxi)

In other words, Perrin sees our refusal to engage in the historical debate as a backhanded denial of the truths at the very heart of Christianity. We must never suppress the historical truths surrounding the life of Jesus Christ presented in the Gospels. For Perrin, history and Christianity are inseparable because of the nature of the resurrection.

“I do claim that for historical reasons we can have a great deal of confidence in the scriptural record of Jesus’ words – and for that matter, his deeds as well. My own confidence may initially be born of biblical faith, but it is not a faith willfully oblivious to historical realities. Nor is biblical faith to be afraid of historical inquiry; rather, it seeks out such inquiry. If faith and history collide, it might make a pretty mess for a time. But the only worse mess is a stillborn faith that insists on fleeing history and, ultimately, the world in which we live. Never let it be said that the self-revelation of Jesus Christ demands blind acquiescence. Rather, it demands we ask questions when we’ve come to realize, once again, that we don’t yet fully understand the implications of that revelation.” (42)

The above passage forms the heart of Lost in Transmission. Perrin’s book attempts to demonstrate the need for us to do business with historical inquiry and to answer historical questions correctly.

I benefited from Perrin’s focus on the Jewish-ness of Jesus. Failing to take into account Jesus’ Judaism leads to a failure to understand his words and deeds in the appropriate context.

Likewise, I enjoyed Perrin’s unmasking of the arrogance and exclusivity of Enlightenment liberalism. Perrin ably demonstrates the closed-mindedness of the Enlightenment perspective, even as it parades under the guise of openness. He writes: 

“It is hard, if not impossible, to take Jesus’ Judaism seriously and make him into a poster child for Western liberalism.” (62)

I also appreciated Perrin’s desire to not over-harmonize the Gospel accounts when he runs into apparent discrepancies. He recognizes the danger of the extreme harmonizing tendency to flatten out the different picture each Gospel author desired to present to the readers.

Perrin says we should let the Gospels be the Gospels:

“Luke’s Jesus has to be understood for what he has to say without Matthew’s Jesus interrupting. The problem with sending one evangelist in to rescue another is that this becomes an easy way to get the Gospels to say what we want to hear. To me, this is just manipulating the Gospels as a magician might manipulate a stack of cards.” (123)

Perrin’s critique of the Enlightenment does not lead him to make statements of utter certainty. He proposes what seems to be a chastened postmodern sensibility that accepts our lack of understanding regarding certain aspects of the Gospels.

Do not expect Lost in Transmission to solve every textual problem you have as you study the Gospels. Instead, enjoy the reflections of a scholar whose work will increase your confidence in the reliability and accuracy of the biblical text.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2009 Kingdom People blog

Christ conquers sin, death and the grave, freeing us from the power of the evil one.

Christ conquers demons, freeing people from oppression.

Christ heals people, freeing us from sickness.

Christ forgives people, freeing us from guilt and sin.

Christ calls people, freeing us from being focused on ourselves.

Christ loves people, freeing us from the futility of trying to earn favor with God.

Christ teaches people, freeing us from misunderstandings about God and his Law.

Christ resists temptation, freeing us from our inclination to always choose our own way over God’s.

Christ comes back from the dead, freeing us from the sting of death.

Christ gives us his Spirit, freeing us from being motivated only by our selfishness.

Christ promises to return, freeing us from despair that history is pointless and not moving anywhere.

(Feel free to add to these in the comments section.)

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Are you interested in some indepth study in the Gospels? Let me point you to four books that will help you in your study.

1. Jesus and the Gospels
Craig Blomberg (Broadman and Holman, 1997)

One of the best evangelical resources on the Gospels. Blomberg does a terrific job of acquainting his readers with information on the scholarly/historical debates surrounding the Gospels, while also offering a survey of the life of Jesus. The final chapter attempts to summarize the “theology of Jesus” and is by itself worth the price of the book. 

2. Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ
Robert H. Stein (IVP Academic, 1996)

Bob Stein’s survey of the life of Christ stands out among other works on the Gospels in the way he summarizes both the teaching and the life of Jesus. It is remarkable how much helpful material Stein is able to include in a relatively brief book.

3. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
Edited by I. Howard Marshall, Joel B. Green, and Scot McKnight (IVP, 1992)

I am excited to hear that this Dictionary is currently being revised and will eventually be re-released. That said, as it stands, the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels is an important contribution to evangelical scholarship that provides a wealth of important information for Gospels scholars. If you are looking to study the Gospels in detail, you need to have this book on your shelf.

 4. Synopsis of the Four Gospels
Compiled by Kurt Aland, (United Bible Societies, 1982)

It is helpful to study the Gospels “horizontally,” that is – in comparison to one another. No other resource better aligns the Gospel material than Kurt Aland’s Survey. Any time I teach on the Gospels, I pull out this resource and compare and contrast the different accounts in order to clearly see the emphasis of each Gospel author.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog