We now come to the primary critique of N.T. Wright's The Challenge of Jesus. The proper way to read the Gospels, Wright claims, is to adopt the mindset of an average first-century Galilean. Do this, and Jesus's cryptic parables, ruminations on the kingdom of God, his death and resurrection will make sense--and, furthermore, will end up, in a new way, confirming all the things Christians have believed through the centuries.
I will not disagree with Wright's basic strategy: our best hope of understanding Jesus is to realize that most (if not all) of his words were not intended for us; we should not "read into" the text. I also agree that Jesus's words and actions fit into a particular cultural, historical, and literary context, and to ignore this is to distort their meaning and significance. But is literary precedent equal to meaning? Wright often slides the two together.
Consider his treatment of Mark 13, sometimes called the "Little Apocalypse."
The whole chapter is to be read, I suggest, as a prediction not of the end of the world but of the fall of Jerusalem.... [T]he language of the sun and moon being darkened, and so forth, is regularly used in Scripture to denote major political or social upheavals... and to connote by the use of this language the cosmic or theological significance that they ascribe to these events.Look at Wright's claim: Daniel uses "son of man coming in the clouds" to mean this, therefore Jesus must use the phrase in the same way, because... well, because. Contrast this with the transition from Luke to Acts, its sequel.
The language in Mark 13, then, about the Son of Man coming on the clouds should not be taken with wooden literalism--as, of course, generations both of critical scholars and uncritical believers have taken it.... The phrase about "the son of man coming on the clouds" would not be read, by a first-century Jew poring over Daniel, as referring to a human being "coming" downward toward the earth riding on an actual cloud.
When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.Is this a "literal" taking-up, or a metaphor for disappearance? Onward to part two:
After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.Now, is it "wooden-headed literalism" to assume that a cloud is a cloud, and that the disciples actually stood there looking into the sky? Why wouldn't the angel say, "This same Jesus will come back, but not exactly the same way he left?"
They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
Wright may be correct--perhaps Mark 13 isn't about the return--but he is certainly wrong to dismiss an apocalyptic reading of the passage by stating that "first century Jews wouldn't think of Jesus going up into heaven"--because, if Luke is to be trusted, first-century Jews stood there watching as he did just that.
2 comments:
I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Jesus was a 1st century Jew speaking to other 1st century Jews. Luke was a 2nd century Christian (I think) with a different audience. Therefore following Mr Wright, different literary analysis (worldview/mindset) might need to be applied in interpreting Acts.
Certainly Jesus is using prophetic language and context in his speach (whether meant to be taken literally or not), while Luke is not being prophetic. His language and context are more in the style of reporting events which occurred.
...while Luke is not being prophetic. His language and context are more in the style of reporting events which occurred. That is precisely my point. Luke reports that 1st-century Jews watched Jesus ascend into the clouds, and while they stood waiting, an angel told them Jesus would return the same way.
If Luke's reporting is accurate, then Wright's idea that we mustn't take Jesus "literally" is simply untenable according to his "let's think like 1st-century Jews" hermeneutic. Even if the disciples would have originally thought such a reading preposterous, their later experience at the Ascension would likely cause them to reinterpret Jesus's sayings.
Of course, there's another possibility: Luke made up the entire scene, which is entirely plausible.
Post a Comment