Featured What's all the middle stuff for???

To piggie back off of a book I just finished:

Many classic Christians creeds speak of Jesus' virgin birth and skip right to his death and resurrection. So if that is the important parts (the "fundamentals") then why did the 4 evangelists spend so much time on the middle part, i.e. Jesus' life and ministry? What is the theological point to it (if any)?

What do you think?

 

I am reserving the right to save my opinions for later. But honestly I don't see much of people's christology coming from the the 4 evangelists except to answer a few pet doctrines like X's humanity or divinity as if that was the point of the "middle stuff."

The point in mentioning the creeds is not that we derive our doctrine from them, but that they do much of what we do in songs and systematic theologies - skip right over mentioning the significance of Jesus' life that is sufficient to the presentation of the 4 canonical accounts.

 

But what is in the creeds skip right over the majority of the evangelists' stories. It goes from birth to death without mention of X's life achievements or purposes. The creeds certainly served a specific purpose to the apologetic answer of its time, but have we Christians picked up on the creeds as if all the 4 accounts were doing was telling the story of Jesus' birth and death? If that is the case, then it was superfluous and arbitrary to add in all the middle stuff. There is more there.

 

Suggesting neither (had to see that coming )

As to #1, the creeds included only what they needed to include to handle the debate of the day. They were more for apologetical value than for church teaching.

As to #2, I'm not saying to throw away the creeds. My point for using the creeds is as an examplar of how many in Christianity have followed since. We focus so much on the birth (Xmas) and death of Jesus that the majority of the story in the middle seems to be superfluous.

I think a part of this is that post-reformation evangelicalism has put far too much focus on the epistles over against the gospel accounts. I don't mean to pit them against each other, but we clearly have a canon within a canon. Pauline theology has directed much of our thought (and rightfully so as understood to its relation to the gospel accounts). But the early church relied mostly on the gospel accounts. In fact, that Jesus' message of the gospel was kingdom related, I feel we should read Paul in light of the gospel accounts (as a kingdom focus a gospel of repentance and discipleship).

I completely agree that as a narrative, each account is leading to the climax of Jesus' death. Be that as it may, theologically speaking, it seems strange to divorce Jesus' ministry and Jesus' death as if they were not part of the same mission. If Jesus' mission was to bring God's rule to earth (i.e. set up God's kingdom), then probably the message of the gospel accounts is that Jesus' death is the means for that to take place (an already/not yet within an already/not yet). Thus, while atonement theology and X's divinity is big, that is not the thrust of the 4.

 

1) I do not believe I said that his teaching was the primary focus of the gospel accounts. What I meant to drive at is that there should not be this divorce between his ministry and his death. The former pointed to the latter and the latter accomplished the former.

2) I'm not sure why you have a problem w/ the phrase "God's rule on earth." Isn't that where God's program is going in the New heavens and new earth??? God's rule will reach the "not yet" stage and be consummated as creation is renewed and restored. But even more simply, if we understood the word not as "kingdom" (which is the rare meaning of the word) and simply as "rulership" or "rule" or "reign", then it is easy to say that when Jesus preached the "kingdom of God" he was preaching God's reign or rulership (its restoration). And he was certainly preaching that God's reign would come down from heaven and spread to and through the earth ("your reign come... on earth as in heaven"). As a side note, the distinction between an earthly and spiritual one is not my point. I'm not thinking of "kingdom" in the terms of a millenniaran. I'm talking about God's righteous rule that was established in Eden but usurped by his vice-regents set up to be the king's statue image bearers. Following the story of the Bible, Jesus' mission was to restore that, which I believe he did in his ministry and through his cross-work (albeit in an incipient form).

Your last paragraph is not really what I am arguing for. And it concerns me to see Jesus' ministry as such a waste. True enough, his disciples failed until the kingdom and Jesus' reign begun at his cross-work. But the point of his ministry is to usher in and point to that. Jesus' calling disciples is to call in people to God's reign (for God to rule in righteousness over them). THe church carried on that commission with Jesus' ascension as the vindication of all his messianic and kingly/kingdom claims.

This then is the point. It is, imo, short-sighted to say that the middle stuff is to prove Jesus' divinity (in the systematic theology sense rather the biblical theology sense) or simply the salvation work. The Bible is larger that God redeeming humanity. It is about God restoring his creation (humans being a part of that). Jesus' death and resurrection didn't just secure salvation for his people, it began the new creation (Jesus as the firstfruits and we who are "in Messiah" are new creations old things passed away). As we await the kingdom so too do we wait for the day when new creation reaches its culmination. This is the drama of the Bible. When we see the grand picture, we see how the middle stuff fits right into this. But if we only rely on Pauline theology (separated from the big picture), then we are only wanting to see atonement theology (rarely ever mentioned in the 4) or Jesus' divinity (though there in the 4, the point is to show the God of Israel coming down to man once again re-establishing his blessed presence as he did in the garden, tabernacle, and temple - Jesus is the new temple!).

Long post... sorry.

 

My point it to emphasize the 4 over the epistles for a start. Also to understand Jesus' ministry (the story of the 4) with more than just his death. Yes the story is climaxed at his death, but the story as a whole is not his death, it is about "God becoming king." His death achieves that.

But it is so vastly important to see that Jesus' ministry was so kingdom focused, that God is restoring his reign. That message and announcment of God's rule was his mission. It was accomplished on the cross. Again, I don't think his mission and death should be divorced. Although his ministry has no redeeming merit to it, it is still essential to the 4's account and theology of Jesus presenting God's re-establishing his rule on earth. Their theology is not atonement (if it is, it is only a small small portion). Their theology is that Jesus' mission was to set up God's kingdom which he ultimately did through the cross.

I'm not saying it was the primary reason either. I'm saying that it was an essential part of the evangelist story of God establishing his rule on the earth. And therefore, we should treat it with more than lip service or as an apologetic for atonement theology and Jesus' deity.

I would only qualify that b/c of God's revelation is to humans that it may appear that at the center of his work is to redeem humans as a part of his creation. But perhaps we have too narrow view of God's redemption plan or too high view of ourselves. While we were created in the image of God, that has more to do w/ our mission as God's vice-regents than being the "highlight of God's creation." God's plan in creation was always an eschatological one, to move his creation to perfection.

My point here is that we abuse and ignore the 4 accounts as if they don't even matter, or if they do matter, it is only to prove something tertiary to the message of the 4 accounts. Their purpose was to present a truth that started in the OT, in the garden -- that God is becoming king again. The God of Israel is doing that by taking up residence once again in Jesus ("in" is not a spatial term here). Jesus' ministry was to fulfill Israel's mission to bless the nations (Paul calls that the gospel). Jesus introduces and establishes God's reign once again. It is proved by his resurrection and vindicating ascension to God's right hand position.

Very little of the 4 accounts have to do with "accept Jesus as your Savior" or "Jesus paid for your sins." That may be there, but it is subtle and in the background. The foreground is much different. And so I am saying our theology and even understanding of the epistles should reflect the point of the gospel accounts - God is bringing about his new creation kingdom reign through Jesus. That is the message of the 4 accounts when read in light of the metanarrative of Scripture.

 

Time to fess up...

I just finished reading N. T. Wright's book How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels.

It was an excellent read. If you would rather watch a 1 hr lecture that summarizes the book well, you can watch it online: http://www.calvin.edu/january/2012/NTWright.htm .

I know some people hate Wright here, but if you gave him a chance (watch the video!), you'd see that he is reading Scripture well and has brought the focus of God's kingdom to the forefront of the message of Scripture. That's where we need to be.

 

Hey... my folks live in Ocala...

I'm not sure that your math is accurate or at least conveys what you want it. For instance, Mark starts the passion week in chpt. 11. So 11-16, 6 of 11 chapters. Wowza! But most of it is on his teaching and kingdom ministry. Only 2 of 11 are on his death and resurrection (not that chapters matter since they weren't there originally). Again, the climax of the narrative in all 4 accounts is the death and resurrection. Taken narrativally, one would not understand the death and resurrection of Jesus were it not for his kingdom mission before it. We bring to the accounts so much theology and baggage that the writers themselves did not mean to display. And so, to understand the accounts as intended by the writers themselves with their proper theological motives, it needs to be read in light of itself before adding on the epistles. After all, they are just continuing Jesus' ministry to make more kingdom disciples. So the accounts direct interpretation for the epistles. Yet it is so often the reverse.