Week 9 Post

This weeks readings consisted of an appraisal by Chris Marshall called "A Prophet Of God's Justice: reclaiming The Political Jesus." Marshall claims, "that Jesus was an overtly political figure, that he had an identifiable political platform, and that the political values, commitments, and priorities we see displayed in his teaching and praxis ought to play a determinative role in shaping and directing all subsequent Christian engagement in the political process." I agree with Marshall's initial claim; although, it is evident that his proposal contradicts the conventional view of Jesus as someone who had no interest in political activity or standing.

What he goes on to say is quite interesting. Marshall discusses how the usual view of Jesus, "a savior," is how we see Jesus throughout society. Through the readings in the gospels, we can see Jesus' theology and his ethics, but Marshall asks if we can see any politics in his teachings. And because we are so used to seeing Jesus in a theological or ethical light, and not necessarily in a political light, is this non-political Jesus credible? He asks, "is a non-political Jesus historically or theologically credible? and is it possible to isolate Jesus from the social and political problems of his time?" In order to decide so, we can look at what did not escape his opponents, the political ramifications of what he taught and practiced. His message, his lifestyle, his disregard for certain traditions, his claim to divine authority, his high-handed actions in Temple precincts, and his consorting with sinners, according to Marshall, "were perceived by his enemies as a challenge to the very cornerstones of Jewish society and ultimately to the Roman provincial peace." This right here is Jesus' political action. Because it goes against the normative political definition, people believe that he had no political action at all. But that is not the case, and Marshall does a good job describing how Jesus was indeed politically active.

This essay really grabbed my attention because of its message. Marshall discusses Jesus' life and tries to justify whether or not he was a political or a non-political figure. By doing so, he discovers that, "the only way, then, to do justice to the individual words and deeds of Jesus is always to view them within the context of the larger gospel narrative of his life and mission." Simply said, we need to view Jesus' actions in a larger context rather than looking at them alone. Rather that look at what he is doing at a certain moment, look at that moment and compare it to Jesus' life mission, and see how they connect and disconnect. 

Week 7 Post

This week, we read The Jesus We'll Never Know by Scot McKnight. McKnight claims that the Jewish Jesus and the historical Jesus differ. He says, "Jesus" refers to the Jesus who lived and breathed and ate and talked and called disciples. This Jesus is the Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and, according to the witness of many, was raised again." He then goes on to say that the historical Jesus is someone or something else. This, at first glance, caught my eye because it made me wonder, how can their be two different types of Jesus? How can the historical Jesus differ from the "Jewish" Jesus? What is his explanation? And as I read on I discovered what he means.

The "Jewish" Jesus is the Jesus we all know; the Jesus we have all heard about and learned about since we were young. This is our basis. Now the historical Jesus, according to McKnight, is the "Jesus whom scholars have reconstructed over against the canonical portraits of Jesus in the Gospels of our New Testament, and over against the orthodox Jesus of the church." Meaning, the historical Jesus has been fashioned together by scholars on the basis of historical methods. However, scholars differ so it can be deduced that their methods differ as well. This leads to differing reconstructions which leads to differing images of Jesus. So he asks, "whose Jesus will we trust? Will it be that of the evangelists and the apostles? Will it be the church's orthodox Jesus? Or will it be the latest proposal from a brilliant historian?" This question intrigues me because it probes me. What Jesus do I trust? Do I follow what every historian has pieced together to make up the figure Jesus? And the answer is no. As a matter of fact, I see Jesus in probably a different way than anyone else does, and that's the essential take of it. We need to see Jesus in our own light, because everyone is different, and different things work differently for others. If we don't allow ourselves to view Jesus as we see him, and rather listen to how others see him, then our belief is not as strong. If we take other people's images of Jesus and try and use them as our own, we are not going to fully capture the essence of what Jesus is for us. This is the main point of Scot McKnight's essay, and reading this has reminded me that I have to stick to what I believe Jesus to be, because that is what works, and will continue to work.

Week 6 Post

This week, we dove into the Common English Bible and looked at Mark's gospel. I really enjoyed reading this section because it gives me a good idea on how everything got started, and the Common English Bible really puts the texts in an easy, readable manner. Mark's gospel begins with the passage of John's preaching, where John tells us that "one stronger than I am is coming after me (Jesus)" (61). This foreshadows Jesus' coming and although we do not see a birth story in this particular gospel, this baptism by John serves as the point where we now know that Jesus has been deemed the Son of God. Mark then moves on to explain Jesus' message and God's good news. Jesus rounds up his disciples and begins to perform miracles in order to show everyone that he is divine. Mark's gospel continues with account after account where Jesus displays things like his healing power, his power to draw out demons, and his will to forgive. These instances are a good reminder for me, as they certify Jesus' role and what I believe in. The Son of God is a symbol for Christians alike myself, as a way of showing us what it means to be Christian. To love, forgive, and help are to be Christian and we can see this in Jesus' teachings at the beginning of Mark's gospel.

Mark goes on to tell us about Jesus' life and how all the good he performed allowed for everyone to believe that he truly was the Son of God. In Mark, we see Jesus as a visionary and a leader. This gospel successfully shows readers the beginning of Jesus' life and how the lessons and morals that could be pulled from his actions are proof that he is the Savior. Mark does a good job at exemplifying the good in Jesus and I find this particular gospel to be my favorite.