Skip to main content

Book Review: Are You the One Who is to Come?: Part 2

I wanted to spend a little bit more time discussing the sixth chapter of Are You the One Who is to Come? a bit more. Bird starts the chapter by discussing the possibility that he may be wrong. What if Jesus didn't claim to be the Messiah? What if he didn't intend to give people the impression that he was the Messiah? Bird answers this by saying that,
...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 explaining his significance. The early church did, after all, attach certain roles and functions to Jesus, such as "Righteous One," "Prince," and "Firstborn" –that Jesus did not claim for himself. I for one feel no compulsion to project those rolls and titles into the ministry of the historical Jesus so as to somehow validate them, and I am not particularly bothered by the fact that they are purely post-Easter formulations of the early church’s faith in Jesus. So I would not be bothered at all if the historical Jesus never claimed to be Messiah (p. 161-2).
I think that this is an excellent point by Bird that helps put the entire work into focus. We believe Scripture to be the word of God, thus it speaks authoritatively to us in the way we interpret Jesus. Whether or not Jesus claimed to be the Messiah or tried to act in a Messianic fashion, the Bible presents him that way, and thus we believe that he is, for the word of God is true either way in its assessment. And its the recognition of Jesus as Messiah that matters, for
Calling Jesus "the Messiah" does more than identify him as another anointed figure like a prophet, priest, or a king; rather, he is the definitive revelation of God's eschatalogical deliverance. He is the anointed figure from which none other follows and the Savior that none can exceed (p. 162).
It is this to which we must say amen. It is this reality that really matters and calls us to humbly bow down in worship of Jesus the Messiah.

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…