Skip to main content

Book Review: Are You the One Who is to Come?

This is the first of what I hope will be a series of book reviews on new books in theology or biblical studies (no more than 12 months old). I hope to provide one review per month. There won't be much strategy in picking books. It'll be whatever book catches my eye in the new book section of the Trinity library.

This month's book is Are You the One Who is to Come?: The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question by Michael Bird. For those of you unfamiliar with Dr. Bird, he is a young and very talented scholar teaching at Highland Theological College in Scotland. He is also, quite hilarious.

His new book attempts to answer whether Jesus claimed to be the Messiah or if his Messiaship was invented by the early church. The vast majority of critical scholarship would answer the latter. Jesus clearest claim to being the Messiah is Mark 14:62-64, which is a passage that many scholars believe to be of doubtful authenticity. Apart from this scene in Mark, there is a paucity of clear, irrefutable evidence from the lips of Jesus in the Gospel accounts where he asserts his Messianic status. Episodes with clear Messianic overtones often also are not assumed authentic by many but are routinely ascribed to the invention of the early church.

These obstacles are not insurmountable for Bird, though, as he provides a methodical and compelling argument that Jesus intentionally acted and spoke as if he was the Messiah. Bird starts by surveying the OT, and see how Messianism develops through the OT cannon. He then turns to the literature of 2nd Temple Judaism and evaluates its Messianic expectations. It was interesting to learn that there was no single Jewish view of the Messiah (nor did all Jews expect a Messiah!).

The third chapter was the most important in my opinion. Here he rebutted the five avenues scholars take to deny that Jesus had Messianic intention. They are:
  1. Jesus Messiahship was inferred from the resurrection.
  2. Passages claiming that Jesus wanted his Messianic identity kept as a secret were added by the early church because they felt they needed an explanation for the lack of clear claims of Messianic status by Jesus. The answer was simple, Jesus kept it a secret.
  3. Jesus didn't claim Messiahship, his followers inferred it from his ministry. Jesus actually rejected Messianic status.
  4. Jesus Messiahship was an inference the early church made from the sign hung above him on the cross calling Jesus 'The King of the Jews.'
  5. Messianic references stem from the church's reflection on the OT not actual events in the life of Jesus.
Bird goes through each of these and (in my opinion) refutes each of them. A main point here and throughout the entire book is that Jesus must have believed and talked in a way that implied his Messianic status, or else his followers never would have inferred that someone crucified as an insurrectionist could be the Messiah, even if he rose from the dead.

In the fourth chapter, Bird lays out the positive case, 'that Jesus was performatively messianic as opposed to being messianic in the titular sense' (p. 70). He does this by surveying materials in the gospels, especially focusing on the way Jesus used the OT (especially 'son of man' from Daniel 7).

In the chapter five, Bird goes on to explain how Jesus actions in his final days leading up to the trial in Jerusalem were deliberately Messianic. This was, in my opinion, the weakest part of the book. A few of his arguments were not convincing, especially his claim that the cleansing of the temple was a kingly act of judgment. I do credit Bird, though, since he usually points out where he thinks his argument is a little weak.

The final chapter was delightful. Bird answers the question, 'so what?' Why does it matter if Jesus claimed to be the Messiah? Bird's claims are highly provocative and I think worth pursuing in a separate post later this week.

Overall Bird's book is an excellent book. It is insightful and fresh. I greatly enjoyed that this was a book written within the Evangelical tradition that did not read like a work of Evangelical apologetics. All who are interested in serious study of the historical Jesus would benefit from this book.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…