Michael Bird, Are You the One Who Is to Come?

This is more of a brief note than a full-scale book review because I've been a little swamped lately. But I didn't want to let this great book go by without mention. In it Bird undertakes the much contested question in Jesus Studies concerning Jesus own self-presentation: who did he say and show himself to be? And for Bird, this means investigating the intention and identity exhibited by Jesus, arguing that Jesus "saw himself in messianic categories" (29). This proceeds, after an introductory chapter, with a careful though certainly not exhaustive look at messianic expectation in Second Temple Judaism, which provides the essential background and material for what is to follow, arguing that while there was indeed a variety of expectation, or in some cases even lack there of, during this period, even amid this diversity there were ideas and trajectories that were recognizably messianic. He then looks at whether Jesus declined the messianic role, undertaking specifically a study of the Markan Messianic secret motif, as well as interacting with the idea that Jesus' messiahship was only a post-resurrection inference, concluding that Jesus acted in such a way to deliberately arouse messianic hopes. The third chapter looks at how Jesus redefined the role of messiah in his own ministry, with a focus on how Jesus understood the "Son of Man" imagery and also the royal imagery that arises out of Israel's Scripture. The fifth chapter focuses in on Jesus final week and death as keys to seeing Jesus messianism. He concludes the chapter, "I think that Jesus' deliberate attempt to act out a messianic vocation is the smoking gun that explains the messianic testimony of the early church" (158).

These careful investagations lead him to the conclusion that several patterns and themes from the Jesus tradition come together to show that "Jesus' career centered on several messianic scenarios based upon the themes of victory, temple, and enthronement, and these were related to sociopolitical circumstances of Palestine in the first century," and that Jesus saw his role as "'the man' who will be vindicated and receive a kingdom" (159). He then concludes the book with a relatively brief yet helpful constructive chapter thinking about what understanding Jesus as Messiah means for the Christian faith, looking at such themes as relation to Israel, eschatology, and christology proper.

Bird's book is relatively brief, considering the vast amount of terrain it covers, but I found it enjoyable and well argued. He has woven a number of important threads of the Gospels together to paint a coherent picture of Jesus as the Christ, and specifically of Jesus as one who took that role upon himself and acted it out. I am appreciative of his arguments and his great learning, and will certainly refer to it any time questions arise concerning Jesus and his messiahship.

John the Baptist and Jesus the Messiah

I have been reading Mike Bird's excellent Are You the One Who Is to Come?: The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question recently, and have thus been thinking about Jesus' identity as the Messiah. For those who don't read much academic theology, it may come as a rather jarring surprise to know that the dominant current in Jesus studies over the last century has largely rejected the idea that Jesus considered himself to be the Messiah, or at least held it with great suspicion. This is especially surprising since it is one of the dominant themes of all four gospels. But regardless, this denial of Jesus' own Messianic consciousness has been wide-spread, and is relatively close to a consensus view among many mainstream academics. Bird, in his book, sets out to make a sustained case for Jesus' Messianic role and Messianic consciousness through explicating his teaching and actions. And I've found his presentation both helpful in understanding Jesus and his aims better and also quite convincing in its overall argument that Jesus was self-consciously Messianic.

But one area that Bird doesn't address very fully (it's a relatively short 170 pages of text, so it is obviously a rather "trim" treatment of what could be otherwise voluminously investigated, so this isn't a criticism so much as a proposal) is Jesus' relationship with John the Baptist, in what seems to me to be a pretty solid piece of evidence for Jesus' Messianic consciousness. John's role as the forerunner to Jesus is prominent at the outset of all four Gospels, and his message is quite consistent as one of repentance, coming judgment, and expectation of one who will follow/come after him. Though I don't think John ever explicitly names this coming one as the Messiah, many aspects of his preaching seem to fit well with this type of expectation. And where I think this plays into Jesus' consciousness in that even though John and Jesus had close ties, Jesus possibly even starting out as one of John's disciples and certainly holding John in high esteem, there is a fundamental difference in their preaching and eschatological posture: John preached a message of expectation and preparation, while Jesus focused on a message of arrival and fulfillment. It seems clear that Jesus saw the kingdom coming decisively in his ministry and person, and this fundamental difference between Jesus and John points pretty clearly toward a self-conscious decision on Jesus part: otherwise, why wouldn't he maintain the forward-facing posture of John? Instead, Jesus ministry was typified by gathering the outcasts, healing the broken, touching the poor, and announcing God's judgment as centered around people's response to him. Where I admit weakness in my argument is on the question of the exact parameters of Jesus' self-understanding: does this demonstrate a specifically "messianic" self-consciousness, as opposed to a kingly or prophetic one. I believe it does, but I need to investigate more fully. But I'm pretty sure there is some promising areas for study here.

Glen Packiam, Lucky

In Lucky, Glenn Packiam, a pastor at New Life Church in Colorado Springs and a songwriter, takes a fresh look at the good news of the coming of God's kingdom through an exploration of the four beatitudes of Luke 6. His reflection, as the title makes plain, centers around rethinking the familiar (and probably too-familiar) term "blessed," instead asserting that those to whom the kingdom comes are "lucky" (he gets some impetus for this move from Eugene Peterson's effective use of the term in the Message). He nuances the term nicely, to point out that though it may have the connotations of a random chance occurrence, it also caries the sense in modern usage of one who is fortunate, one for whom good things have happened. And it makes for a powerful restatement of the beatitudes that helps to convey their sense.

So what is the sense of the beatitudes? Packiam briefly explores some of the historical approaches to what this list signifies, but spends the bulk of his time crafting an approach to the four beatitudes in Luke that focuses both on the sense in which Jesus is declaring that the unlikely and unlucky people described by them (the poor, the hungry, the mourning, the rejected) have become lucky precisely in the fact that the kingdom has come, and in the sense in which this goes beyond just the physical conditions described to the conditions of heart that these conditions may help to create. That means he constantly keeps his exposition tied to the historical setting of Jesus' address even as he allows for a fuller spiritualized sense that doesn't leave behind the concrete setting but works it out more fully.

I really enjoyed Packiam's approach to the beatitudes, and I think it does a great job of giving a readable and informed approach to this well-known but often-misunderstood passage of Scripture. He uses the metaphor of "luck" to great effect to explore the nature of the kingdom of God and its application in our lives, both as recipients of this overwhelming luck and as bearers of God's luck to an unlucky world. I have come to recognize afresh that I am lucky because of God's great work in Jesus Christ, and further, that I'm called to participate in spreading that luck to the world. I expect I will refer back to this book frequently when thinking about the kingdom of God or the beatitudes, and I also think the metaphor of "luck" is pregnant with possibilities for translating the Christian message to an unlucky world.

Thanks to Amazon's Vine Program and the publisher for the review copy.

Pistis Christou and the Law

I'm reading through Galatians as I work my way through Frank Thielman's Paul and the Law. And I have been overwhelmed by Paul's logic in Galatians 3 in regard to Christ and the Law. In verse 22, Paul writes that everything was "locked up" under sin so that the promise could be given "through faith in Jesus Christ . . . to those who believe." I am well aware that the debate surrounding the various constructions and uses of pistis Christou as objective or subjective genitive is far from settled at this juncture, it has at least provided the impetus for me to look with new eyes at this passage, and to discover what is plainly there with regard to Paul's logic for why the law is in place (and in fact the reading doesn't seem to change substantively with subjective or objective renderings of the genitive construction). Paul seems to be saying that the law isn't opposed to the promise, but is in fact the necessary precondition of, and instrument through which Christ's faithfulness accomplishes our justification. The law provides in a sense the mechanism through which justification on our behalf by Christ occurs, as Christ's faithfulness under the law yields forth in God's abundant gift of life. The law is thus fulfilled and the promise is then extended to all people without the the constraint of the law, which has fulfilled its purpose in Christ. In a sense, instead of thinking of Christ as circumventing the law to bring salvation by faith (a type of theology that may at times rest just beneath the surface in my own thinking), Christ brings that salvation precisely through the law, which was God's ordained mechanism to bring blessing and life from death, even as the gift is now offered apart from that same law.

Gordon Fee, Pauline Christology

This important book by professor Fee is truly a monumental achievement and an important contribution to the study of Paul and of Christology more broadly. When I decided to buy this book a few months ago, I scanned the contents and, noting that the first two thirds of the book was largely exegetical, figured I would maybe graze through a few sections of that, but mostly focus on the synthesis portion at the back (still more than 100 pages of discussion). But, in reading the book, I found that Fee's exegesis of Paul, going book by book and passage by passage, was too rich to pass up, so instead of mostly skipping over the first four hundred pages of the book, I read almost the entire portion. There is no doubt that this book will become an important reference for me as I study any passage on Paul that touches on Jesus Christ. His in-depth discussions of some of the key christological passages in Paul is extremely worthwile. As should be no surprise, 1 Cor 8:6, Philippians 2, and Colossians 1, among others, receive sustained attention. But the careful and sustained exegetical attention given to each of Paul's letters (both the undisputed and "disputed" letters) helps Paul's own thoughts to come through clearly, and builds a very powerful cumulative argument for Paul's high christology.

Fee argues that Paul holds a very high christology. Paul envisions Christ as the Preexistent One who became incarnate as the human Jesus, the long-awaited Messiah. Jesus died and was raised again, proclaimed to be the risen Lord, receiving "the Name" and exalted to the highest place. It is this same Jesus who shares in a large array of divine prerogatives, is worshipped as God, and who along with the Father sends the Spirit.

The details of Fee's work, both exegetical and synthetic, are too many and varied to communicate here, but the value of his work is easy to ascertain. Interesting among is emphases is that much of Paul's christological discussion comes in the form of assumptions that seem to be held in common with his audience (Colossians 1 being the primary exception, where christology is the primary focus). Fee repeatedly emphasizes that this lends great weight to these inherent assertions, since they were so fundamental to both parties that they could be assumed.

In all, this book is a great statement of Paul's understanding of Christ, and demonstrates how the data from Paul's letters, along with that of John and Hebrews, led the church down the road to Nicaea and Trinitarian Orthodoxy. While Paul wasn't overtly Trinitarian, the way he talks of Christ (and the Spirit) shows that these developments find rich soil in Paul's thought. I highly commend this great study. It's ambition is clearly matched by its execution.

Nicholas Perrin, Lost in Translation?

Do the words of Jesus that we see in our Bibles today resemble the words that were actually spoken two millenia ago? Or have the Bible's authors, copyists, and translators played fast and loose with them? Bart Ehrman, in his book, Misquoting Jesus, makes a case for the (often systematic) corruption of Jesus' words and of the whole text of the Bible from the earliest times on down to the present. For him, the Bible isn't trustworthy: Jesus words and those of the earliest apostles have been lost in transmission. It is into this discussion that Nicholas Perrin, professor of NT at Wheaton College, enters with this new book.

Let me start by saying that this book is decidedly not academic, by design. Perrin, a NT scholar, could certainly mount academic responses to Ehrman and others on these issues, and other authors have in fact done so. Perrin, on the other hand, seeks to both respond in a way that can be understood, but more than that he seeks to put forth a compelling vision of what our New Testament is and why it's worth paying attention to. This whole discussion is encased in a testimony of sorts, as Perrin talks about his own upbringing and his first exposures to the Bible. His journey of discovery makes a great storyline within which these issues can be explored.

I recommend this book quite highly. He makes a lot of current research in a number of areas, from Jesus studies to textual criticism, highly understandable. His chapters on Jesus and his Jewishness are worth the price of the book, and his summary of the quests for the "historical" Jesus is one of the clearest I've read. Beyond that, he also (selectively and rather quickly by design) refutes a number of Ehrman's central points, and, probably more important, points toward more fruitful lines of inquiry and more authentic approaches to questions of the Bible's integrity.

Perrin's work is full of insights, such as the important assertion that Jesus intended his words be remembered by his disciples, and that, in their Jewish context, it is highly plausible that they would have done so with care. He also makes clear that God chose to impart his revelation into a human context and process, deeming it a sufficient and appropriate vehicle for the intended message. We shouldn't necessarily expect a wooden, flawless, perfect textual tradition, and this fact doesn't lessen the power of God's revelation or diminish it's call on us. In the end, he concludes that "even if that transmission [of Jesus' words] was less than completely perfect, it was faithful" (187). This book has clearly done a service to the church in making some of these discussions accessable. If these are issues that interest you, this book is a great place to start.

The Nature of the Atonement, Bielby and Eddy

In The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, four scholars are asked to put forth a comprehensive understanding of what they consider to be the foundational metaphor or central thrust of the New Testament's teaching on atonement. They are then asked to interact with each of the other three author's views, facilitating a dialog between the different views and accentuating both commonalities and disagreements. The four scholars and views are as follows:

Gregory Boyd, Christus Victor
Joel B. Green, Kaleidoscopic
Bruce Reichenbach, Healing
Thomsa Schreiner, Penal Substutition

Because of the nature of the book, that is, that each scholar is already abridging an in-depth discussion in their short essays and that each scholar interacts with the others, I will simply restrict my review to some brief comments of evaluation and commendation.

In most evangelical circles, it would seem that the penal substitution view holds sway as the dominant (and sometimes almost the only) view. And Thomas Schreiner does an admirable job of displaying the deep scriptural roots and theological reasoning that make this such an important view. Greg Boyd, in what was maybe for me one of the strongest pieces, displayed the deep scriptural roots of the Christus victor model, showing the importance of victory of death and evil for biblical thinking about sin and salvation. Bruce Reichenbach ably deploys arguments for the healing aspects of atonement, emphasizing forgiveness and reconciliation as part of this understanding. Joel Green's essay was also very strong, emphasizing that the context of Jesus' death and the purposes of God are two essential aspects of thinking about the atonement. This leads him to assert that no one metaphor or model will fully illumine the significance of Christ's death, nor will any one model necessarily be the best way to speak the truth of Christ's death into our cultural setting today.

Each author does their view justice, in showing the deep logic that underpins it and the way the atonement fits within a larger Scriptural and theological framework. Each author also sets out to show how their view sets the foundation for or interacts with other views and metaphors, which make up subsidiary ways of speaking about Christ's death. For this reason, I think this book makes a great entry point into this lively and important dialog about the work of Christ and the nature of the atonement. It deals deliberately with the text of the New Testament and also, in less depth, with the historical interpretations and understandings of Christ and his death.

Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is a ground-breaking study by NT scholar Richard Bauckham that questions many of the assumptions current in much New Testament scholarship today, especially about the formation of the Gospels. In this seminal book, Bauckham makes a sustained case for the involvement and centrality of eyewitnesses in the formation of the Gospels as they appear in their current, written canonical form. I won't attempt to recreate his arguments here, for they are many and detailed, but he covers evidence from other ancient historiographies about method, he looks at the statistical prevalence of names in the Gospels verses their known prevalence in the ancient world, and he studies the literary cues from within the Gospels themselves. He also looks very carefully at the earliest testimonies from outside the Gospels about their origin, espeically Papias, Eusebius, Iranaeus, and Polycrates.

A second major thrust of all of this, and maybe the most essential part of the entire book, is his sustained case, summarized and carefully argued in chapter 11, "Transmitting the Jesus Traditions, but supported by work in other chapters as well, is an alternative account of the origin and transmission of the traditions about Jesus and how they came to be written down. It is essentially a sustained (and I believe devastating) critique of form criticism, with its assumption of a long history of traditions and anonymous transmission of various "forms." His critique of form criticism is many-fold, but a few of its highlights are the emphasis on the relatively short period of time between Jesus' life and the writing of the Gospels, and even more especially, as the title of the book betrays, on the involvement of guarantors of the various traditions, which remained in many or even most cases, connected with certain named and known individuals.

He then spends a significant bit of the later portion of the book focusing on issues of authorship in John's Gospel, helpfully illuminating the history of scholarship about authorship, and looking carefully at the claims made by John's author, and also by looking at the early evidence, especially in Polycrates and Papias, about who this certain John was, concluding that the author of John was John "the Elder," a different John than the son of Zebedee, and that this John is in fact the beloved disciple, who later lived in Ephesus, and whose testimony was know at second hand by Papias, and who wrote down his account in his Gospel.

I estimate Bauckham's work to be a monumental achievement of scholarship, and I am hopeful that it will make significant waves in Gospels scholarship in the coming years. It is certainly a force to be reckoned with. Now, I don't expect all of his proposals will meet immediate approval by the guild, but I do think the broad scope of his argument, espeically as to the weakness of many of the assumptions linked with form criticism and still mostly current in Gospels scholarship today, even if beneath the surface, will help bring to light the need to reevaluate the types of documents that the Gospels in fact are. While Bauckham certainly doesn't provide evidence to in some way guarantee the accuracy and validity of the Gospels, he does give a very compelling case for linking the documents with certain named eyewitnesses, including but certainly not limited to the Twelve, among others. It is a very interesting and readable offering in NT scholarship, and one that I highly recommend. I think, along with works like J. D. G. Dunn's Jesus Remembered, Bauckham's work will help continue turning the tide toward reevaluating the relationships between the Gospels themselves and the nature of their development.

Scot McKnight, Jesus and His Death

In Jesus and His Death, Scot McKnight undertakes a historical look at how Jesus understood his own death. He begins with a study of the "historiography" of Jesus studies, looking at the historical methods currently in use, often in the background, in studies about Jesus and the New Testament, broadly categorizing them as modernist or postmodernist in orientation. After surveying this turf, he goes on to investigate how Jesus' death has been understood in modern studies of Jesus, largely concluding that in many cases Jesus' death is a neglected or at least under-emphasized facet of his life. (Which, this seems odd considering it's prominence in Paul's theology; though on the other had that might partly explain it, considering the orientation of many of the Jesus studies these days.) He then goes on in chapter three to "reclaim" Jesus death as an important focus of study.

Part two of his book is an initial investigation into the role Jesus' death played in h is life. He begins by looking at the question of whether Jesus expected a premature death, concluding minimally that after John the baptizer's death, it couldn't have been far from Jesus mind; that is, his own death was a possibility. But he begins building from that point by moving on to consider whether Jesus considered it more than mere possibility, but also a probability; was it something he expected? To investigate this question, McKnight surveys many strands of the Gospel narratives, making the argument that though Jesus didn't want to die, he came to see it as a likely outcome of his ministry, and that he expressed this as having a "temporary presence" with his disciples, and further, that he saw his likely death as part of the Final Ordeal, infusing it with eschatological significance, even to the point of seeing his death as representative for his followers.

Part three of McKnight's study focuses more specifically on how Jesus understood his own death as atoning, and specifically if he understood it as a ransom. This focuses the discussion on Mark 10:45, the saying about Jesus' death being a ransom for many. In this investigation he looks at allusions to Isaiah, the context of the saying, and many other factors in evaluating the authenticity of the saying. And the verdict isn't clear. The possibility that it is a later addition is strong. So this leads McKnight to investigate the remainder of the Jesus tradition to see if the saying gains support from other places as something Jesus would have said. This includes looking at how Jesus understood his own role (was it like Isaiah's servant, a role that would point toward "ransom" language or more like a son of man or some other mold?), concluding that servant imagery didn't play a prominent role in Jesus' self-understanding, but that son-of-man imagery was prominent. His investigation continues, with studies of other "scripture prophets" to whom Jesus can be compared, and with the passion predictions. Then, in part four, he undertakes an in-depth study of the last supper traditions, to shed some light on how Jesus understood his life and death.

Ultimately, McKnight concludes that the ransom saying in Mark 10:45 is likely a Markan gloss, and that Mark indeed understood Jesus' death as a ransom for many, paying the price to liberate Jesus' followers from a hostile power. So what of Jesus and his death? His first emphasis is that "Jesus' mission is more than a 'mission to die'" (336). Though it indeed turned out to also be that. Jesus called on God to avoid his upcoming death, but ultimately saw it as his own role in God's providence. So what of atonement? Jesus saw his death as a representative death, having value for his followers, and probably even as vicarious, taking the place of others. This is intimately caught up with the fact that his death was part of the "Final Ordeal," the inbreaking of God's kingdom into the present and the fulfillment of God's plans for the world.

But more must be said. The early church didn't confine it's reflection of Jesus' death to these themes, but plumbed the depths of Scripture and reflected on Jesus' life and death to come up with deep, rich, and varied expressions of the significance of Jesus death. And McKnight finishes up his book surveying these developments. In the end, he points beyond the "how" of atonement to the "whereunto": "the design of the atonement," he writes, "is to create a community, an ecclesia, a koinonia, a zoe, a new creation" (371). That is where he sees the center of the New Testament's message about Jesus and his death, a message that goes back to Jesus himself. Jesus death "would protect them, liberate them, and usher them into the kingdom of God" (372). That's a pretty robust place to start in reflecting on the atonement.

I still have some digesting to do of this one. It is a great book, and quite an enjoyable read for being a careful academic study. He does a very good job of making the reader aware of the large themes in the New Testament, while also zeroing in on important passages. It was a little disconcerting, though, to have so many traditional sayings of Jesus dismantled and dismissed, at least as they go back to Jesus. His judgment at times seemed a bit tentative when it came to authenticating sayings, but that may also give the book its value, as it provides a very strong foundation upon which to build an understanding of Jesus' death: Jesus thought of his death in these ways, at least. McKnight is a gracious scholar with a passion for teaching, and I deeply appreciated this book, though it has also challenged my thinking, but also driven me to think more deeply about many important issues. With so many debates ranging today about atonement theories and atonement thinking, this book provides an important voice in the larger discussion.

Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy

In The Divine Conspiracy, philosopher Dallas Willard paints a compelling picture of the Christian Life by investigating what God is doing in the world, and how humans can experience it.

Willard begins by laying out some of the problems he sees in our world, and in Christianity, today. These include the erosion of "truth" and abosolutes in our culture, and the loss of the depth of the meaning of the gospel message. He then sets out to reconstruct a clear picture of what it means to be a Christian, and what that type of Christ-life should look like. To do this, he gives us a prolonged reflection on the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus' in-depth discussion of what life in his Kingdom is like. Instead of letting the Sermon be a pie-in-the-sky ideal, Willard fleshes out the deep logic behind it, and makes it something that we live. The insight of these reflections alone, and the recovery of the power of Jesus' teaching make this book worth reading. But Willard doesn't stop there.

One of the basic insights that undergird Willard's discussion is that if Jesus was who he said he was, and who we say we believe he is, then he was and is brilliant. We should listen closely to what he says, and learn to follow it. This insight takes him through a careful reading of the Sermon on the Mount, and also leads him into an investigation of Christian discipleship. More than just being a Christian who "grows," discipleship is acknowledging Jesus as brilliant, and then resolving to really become his students. We seek to learn from Jesus about the true nature of reality and of our own existence, and then resolve to actually obey, to actually live as if these things were true. Disciples delve into the deep reality of God, and constantly strive to keep him before their minds. This results in a true knowledge of God that effects our entire lives. And it brings us deeper into the eternal life that we have been given, kingdom-life. And all throughout the book, Willard stresses that "eternal life" isn't merely a life that never ends, "fire insurance" against future judgment, but is instead true, abundant life in God's kingdom that starts here and now.

He concludes the book by discussing the "Restoration of All Things," the final coming of the kingdom in its fullness. Truly appreciating the end means acknowledging the present in its truest reality and purpose. And Willard helps us to see that as we understand God's plans and intentions, we appreciate him more and understand our own lives more fully within God's plan.

The Divine Conspiracy is one of the best books I've ever read, and one I highly recommend. When I finished reading it, I just put my bookmark back in the front and started over. It is valuable simply as an extended reflection on the Sermon on the Mount, but its value extends so far beyond that. It also demonstrates how that important NT category, "the kingdom of God," is more than just an archaic phrase that isn't important for the lives of disciples today, but instead gets to the very core of living the Christ-life. There are so many deep and profound insights into what it means to live a life devoted to God. Eternal life is here already, and Willard has helped me to see and appreciate it, and helped me to pull so many threads of Christian thought together into a coherent and compelling vision of life in God, kingdom-life, a life as a devoted disciple of Jesus Christ.

Missional Jesus

Live has been more than hectic the past few weeks, thus the decrease in blogging. My wife and I are about to commence our move back to the States from Peru after finishing up a great year of ministry here. So in the absence of time to post my own stuff, I'll refer you to that of others.

I am especially a big fan of Scot McKnight, professor at North Park University and Seminary, and blogger extrordinare. He has a great series going on "Missional Jesus," that I highly recommend. His reflections on the meaning of the gospel are pervaded by careful and devotional attention to who Jesus is and why he did what he did. Please read with care.

Philippians 2:5-11: Who is Jesus?

Few questions are more important or fundamental to Christianity that who Jesus is. And there have been centuries upon centuries of reflection on this topic, leading to sometimes complex discussions of philosophical terms and etherial concepts. And I think that's great. For Jesus' identity is a deep and multi-faceted truth that deserves to be investigated to the full. Here I just want to reflect a bit on what this passage in Philippians says about it. This isn’t Paul’s major focus here (he is focusing on Christian love and unity with humility), but nonetheless, Paul makes a clear statement of Christology to make his point. This is one of the few places in Paul's letters where he could be said to be expressing "Christology," as opposed to his very common theme of "soteriology," for so often he focuses on who Christ is for us. This certainly isn't to take anything at all away from Paul, but to point to the importance and uniqueness of this passage. So, who is Jesus?
A. Jesus is God from all eternity, preexistent and fully one with God the Father.
-Jesus was “in very nature,” in the “form” of God.
-Jesus could have grasped equality with God, but chose not to (that is, it was
within his power and right to be honored as God)
-He emptied himself of something, namely the glory and prerogatives of divinity
B. Jesus became a human being.
-Jesus took on the “very nature” or “form” of a slave.
-Jesus was “found in appearance as a man;” that is, it was plain for all to see
that Jesus was human.
-He suffered and died. (This was no illusion, no appearance of humanity!)
C. Jesus was the God-man.
-Jesus was “in very nature” God and “in very nature” a slave.
-Jesus divinity at no time ceased, and his humanity was genuine, including even
death.
D. Jesus the crucified is also God the Son, exalted above all, one with the Father. We get some extremely important and valuable Trinitarian insights from this passage. Jesus is God from all eternity, he is obedient to the Father, he is exalted as Lord and as YHWH, he is recognized as being the One God (note Paul's allusion to Is 4523-24, a clear ). Clearly there is a sense of plurality and differentiation within God, but at the same time God is One God, the only God. You can clearly see here how the church in the next few hundred years, especially as it worked out its understanding of who Jesus is, was led to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity. Though “Trinity” as such isn’t enumerated in Scripture, this passage is a perfect example of how the trajectory toward just such a doctrine is clearly embedded in the Bible and especially the New Testament.

Peter Schmiechen, Saving Power

Theories of atonement, expressions of how Jesus' life and death convey God's saving power, stand at the center of Christian theology, and also stand at the core of what it means to be church. So says Peter Schmiechen, in this expansive work of scholarship, Saving Power, about the atonement. Schmiechen sets out to survey the important ways that atonement has been understood, and then to analyze and evaluate the various expressions, on his way to outlining some of the essential components that make up a theory of atonement and, further, to layout out some central claims made across the various theories about what atonement has to say about God and about us.

Schmiechen lays out ten theories of atonement, divided up under four major headings. He also looks at a particuar figure or writing that typifies each view.

A. Christ Died for Us
1. Sacrifice (Hebrews)
2. Justification by Grace (Luther)
3. Penal Substitution (Charles Hodge)
B. Liberation from Sin, Death, and Demonic Powers
4. Liberation (Irenaeus, twentieth-century liberation theology)
C. The Purposes of God
5. Renewal of Creation (Athanasius)
6. Restoration of Creation (Anselm)
7. Christ the Goal of Creation (Schliermacher)
D. Reconciliation
8. Christ the Way to the Knowledge of God (H. R. Nieburh)
9. Christ the Reconciler (1 Corinthians 1-2)
10. The Wondrous Love of God (Abelard, Wesley, Moltmann)

In this first part of the book, Schmiechen does a very admirable service in providing a clear exposition of each of the different views, a concise outline of the logic of the view, a rather detailed look at one figure (sometimes more) or New Testament writing that exemplifies each presentation, and then synthesises and evaluates each of the different theories. Undoubtedly one could quarrel with small points of analysis or presentation, but on the whole his outline is a thorough and clear presentation of a broad range of atonement theories.

The theory that comes under the most fire in his presentation is the "penal substitution" theory, and the presentation of it by Charles Hodge. Schmiechen sees this view as typified by an understanding that sinners stand under God's righteous judgment, and that Christ's death pays a penalty in our place, satisfying the demands of the law. The points he takes most issue with is the idea that atonement would be a transaction with God as object in some way. That is, something is done to or given to God to appease is wrath and judgment. This would mean that in God justice has won out over love as the ultimate demand to be satisfied. It also means that Jesus' death is an end in itself. Schmiechen doesn't throw out the theory entirely though, instead proposing what he sees as a radical reformulation, maintaining a recognizable outline of the theory but stressing that while Jesus death can be in some ways interpreted as being for us, it shouldn't be looked at as a "compensation offered to God to enable God to redeem us" (118). Instead, Jesus death is seen as a revelation of God's judgment against sin and a revelation of the obedience and fidelity that typify God's intention for creation, thus removing any transactional quality.

In some ways, Schmiechen's criticisms are surely on base. He insists that penal substitution is problematic if it affirms only God's justice as an ultimate characteristic of God's person, requiring the law to remain always fully in force, even over God. For formulations of penal substitution that succumb to this danger, this is a relevant critique, because it recasts the good news in language of vindication, not grace. But I don't think this attitude typifies this understanding of the cross, where Jesus is almost always understood in terms of his identity as the Son of God, following God's will even unto death. God is first and primarily subject. The value of his second critique is less clear. He sets out to counter any argument that sees Jesus' death as an end in itself, apart from his life of holiness and obedience, which he sees as ultimately a valorisation of retaliatory violence. Again, there is a good reminder that Jesus death shouldn't be understood as radically divorced from his person and life, nor that God in some way condones or enacts retaliatory violence upon those who sin out of some vindictive desire to punish those who dare to cross him. Again, there is value in being aware of the tendency to valorize suffering and to condone violence, and his word is an important critique of too much preaching and teaching that confuses this issue. But, getting to the core of the theological argument, Jesus death can and should be understood as the reason he came, the high-point and focus of his life and ministry. And was understood this way already in the New Testament (e.g. Phil 2, 1 Cor 2), as is made clear by the relative space given to the Passion narratives in the Gospels, and even seemed to be the understanding of Jesus himself, who predicted his own death on numerous occasions and who in the Gospel of John spoke of his death by saying "my time has come." I would even argue that Schmiechen's logic is almost turned on its head here, and that any atonement theory that doesn't see Jesus death as the central and defining moment in his life has a strong uphill climb to legitimacy.

After his in-depth analysis of the ten theories of atonement, which take up the bulk of the book, Schmiechen concludes by discussing the structure and role of atonement theories, and by laying out five points or dimensions to discuss when looking at atonement: 1. From image to theory; 2. God's opposition to sin, death, and demonic powers; 3. the purposes of God; 4. persons in community; and 5. God's initiative. This framework allows him to discuss the themes that carry through many or all of the theories, and also present a way to evaluate theories for their adequacy on these various points. He then concludes the book with a very insightful discussion of how theories of atonement relate to forms of church. He looks at how various understandings of atonement, with their accompanying understandings of how that saving power is bestowed, lead naturally (but not necessarily) to various shapes for the Christian community. One of the examples that best typifies this discussion is the recognition that Luther's reunderstanding of atonement in terms of justification by faith leads to church that is centered around preaching of the Word and the use of the vernacular Bible, in order to get the truth of God's Word out to the greatest number of people and incite faith. This final chapter is one of the greatest values of the book, though it is short, in that it helps us to recognize the centrality of the atonement to our life as church, and second, helps us to recognize that the same atonement theory can lead to different expressions of church when understood differently. This can be cause for fruitful dialogue and empathetic listening on the part of people from various denominations.

In Saving Power, Schmiechen has written an important study of the atonement. As he carefully presents a broad spectrum of options in a sympathetic way, he invites the reader to recognize the values implicit in each of them, and points a way toward a deeper and more powerful understanding of what it is that God has accomplished in Jesus. I know I was surprised by the power of a number of the views, and found friends in Christian thinkers from centuries gone by that will help enliven and energize my own thinking about Jesus Christ, and I trust it will have the same benefit for all who invest the time in these pages.

Christ the Creator

One of the central affirmations about Jesus in the NT is that he is one and the same with God the creator, and in fact all things were created through him. And I’ve always seen this as being part of a clear affirmation of Jesus as God—being on par with saying something like “Jesus is so completely God that he is the creator God.” It also serves as an affirmation of the fact that Jesus isn’t a created being, a creature like us, only of a higher sort (a point that had to be reaffirmed a few hundred years later against Arius). But in doing some reading on atonement, I’ve come to appreciate another deep meaning in the simple statement that God created the world through Jesus. Athanasius, one of the theological giants of the first four centuries and a participant in the council of Nicaea, wrote that it is proper for us to think of God redeeming this world that he has made. He argues that while it wouldn’t have shown weakness for God not to have created, once God had created, it was fitting and proper for God to redeem the world, and in fact not redeeming it was out of the question. He goes on to make the point that it is also fitting that this work of redemption would be done by the same Word through whom the world was created. He writes, “For it will appear not inconsonant for the Father to have wrought its salvation in him by whose means he made it” (from “On the Incarnation of the Word,” Christology of the Later Fathers, 56). It may seem a simple insight, but for me, it turns the logic of thinking of Christ as creator on its head. I had always though of it as an affirmation of the deity of Christ, an affirmation of who he is, but Athanasius helps us to see that more than that, thinking of Christ as creator is fitting, because how else would God re-create the world that he had made except in the same way that it had been created in the first place. This simple insight helps to recontextualize our thinking about what atonement means. More than thinking of it just as forgiveness or freedom, we appreciate that in Christ, God was displaying his purposes for creation. In learning about Jesus, and appreciating his action as the action of the very Creator of our world, we come to know all the more intimately about who we are as God’s creation and what we were created for.

Athanasius certainly wasn’t the first Christian thinker to put these pieces together. There is ample evidence that his pattern of thought was clearly present already in the NT. Paul makes these same connections for us in Colossians 1 and helps us begin to appreciate their significance. In Col 1:15, he beings by asserting that Christ is the “image of the invisible God,” and moreover that “by him all things were created.” So we start with a clear affirmation of Christ’s divinity, and see him as Creator, with authority over all things. But Paul then goes on to connect this image of Christ as creator with his work of holding all things together. That speaks both of his work of creation and his work of redemption. Jesus was God reconciling all things to himself because Jesus is God in whom all things hold together, and it is fitting that the work of atonement and reconciliation would be done by him. What an amazing thought.

(Colin Gunton writes quite a lot about the theme of Christ as Creator in The Triune Creator, and I am sure he has these insights well in view. Being in Peru and thousands of miles from the great majority of my library means I can’t consult it to read further at this point.)