Paul Barnett - Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity (3)

Here is a quote that captures a little bit of what I regard to be helpful for my doubt - historical rootedness. When it all gets a bit mystical and internal the line of thought Paul Barnett starts directs me to the reality of Jesus in the dusty streets and villages of the Middle East, loving people and getting in trouble with the authorities.

It is evident that the Gospels were after Jesus' death and from a postresurrection perspective. Each writer has a view of Jesus that informs the outline of his work and his emphasis. As each begins his Gospel he knows the end of Jesus' story. Moreover, each has formed convictions about Jesus that permeate his text. At the same time, however, each writer confronts the reader with Jesus as a figure of history, who lived and died in particular circumstances.

Readers of the Gospels see Jesus in the world of Galilee, Gaulanitis, Peraea and Judea. He is circumscribed by identifiable historical figures like John the baptizer, Herod the tetrarch of Galilee-Peraea, Caiaphas the high priest of the temple in Jerusalem and Pontius Pilate the governor of Judea. The Jesus the reader hears is addressing that situation in the late twenties and early thirties, not the situation of the churches thirty or more years later. The Gospel writers' perspective is of the Lord who is timeless in his significance but time bound historically speaking. Thus the Gospels are documents of and for faith and at the same moment documents of and for history (p. 171).

Paul Barnett - Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity (2)

So, who was Jesus and what is he doing? The answer cannot be found by reading the pages of the Gospels in isolation from the covenant Scriptures of Israel. We need to have those Scriptures open in one hand and the Gospels in the other. Jesus can only be comprehended against the background of God's dealings with his covenant people (pp. 160-161).


Does Paul Barnett overstate his case in the last sentence? I think so. Jesus can be BETTER comprehended against the background of God's dealings with his covenant people. But surely not ONLY comprehended. However, I do need to better understand the OT. 

Paul Barnett - Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity (1)

Doubt is a funny condition. It can come as a result of bad teaching, ill health, life stress, and so forth. I wish I never doubted the existence of God, his goodness, his control, the love of Jesus and other things. But I do. There are a number of things that see me through a season of doubt such as listening to others talk about God working in their lives, praying with others, reading the Psalms, singing a precious hymn, hearing the Bible faithfully explained and ... well, the 'and' is what I want to post about. One of the most helpful things for me to do when faced with doubt is to be gripped by the historical rootedness of Christianity. That is why I read books by Paul Burnett. This year I am making my way through 'Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity' (IVP, 1999). So far, it is a great book and I am wondering why it didn't read it 13 years ago. I have to admit that some chapters are a bit dry for my taste but on the whole I know this book is doing me good. I have been reading chapter 8, simply called 'Jesus of Nazareth'. Dr Barnett says:

We must recognise the problems for history created by Christian doctrine. From the beginning of the history of the earliest church, the followers of Jesus formulated statements of belief about him. That task continued through the eras of the fathers and the reformers and beyond, leaving a valuable deposit of creeds and confessions for the churches and their members. In consequence modern-day believers can easily perceive Jesus' mission to have been quite straightforward, namely, to establish his identity and mission as articulated in the subsequent creeds. The reader of the Gospels will naturally expect to find Jesus teaching such doctrines: that he was the second person of the Trinity, One who was fully human and fully divine, whose mission was to die for sins and be raised to life to open the kingdom of heaven to all believers. But does reading the Gospels through these doctrinal lenses make sense of the Gospel accounts, apart from selected proof texts that support these doctrines? Did Jesus behave and teach according to the creeds historically?

One immediate problem for this approach is that it has no explanation for Jesus' mission to Israel, except to declare that she willfully rejected the Son of God and the salvation he offered her.

Any historical reconstruction of Jesus, based on the Gospels, must answer at least two questions. First, is it a plausible version of Jesus' mission to Israel? Second, does it explain the belief structure of the early church?

So who was he and what did he come to do?

Why does this help with my doubts? It drives me back to the Gospels and forces me to ask fresh questions about them and I always seem to encounter a real, exciting, loving Jesus who is worth following.

My Messy Mind

After about 5 years it is time to start blogging again. I need to slow down and live an examined life. Blogging helps me do that.