The Pope introduces Jesus

The first comments the Pope offers about this Jesus of Nazareth are directed towards a promise from Deuteronomy. This seems a strange place to start for a book about Jesus, but the significance of this origin is quickly made clear.

The promise the Pope begins with is one which declares that one day God will raise up a prophet like Moses. This man will fulfill the role of the prophet which is unique to Israel. This unique role is not an office that can be likened to other religions or other ‘soothsayers’ or ‘fortune tellers’, for the prophet of Israel is not mainly concerned about future events.

The prophet, according to the Pope, is “not to report on the events of tomorrow or the next day in order to satisfy human curiosity or the human need for security. He shows us the face of God, and in so doing he shows us the path that we have to take” (2007: 4). These other soothsayers and fortune-tellers are in contrast to the prophet of Israel because the Israelite prophetic office is defined by the life and character of Moses – one who spoke to God. Thus, the prophet is defined by relationship to God, by being able to hear God, and by being able to see God.

The insight here is sharp. In his juxtaposing of soothsayers and Israelite prophets, the Pope finds that the prophets go far beyond mere future telling. Though they do speak of the future it is clear that “the future of which he speaks searches far beyond what people seek from soothsayers. He (the prophet) points out the path to the true ‘exodus’ which consists in this: Among all the paths of history, the path to God is the true direction that we must seek and find” (2007: 4).

What is important here is that the office of the prophet is directly tied to the fact that a prophets speaks to, and knows God. He converses with God as a friend does with another friend. Remember the story of Moses asking to see the glory of God (Ex. 33:18-23)? God only allows Moses to see his back from the cleft of the rock saying that ‘you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live’ (v. 20).

Now, relate this story to the promise that one who is greater than Moses will come one day. It can be seen that what was refused to Moses - namely face to face relationship – will be granted to the one who is greater than Moses. “This naturally entails the further expectation that the new Moses will be the mediator of a greater covenant than the one that Moses was able to bring down from Sinai” (2007: 6). The promise of a greater prophet tells the people of Israel that one will come who knows the heart of God and will be equipped to guide the people towards Him.

Then in John we see that Jesus is the only one who has ever seen God, “No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known” (John 1:18)  It is clear then, that this Jesus is the fulfillment of the promised prophet. He is the one who lives in the most intimate unity with the Father. For the Pope this is central to the understanding of Jesus. “We have to start here if we are truly to understand the figure of Jesus as it is presented to us in the New Testament: all that we are told about his words, deeds, sufferings, and glory is anchored here” (2007: 6).

Because this is the one who calls all men to follow him, then the claim that the ‘filial relationship’ between the Father and the Son is central to all that Jesus is also relates directly to the disciples who would follow. “The disciple who walks with Jesus is thus caught up with him into communion with God. And that is what redemption means” (2007: 8). The one who is greater than Moses has come, and he has come from the Father, and he has shown us the way to the Father. To follow Jesus is to follow him into a face-to-face relationship with the Father. This is what defines Jesus and this is what defines his disciples.

In John’s Gospel, after Jesus has washed the feet of his disciples he tells them once again that he is leaving them to go to the cross but that he will send another, the Holy Spirit, and that he will not leave them as orphans (Jn. 14). Then Judas (not Iscariot) asks him ‘Lord, how will you manifest yourself to us and not to the world?’ And Jesus gives him this for an answer:

“If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and more our home with him”

The promise that one who is greater than Moses will come is fulfilled in Jesus, the one who has seen God. Now this Jesus promises to his disciples that we too can now dwell with the Father. And dwelling with God is the gift of eternal life given to all who love him.

Learning to read with the Pope

Initial comment on reading the Pope:

I was raised in a non-denominational, charismatic, evangelical, church tradition. As such, I have read and heard very little from the Pope. Yet, as I sit and read a recent publication of his, Jesus of Nazareth, I am already finding that I have invested a certain degree of authority in his words. He speaks from a tradition that carries weight, and it is a weight that I am glad to feel. Too often it feels as if an author writes without considering the weight of words. When reading the Pope I get a sense that the  author himself acknowledges the weight of  his words, and that his readers recognise this weight as they read. It just seems to add significance to the entire dialogue.

In the forward of the book the Pope sets the stage for his depiction of Jesus of Nazareth by delineating the methods of exegesis that he feels are necessary for theology. Forgive my ignorance, but I found it encouraging to realize that the Pope is well read, thoughtful, and sharp. I don’t know what I expected, but as I said, my upbringing hasn’t really created a realistic presentation of him or his position.

These are just notes from the forward of the book Jesus of Nazareth, a book published in 2007. The forward mainly deals with the way that the Pope reads and understands the Bible, the book mainly deals with the way that the Pope reads and understands the Gospels and the person of Jesus Christ.

 

The Pope and the ‘historical-critical’ method:

First he describes the historical-critical method of Biblical exegesis that has dominated modern biblical scholarship as being an ‘indispensable tool’, nevertheless, it is also a tool that also has limits. He comes about this rather simply, yet with profundity, saying that historical criticism cannot be done away with because “it is of the very essence of biblical faith to be about real historical events… It does not tell stories symbolizing supra-historical truths, but is based in history, history that took place here on this earth.” (2007: xv). The claim that God actually enters history is foundational for everything else which we might speak of. It is with this foundation that we can recognise the important role historical-critical methods of exegesis have played, and continue to play, in the work of theology.

The limits of this method, according to the Pope, are the same as its strength. That it is a historical work which deals with constructing an account of the past means it is not immediately conducive to present day application. He says it this way, “for someone who considers himself directly addressed by the Bible today, the method’s first limit is that by its very nature it has to leave the biblical world in the past” (2007: xvi). To consider oneself as being directly addressed by the Bible today is a thing in and of itself. Vigilance in guarding ourselves from seeing this old collection of books and writings as merely historical documents is a discipline. This is where historical-critical methods are both helpful and unhelpful. Helpful, because it is important to know the past, the origin, the context, and the culture of the readers and writers of the books. Unhelpful because the Bible is more than that, it is also God’s word speaking presently.

Secondly, he points to the practice of separating individual books out of the canon for individual study, a practice which cannot readily recognize the final destination of each piece, the Bible itself. Again, this means that they are primarily read in their past context, not their present context.

The strength, and limits of this method push the exegete to compliment the historical-critical method. A ‘push’ which the Pope sees as being inherent in the method itself. He states that “the inner nature of the method points beyond itself and contains within itself an openness to complementary methods” (2007: xviii).

 

Complementary Methods: Canonical exegesis and the community

This leads to another method which the Pope finds necessary to exegesis: the project of ‘canonical exegesis’. A project which works towards establishing the present context of the words of Scripture.

This is a practice which begins from the unity of Scripture. A unity which the Pope believes has arisen out of the texts as they mingle with experience and life of the communities and suffering. It is not something forced on a group of previously disjointed texts. “This process is certainly not linear, and it is often dramatic, but then you watch it unfold in light of Jesus Christ, you can see it moving in a single overall direction; you can see that the Old and New Testaments belong together” (2007: xix). It is a practice of reading the Bible from the starting point of unity – as if they were all part of one overarching narrative. Allowing the other parts of the story which they are a part of to interpret and shape the meaning of each of the individual pieces.

Finally, the Pope discusses the role of the interpretive community. Again, emphasizing the present context of the Scripture.

He holds it to be true that the authors themselves never arose from a private self-contained sphere, rather that the author “speaks in a living community, that is to say, in a living historical movement not created by him, nor even by the collective, but which is led forward by a greater power that is at work” (2007: xx). Thus, the Scripture must also be held to be a word which has emerged from a living subject – the pilgrim people of God – and lives within this same subject. Therefore reading the Scripture always involves interacting subjects (2007: xx).

Here the Pope makes a significant move, saying that “the People of God – the church – is the living subject of Scripture; it is in the Church that the words of the Bible are always in the present… This also means, of course, that the People has to receive its very self from God, ultimately from the incarnate Christ; it has to let itself be ordered, guided, and led by him” (2007: xxi).

From this it is clear that the Pope invests heavily in the authority of the Scriptures, while simultaneously being sure that the interdependence is established between the text and the readers. The interaction is crucial – for it is out of interaction that the Scriptures have come and it is in interaction that they continue to form and shape the people of God.

 

The Pope and his foundations for exegesis:

This places the Pope in a position where he can speak of Jesus with conviction, first established by faith, but deepened and enlightened by historical and critical study. He does not counter modern exegesis, instead he says that “it has opened up to us a wealth of material and an abundance of findings that enable the figure of Jesus to become present to us with a vitality and depth that we could not have imagined even just a few decades ago” (2007: xxiii). It is with this perspective then, that he writes this book which is to him a matter of personal searching.

As I said before, I appreciated the way he deals with the various methods of interpretation. I think that he has a healthy and resolute understanding of Scripture, and he does a good job showing how he has learned to glean the fruit that the various theological schools and movements have borne. What he says about ensuring that the Bible is understood as words speaking ‘presently’ is particularly challenging. That the Bible speaks of God’s presence in the world is a foundational claim that allows for the kind of searching and prodding of it’s words that leads the church into deeper fidelity with God himself. Fidelity, which the Pope claims, is no less than salvation for humanity.

 

Times That Could be Seen as a Waste of Time

I writing this from a hotel in Syracuse, Nebraska. Like some of the other towns in Nebraska I’ve been to, the gas station is the go to spot; every morning the farmers are in there drinking coffee. The fact that I am here definitely influence the title of this post. I originally titled it ‘Times That Seem Like a Waste of Time,’ but then I changed it because it is much better to regard things and times as potentially honoring to God, and capable of bearing his glory. So while this time could be seen as a waste of time, I ought to view it as a moment in God’s process of redemption and restoration to his glory.

I have been kind of thinking a lot about the Holy Spirit, particularly the fruits of the spirit, which show themselves in the character and daily behavior of the Christian. It seems that in many of the Church gatherings that I have been to which emphasize the presence of the Holy Spirit, the indicators of his presence that are regarded are the miracles, prophecies, healings, tongues, and exciting and emotional worship times. These things are all crucial, they are of the Lord, and are a really cool indicator of the fact that we are, in fact, the eschatological people of God, and that this is the year of the Lord. But I think while these things have been emphasized and while the majority of the Church sees these as being of the Lord (in most cases), many, especially younger Christians have a limited view of just what the Holy Spirit was sent to do.

The miracle of reformed character, the creation of a people who do not seek to dominate, who are generous, hospitable, do not let foul talk come from their mouth, practice patience, and regard self-control as being cooler than being ‘wasted’ are not often regarded as significant as other, more miraculous, works of the Holy Spirit. It is important to see the things like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and gentleness as equally significant as the more spectacular works of the Holy Spirit. We talk about being all in, and giving it all to the Lord, but we don’t really talk much about what it might look like. I think we often think that we are only all in if we are leading crazy unpredictable lives like the apostles in acts, healings every day and gatherings of masses of ‘tongue talkers’ (I was asked by someone if I spoke in tongues, I said, ‘I have,’ he replied, ‘Oh, so you’re a tongue talker, eh!’), fact is that being all in is nothing more than being obedient. This doesn’t make ‘all in’ any easier but I think it is important to know that the Holy Spirit is at work in us even if we haven’t seen anyone stand up out of a wheelchair.

I bring all this up because as I have been working this job, largely away from the Church, I have wondered if in times like this one, when I sit in small towns with nothing to do except ponder and pray, if I am all in. But I believe that so long as the Lord is present and redemption is at hand, his glory can be beheld. The presence of the Holy Spirit points to the Kingdom at hand, at hand where the spirit is. And the presence of Spirit is not only marked by sensational events, but also by the miracle of lives reformed in repentance.