Framing Jesus
Where does our understanding of Jesus (his life and mission) come from?
The answers to this question (if we were somehow able to draw out an honest answer from within ourselves) would probably be as varied as the number of respondents. So many factors effect how we interpret Jesus. Texts. Traditions. Perspective. Limitations.
Maybe, the real question I have in my mind is, do the gospel texts serve as the primary interpretive framework for our understanding of Jesus or do other christian texts? More specifically, does Paul shape our understanding of Jesus, or Jesus understand our understanding of Paul?
Before we even get into that, I am well aware that all the christian texts this brings into play are said to bring equal weight. It’s hard to claim that is actually the case though. Let me sight a few examples.
Example 1. The kingdom vs. the church. Jesus seems vaguely (at best) interested in discussing the church. Apart from Matthew, (and only twice there) Jesus doesn’t talk about the church. Jesus’ rhetoric centers around the kingdom. Paul, on the other hand, talks of kingdom twelve times, but church sixty. Which language dominates today’s Christianity? (I am well aware that kingdom talk/theology has come back into vogue. For that matter, Jesus scholarship in general is much more popular today than it was 100 years ago. But, I tend to write in broad strokes misrepresenting and offending the general evangelical community. You know this. I think my point remains the same)
Example 2. What is our example for christian living? The gospels or Acts? I can speak specifically for my faith tradition. We have always made an appeal to Acts as our guide for practice. (I know this deviates slightly from my question about Paul and Jesus, but I think we rely more heavily on the Pauline model from the latter half of Acts than we do on the beginning of Acts)
Christians frequently teach that “difficult” texts of the Bible are to be interpreted based on what is “known” from “simple” passages. (Let it be known, I think this hermeneutic is faulty on many levels.) Interestingly, we often turn to Paul to understand other texts. The problem is, Paul’s writings “contain some things that are hard to understand.”
Is it possible, we have started with Paul and therefore misunderstood Jesus? Or at very least changed Jesus’ emphasis?
Maybe the academic trending toward Jesus scholarship will benefit Christianity after all, if, by nothing else, drawing attention back to Jesus.
Themocracy
Very thought provoking.
Most of my interaction with pacifists gives me the impression that they put the emphasis on Jesus.
I think it’s easy to fixate on the church to the neglect of the kingdom. The churches in the NT were often slack in one way or another. The kingdom talk, however, that was demanding.
I am sure there are things we miss out on. I hope we aren’t too set to consider different ideas.
I will add, though, that I get the impression that a lot of people whose brains have WWJD bracelets on when they read the Bible often neuter or disregard certain texts in their seeking to interpret it through their filter. So, caution should be exercised all around.
I would just point out that the gospel Luke and Acts are two volumes written by Luke and the kingdom of God is mentioned about 40 times in the Gospel of Luke . I wonder what continuity would be understood by the 1st century reader would have understood implicity about the relationship between the two that we may miss out on being so far removed culturally and historically.
@Brent academically, luke and acts are luke-acts, but how often are they studied that way by the average (i know, i know) christian? in fact, when we studied them in college, luke was studied in “harmony” with the other 3 gospels and besides a passing mention, acts was treated independently.
I agree. We are disciples of Jesus, right? We follow in his footsteps.
Everyone has their canon within the canon. If not, let’s start in Song of Songs.
We’re disciples of Jesus, but not to the exclusion of the apostle’s teaching. Yes, I do think the emphasis has been generally missed. Seems like a pendulum swinging. One the one hand, the only thing Jesus was about was love and social justice. On the other, make sure no homosexuals walk in the door. Maybe a dichotomy has been created where there isn’t one?
I find myself agreeing with what you guys are talking about. Because on the emphasis on Paul and his letters (which in my own experience have been taught more frequently than the Gospels in Churches) we do tend to understand everything bass ackwards. One problem I have with using Paul, or any of the epistles to form a holistic view of Christ is that we are merely voyeurs in those letters. They were not written to us, we do not fully understand the questions that they seek to answer or the reasons why certain attributes and theological ideas are emphasized. Though through our research and careful study we can gain certain insights, we are still left with an incomplete idea. The gospels on the other hand were written to attempt and preserve the story of Christ’s ministry, teachings, death, burial, and resurrection. They were written for general consumption and are not based on a previous conversation or shared memory/experience. In my opinion, they may be the best opportunity we have to form a more complete view of Jesus and his teachings. That being said the Epistles do grant some amazing insights… but I would agree with Richard that using Paul is in fact using the “difficult” text to interpret the “simpler” text of the gospels.
Also, going off of the teachings of Christ about the kingdom of God/Heaven, I believe that there is validity in saying that the statements surrounding the Kingdom are more difficult than those surrounding the “church.” I personally believe that we see the church and the kingdom viewed as on in the beginning of the Early Church. In the account of Acts where people are selling their possessions, living communally, confessing Christ (even if death is threatened), loving their enemies, etc… I think the original intent is that the kingdom and Church be viewed in a similar way. I agree with Stuart though, the kingdom talk often seems more demanding.
I miss you Richard… It’ll be good to see you again soon.
@Doc Rob
“we are merely voyeurs” i would argue that in many ways, this is the case with gospels as well. i also think there is “a previous conversation or shared memory/experience” behind the gospels. i’m not sure why we have such a hard time embracing historical context driving the production of the gospels. maybe we are afraid such biases would destroy their authority or authenticity. I believe denying their purpose, context, motivation and yes, even their biases does much more irreparable damage to these texts. at very least, they were constructed with a christological bias. they don’t hide this bias, John states it explicitly. context may account for much of the supposed disagreements between the gospels.
i would argue for a balanced reading of these christian texts (if such a thing is possible) somehow centering around Jesus.
anyway, your points are well taken. thanks for the thoughts. i’m looking forward to visiting in dec. take care bro!