Jesus and the Victory of God (CHRISTIAN ORIGINS AND THE QUESTION OF GOD) (英語) ペーパーバック – 1997/8/1

N.T. Wright has been described as one of the premier New Testament scholars of our time. If you've read any of his popular works like the recent The Case for the Psalms: Why They Are Essential or Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues, you probably already know how good he can be. But in his scholarly series Christian Origins and the Question of God, of which this is the second volume, Mr. Wright's intellectual prowess is given free reign. In this work, Mr. Wright builds off his first volume, The New Testament and the People of God, and examines the historical Jesus. After some introductory chapters on the history of historical Jesus scholarship from Albert Schweitzer to the present, Mr. Wright tries to answer five main questions and a sixth implied question: 1. How does Jesus fit into the Judaism of his day?; 2. What were his aims?; 3. Why did he die?; 4. How did the church come into being and why did it take the shape it did?; 5. Why are the gospels what they are?; and 6. So what? To that end, Mr. Wright does a tremendous job of building upon the foundations he had laid in his first volume and bring Jesus into the context of the times he lived in rather than trying to bend Jesus to the world views of today. By doing so Jesus is revealed to be an ingenious man, fully confident in his calling, who took the cultural symbols, stories, and practices of his time and bent it back to point towards himself as Israel's long-awaited Messiah, if not the one that many first-century Jews were expecting or even hoping for. It is an incredibly three-dimensional historical-theological portrait of Jesus and an incredibly complicated one too. There is a lot technical jargon and citations of apocryphal writings like the Wisdom literature of the intertestamental period and the apocryphal gospels that even many devout lay Christians have probably never read. This was a difficult read for me and I would suggest that you tackle this book after you've familiarized yourself with the major teachings of your church. Aside from its difficulty, I also had two other problems with this work. First, Mr. Wright follows the conventions of past scholars on the topic of the historical Jesus and uses only the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) as his foundational texts with the book of John playing a greater supporting role and the apocryphal gospels less so. Although I recognize that the stark differences in John's gospel compared to the synoptic gospel accounts plus the late date in which John was probably written does mean that John may not have as much to say about the HISTORICAL Jesus and more about the THEOLOGICAL Jesus, I personally find it to be a silly convention and that, if John was good enough for the church fathers to fully include it with the other gospel accounts, who are we to say otherwise? The other problem I had was with Mr. Wright's characterization of Jesus' self-awareness, which occupies chapter 13 of this work. If I understood his point, Mr. Wright contends that Jesus had a notion of himself being called to be Israel's Messiah, but that didn't necessarily mean Jesus thought of himself as the second person of a triune God. Mr. Wright strains himself to declare that that does not mean that Jesus wasn't a part of the Trinity, which would be a breach of one of the foundational teachings of mainstream Christianity since the early church, but by staking out this position it feels like the beginning of a slippery slope that could lead to a denouncing of the divinity of Christ and the triune God. Plus, when the synoptic gospels are examined in the light of the gospel of John, it does seem to me that Jesus must have thought of himself as in some way divine (which, brings me back to my first criticism above). Some of his self-statements are too bold for him to be anything else (unless Jesus was a liar or insane, the old C.S. Lewis axiom). Of course, New Testament history and theology isn't my primary field of study, so I could very well have misunderstood Mr. Wright's argument. In spite of these concerns, I believe that Mr. Wright has captured the fulness of Christ in the context of his times. This book also provides one of the best historical explanations for why Jesus was crucified (i.e. why did the Sanhedrin hand him over to the Romans to be executed, why did the Romans execute him, and why did Jesus let himself be executed?) If you have the time and the intellectual and spiritual gumption for New Testament scholarship, I highly recommend this book.

This is the second time I have read this book. This time, I am not skipping over parts and this time, I read his first volume, The New Testament and the People of God, first which really, really helps to ground this volume. He is a wonderful scholar and a clear writer. So much of what I learned in seminary, so many questions I had about interpretation are answered in here. It's amazing how it took an historian of the New Testament period to make sense of so much the theologians got wrong. The Jesus he reveals really is the one who followed John the Baptist's fiery pronouncements, but with in a way no one was quite ready for.

Once again in Volume 2 of the Series "The New Testament and the People of God", British theologian N.T. Wright has given scholars, historians, pastors and lay people a lot to chew on. He has provided a solid historical evaluation of the prophetic ministry of Jesus along with his aims and beliefs.

One thing that must constantly be kept in mind in this work is that it is historical in nature more so than theological. That is not to say that it is not theological; it is that. But Wright's passion is for the historical perspective. He does try to weave together the theological and the historical in this volume, as he did in Volume 1. I think overall he does pretty well.

Where I gained insight was in the eschatological nature of the gospels. Wright makes the case that Jesus ministry was intentionally eschatological (primarily symbolic). For that reason, western theologians have read the gospels anachronistically for the most part. We read the gospels like they are the letters of Paul. If we are students of the Bible, we need to keep in mind the genre of the particular book we are studying. Wright says that the gospels are often treated solely theologically while ignoring the historical context.

One of the points that Wright repeats (almost ad nauseum) is that when Jesus spoke of his coming in judgment that he was not speaking of some future parousia, but of his current presence among them and his forthcoming death and resurrection. What this means is that Jesus was pronouncing judgment on the Jews for their rejection of Jesus. He points out as evidence the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 by the Romans. The Jews of Jesus' day had their focus on their deliverance from Romans oppression. Therefore, they missed their true Messiah (Jesus). Because of this rejection, Jesus pronounces and acts out judgment. In this respect he is like the prophet Ezekiel who lay on both his sides (See Ezekiel Chapter 4) to symbolize the siege against Jerusalem.

Jesus parables and his ministry were primarily directed at the Jews. While he did have a world focus (the Great Commission for example), his main goal was to defeat the real enemy (the Satan, as Wright puts it) and to provide a redefinition of Israel. Jesus was inaugurating the kingdom in his ministry, death and resurrection. By a redefinition Wright means that Jesus provided a new way of understanding the law (Torah), he took upon himself the function of the temple (by his sacrificial death), and demonstrated meekness instead of resisting enemies (Rome).

In Part II of the book (The Profile of a Prophet), Wright's focus is on the prophetic ministry of Jesus. Wright makes the case that Jesus should be seen as a prophet whose main focus was on the eschatological (again symbolic). To make his point, Jesus told many stories. Many of his stories revolved around the "Kingdom of God". The point Jesus conveyed in these stories is apparent: The coming of the Kingdom (in Jesus), and the redefinition of Israel, meant that the end was at hand for Israel as a political entity. The new Israel was to be centered in the Person of Jesus. Those who embraced Jesus would be saved.

Within a generation the Romans would attack them, destroy the Temple and scatter the Jews to the four winds. Those who did believe in Jesus and embraced the new paradigm would escape. Those who insisted on rebellion and revolution against Rome would be swept away in judgment. Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel. Everything that God had intended for Israel was being fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus is the Prophet spoken of in (Deuteronomy 18:18). The tragedy is that by and large, the Jews did not believe the word of the Prophet and because of this unbelief, they would be judged.

In Part III (The Aims and Beliefs of Jesus) we encounter a discussion about how Jesus saw himself. What was the goal of Jesus? What was the purpose of his miracles and his parables/teachings? Jesus understood his mission. He knew that he was the Messiah. He knew that he was the Prophet. He resisted the temptation by the Satan to use power to gain followers. Jesus lived out humility and meekness. He understood more than anyone else that the demand for a political King. He resisted that way. The Messiah would defeat Israel's true enemy: not Rome, but the Satan. That defeat meant that Jesus would have to endure the cross. He would die for the expiation of sin (removal of guilt), the atonement for sin (payment for sin) and the propitiation of sin (assuagement of wrath). He knew that the temple sacrifices were at an end. He would make the one final sacrifice for sin by his death. If Israel would truly come back from exile, then they would have to leave behind all they knew and embrace Jesus.

Since the Babylonian exile, the LORD had not really manifested his presence among his people as in the days of Moses (the cloud of glory by day and night). The second temple was not really the final answer. They were still "in exile". The coming of the kingdom, as Jesus taught it, was that he presented himself as the one who was inaugurating the kingdom. Only those who had ears to hear would come to Jesus to be saved.

Overall, I really learned a lot from this work. I gained a healthy appreciation for the historical aspect of the gospels. That Jesus ministry was mainly focused on the Jews and his offer of a new paradigm for Israel. He inaugurated the kingdom of God in his ministry, death and resurrection. I would differ with Wright in that I do believe that Jesus spoke about a literal Parousia. I believe he had a double meaning. As with the Old Testament prophets, Jesus pronouncements had an immediate contextual interpretation (as Wright correctly asserts) but he also had (I believe) something to say to the future church who would be reading his words in the gospels. Jesus would one day come back on a literal cloud (Acts 1:11).

Now at the end of this volume, the reader is prepared for Volume III. In it, Wright tackles the huge topic of the Resurrection of the Son of God. The quality of the scholarship and the depth of writing certainly affirm the popularity of Wright. While I did not agree with all of Wright's assertions, I have certainly grown in my appreciation of the gospels and especially the historical aspects of the New Testament. I would certainly recommend this book.

An essential book for anyone interested in the historical Jesus; he carefully avoids metaphysical assumptions, either atheistic or Christian, almost buries you in documentation, offers one of the few coherent interpretations of Jesus's life and answers what he thinks are the five basic questions about Jesus: what were his goals, what was his relationship to Judaism, why did he die, what was his relation with the scriptures and with the early church. I know that he has a high reputation among Jesus scholars, deservedly so, and I think that, as far as I'm concern, he is like the Keynes of the study--you can argue for him or against him but not without him. The only criticism, and it's really not one, is that his attempt to place himself in the context of other Jesus scholarship was a bit tedious; necessary, but tedious.