Skip to main content

Exploring the Christian Way of Life: The Identity of Jesus Part 4

This is the fourth and final part of a paper on the identity of Jesus. Here are parts one, two, and three.

Luke expands upon Jesus salvific role more fully in his announcement story. Fitzmyer is very perceptive in this regard, subsuming soteriology under Christology.[1] Jesus is the controlling category and his salvific action flows out of his personal identity. In the Magnificat in Luke 1:46-56 there is the repeated theme of mercy. God is showing his mercy to Israel through Jesus. It is by God’s merciful act through Jesus that God would fulfill the promises to Israel.[2] Jesus was the coming redeemer. This is fully consonant with the Jewish messianic expectations described above. This was his role, from conception.[3] Verses 52-53 give the clearest explanation of Jesus program: ‘52 He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; 53 he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty’ (NRSV). Jesus was going to bring divine victory, but its primary goal was to right the wrongs that evil had brought on the earth. This is what salvation for Israel would look like. It was not going to be a time where they assumed the dominant position and were the super powers of the world.[4] God wasn't solely judging Rome and other Gentile powers. He was judging evil oppressors of every stripe. The tables were to be turned and the poor and the weak were to be favored by God. This is the new life brought by Jesus. It may be tempting to read a text like John 1 and treat evil abstractly as “darkness,” but Luke allows no such thing. Evil reigns wherever there is poverty and oppression. Jesus acts like the good king, stepping in and saying no, stopping the perpetrators of evil, and giving his people a new opportunity for life. “This is not to obliterate the powerful so that the lowly can achieve the positions of honor and privilege to which they previously had no access. Rather, God is at work in individual lives (like Mary) and in the social order as a whole in order to subvert the very structure of society that supports and perpetuates such distinctions.”[5] Jesus was going to be the king of a new society where injustice had no place and everyone was accepted, both Jew and Gentile.[6] The Gentiles were finally being grafted into God’s people, into Israel, through Jesus.[7]

And this is where it all comes together. Who was and is Jesus? He was the first century Jewish Messiah, primarily of the kingly, but also of the prophetic mold. However, while there are many touch points with Jewish expectation, he avoided some of the key ones. In particular, some Jews were expecting the Messiah to lead a violent revolution against Rome.[8] The gospel writers portray him as leading a different kind of revolution. Political, but in a different sense. The exile was ending, as many Jews were hoping, but it wasn't the result of an overthrow of Rome by God.[9] A bigger enemy was out there and it had ensnared people, Jewish and Gentile alike. The enemy was Satan, evil incarnate.[10] Jew and Gentile alike needed to be saved from the effects of their sins. A massive work of liberation needed to be done. And Jesus the messiah did it, through his life, death, and resurrection. He was leading the battle, defeating evil in whatever guise it came. Like the prophets of old, he exposed injustice and would perform many signs which proclaimed the rule of God and the end of the rule of Satan. And, as we've hinted, he would need to be a teacher, like Moses. Kingdom building isn't easy and old habits die hard. The people need to know how to live in this new found victory. They would need to know how to live as one people, one family, Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female. Peace is coming. The promise to Abraham is being fulfilled. Jesus will be on the throne until all of this is accomplished in its fullness. Then, the keys to the kingdom will be handed over to the Father and the new age will arrive.

What has proceeded is just a sketch, providing many avenues for further exploration. A brief overview was needed to help provide a fuller picture to fit all of the individual pieces into. Before we start working through individual themes in detail we have to deal with one other major issue. The confession of the church in later centuries has differed in both emphasis and content from the conclusions of our study. Why has the church made Jesus seem less Jewish and focused so strongly on divinity? We will examine some of the major creeds and theologians from throughout the millennia exploring how much warrant they can claim for their portraits of Jesus.

[1] Fitzmyer 1970 pp. 219-27.

[2] See esp. 1:56.

[3] Green 1997 p. 100. The rest of what follows builds on his excellent analysis of this passage.

[4] There may be an explicit contrast here with the (Pharisaic?) ideology of Ps. of Sol. See further Bock 1994 p.146 n. 10 and his references. 

[5] Green 1997, p. 105.

[6] I think that’s the clear point of the reference to the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. 

[7] We must remember the Jewish shape of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. See esp. Romans 9-11. Wright 1991 pp. 231-57 is a good starting place for further reading.

[8] While this may not be completely obvious from second temple Jewish writings, it is from history.

[9] This was almost universally hoped for even if some did not advocate violent revolution.

[10] For more on this theme and what follows, Wright 1996, pp. 446-67 is critical.

For Further Reading:


Popular posts from this blog

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…

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…

Commentary Review: Daniel

In my opinion, Daniel is not the best covered Old Testament book as far as commentaries go. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon among Old Testament books. Though I've looked at them, I'm not going to review some of the older Evangelical Daniel commentaries (like e.g., Baldwin). They don't provide much that you can't get in either Longman or Lucas. If you're unfamiliar with the series that one or more of these commentaries are in check out my commentary series overview.

It was a very close call but my favorite commentary on Daniel is Goldingay's. While there were a few places where I disagreed with his interpretation, I found the commentary to be exemplary. If you're going to teach Daniel, especially the apocalyptic portions, you need a commentary that provides you with a lot of background material. Goldingay, while not as broad as Collins, certainly provides you with quite a bit. His exploration of the background to the apocalyptic symbolism is very helpfu…