The battle over hermeneutics has raged over the centuries. When one commences a serious study of the Gospels, it is important to establish who we are examining; Jesus, the church, or both. We must also take into account the role the Old Testament plays in establishing the New Testament.

We must consider, for example, if the quotes from the Old Testament are direct and exact or are they homiletically implied through progressive revelation? It is important to discover that in the New Testament setting, some quotes are indeed quite exact, while many are very homiletical and we are called upon to make the distinction.

Jesus identified the path of his Messianic role slowly. (The Suffering Messiah: Isaiah 53) See Matthew 16: 21. The meaning of the "Suffering Servant" was revealed to him gradually through both circumstance and revelation.

We must equally wrestle with the words of Jesus in Matthew 10: 23. Jesus believed and taught that his "coming" would take place in the first century. Theologians have stumbled over this through the years. We can be confident, however, that prophecy has a conditional nature and that the New Testament insists that Jesus is the eschatological/soteriological Messiah. However, only through progressive revelation does Jesus ultimately discovers that he is the one who must "bear the retribution" mentioned in Isaiah 53.

In like manner, the New Testament reveals through John that although the Jewish Temple is destroyed according to the prophecies of Daniel as recorded Mark 13:14 that a new Temple is in existence and it is none other than Jesus himself. "The Temple is Jesus body" John 2: 21. Furthermore, we are driven to Hebrews and make the ultimate discovery that upon Christ's resurrection he ascended to the "Holy of Holies" taking "His own blood thus securing an eternal redemption". Hebrews 9:11-12.

If the church invented this, it must come to the mind of the believer that Our Lord performed it, and the first creeds of the Christian church established it. 1st Corinthians 15:3-5.

Finally, Jesus and the church must always be viewed in light of "the attack of Satan". Messianic prophecies like Daniel 9:24 --27 are probably best understood in paradoxical terms. (See page 24 of this paper). Likewise, Daniel 7:13-14 in reporting the inaugural ascension of Christ is an ultimate guarantee of the final Escaton. (see Acts 1:11)

Christianity is best understood, in its historical perspective, by delineating the attack and counterattacks between Christ and Satan beginning with Genesis 3:15. Time lines of the preterist, futurist or historical schools of thought limit both the religious and secular attacks of Satan including, humanism, secularism, communism, and currently those of Islam.

I wish to thank Dr. James Callas one of my professors at graduate school for revealing the "attack of Satan" in the gospel of Mark, and the messianic mission of Christ in the light of attack and counterattack. I view these attacks as the answer to the riddle of the "Great Controversy". Behind all the world power struggles lies the "satanic force" he is the attacker of both God and Man. It is the attack of Christ that "destroyed the destroyer". Those who reject the theory of "retribution" need to rethink the role of Christ as "Suffering Servant" the bearer of "iniquity" (Isa. 53:6).

The book, Jesus and the Power of Satan by Dr. James Kallas is the beginning point for the study of the Gospels and rightly divides hermeneutics. The difficulty is that the book is extremely difficult to locate and those who possess a copy should guard it with great care. I thank Dr. James Kallas for many of the ideas expressed in this paper and for the research and conclusions to which it has led me. I am thankful for the copious notes I made during his class sessions. Until such time as I can obtain copies of his books, the material in this paper is a reflection of my recollection and notes. 

I invite comments and critiques of my thoughts offered in this paper which follows.

In a paper entitled Hermeneutics: What Difference Does it Make?, a notable scholar says, "The hermeneutical issue is a methodological virus eating away at the unity of the Church." The Hermeneutics problem is not something new, its roots begin in the 2^nd century when Tatian produced a harmony of the gospels. In his harmony he discovered diversity among the gospels (synoptics) with which most scholars are familiar. Centuries later a zealous search was begun for the Historical Jesus which still continues in the Jesus Seminar. We will review some literature later on in this paper.

Most Christians place the crucifixion of Jesus ca 31 A.D. for approximately 30 years, following His crucifixion, the church operated on oral tradition. We might ask the question, "Why was it so long before a written account of the Life of Jesus appeared?"

1. Reason #1

1^st Century Christians believed that the clock was running and that the (parousia) was upon them - the end was imminent
 
2. Reason #2

The disciples were Jewish. They had come from a culture of oral tradition. Why should anyone be in a hurry to write down what was being orally transmitted. That had been Jewish tradition for generations.
 
3. Reason #3

Why should the message about Jesus be preserved, who would it be preserved for? The world was about to end.
 
4. Reason #4

As time elapsed and the promise of the (parousia) did not materialize, Christians began to ask questions - "Where is He?" Reexamination and a written record became necessary; because, while Jewish Christians were acquainted with oral tradition, Gentile Christians, especially Romans, needed something verifiable. By 60 A.D. it became obvious that the coming (parousia) was in delay. This, then, became a primary cause for the writing of the gospels.
 
5. Reason #5: The original disciples were dying. James and Stephen were gone. Peter and Paul were in Rome and the execution date for Paul was nearing. Eyewitnesses were disappearing and the gospel events needed to be written down in order for them to be preserved. While a few disciples remained who could, as eyewitnesses, testify to their veracity.

John Mark accompanied Paul on his first missionary journey (Acts 13:5) that he abandoned Paul. Later in Rome, he works with both Paul and Peter. The facts are, Mark had the best educators available and for that matter was probably an eyewitness himself (Mark 14:51). So, as we read Mark, we receive the best of accounts and certainly the best of Peter’s account. Each gospel writer presents Jesus to the audience to whom they speak. Mark is most assuredly addressing Romans. The Romans were world conquerors. He must not present a weakling who turns his cheek, Romans would be repulsed by such a Messiah. Jesus must be presented as the most powerful man who ever lived. He must be portrayed as the Master of every difficulty that ever arose, including death. Jesus is, therefore, in Mark’s gospel, never a victim but always the conqueror. Jesus is the strongest man of all history because He enters the strong man’s house (the death house)and emerges victorious.

Mark is here presenting to the Romans a Jesus who was the most powerful figure to ever stride the sands of time. He was so in control of both the seen and unseen world that Mark opens by declaring Him "The Son of God." At the end of the day, a Roman centurion declares "truly this man was a Son of God" (Mark 15:39). While this confession was probably not a confession such as Peter made (Matthew 16:16) it is powerful enough for Mark and it gives evidence that the most powerful figure of history lived and died with great courage - just as Romans always did. This is what Romans could understand and relate to and Mark was writing to their ZEITGEIST.

It is doubtless true that Peter and Mark related more closely than Paul and Mark. Paul, the scholar, trained under Gamalieo, had numerous disagreements with Peter (Gal. 2:11) and Mark had departed from Paul. Thus, accordingly,

To underscore the importance of hermeneutics, we must note that Matthew was written directly to Jews. In the 1^st verse, Jesus is called "the son of Abraham, the son of David," 8 times. A genealogy is inserted to instill the importance of Jesus whom he is speaking about. Abraham and David are featured the 2 most important progenitors of Judaism. Matthew is insistent that Jesus fulfilled prophecies. He features Jesus as the new Moses. Pharaoh attempts to kill Moses at birth - Herod attempts to kill Jesus at birth.

In the sermon recorded in Matthew 5, Matthew specifically says "He (Jesus) went up on the mountain." Matthew is presenting a newMoses who spoke from a mountain just as the ancient Moses had delivered the law from the mountain. Luke denies that Jesus spoke from a mountain. He says, "And He came down with them and stood on a level place." (Luke 6:17)

You can hear the heartbeats of the Jewish audience as he proclaims "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, (You shall not kill . . .) But I say . . . "You have heard that it was said, "you shall not commit adultery . . .)" but I say . . .

Here is the new Moses - the promised Messiah, a son of Abraham and David, "a shoot from the stump of Jesse" (Isaiah 11:1) A typological reference to Christ. Furthermore, the numerology of Jewish thinking shows up in Matthew. 7 woes are pronounced on the Pharisees; Matthew 13 contains 7 parables and Peter denies Christ 3 times.

In Mark and Luke we read about the "kingdom of God." In Matthew we read about "the kingdom of Heaven." No pious Jew would pronounce the Hebrew word for God (Yhwh), instead they substituted (Adonai). Matthew is respecting his audience (Jews). Again we must see that Matthew was written for a specific audience and we must primarily look at it through the eyes of audience, history and cultural circumstances. This, again, in no way detracts from its universal message of Jesus, it enhances it.

For the moment, let us consider that Mark is the downward arrow. Jesus is the powerful person who procures salvation. Man has limited strength but Jesus is the strong man of history - Jesus is God. Matthew, on the other hand, is the upward arrow. He stresses the responsibility of man which was a concept all Jews understood.

They rigorously counted jots and tittles and paid tithe on mint, anise and cumin. Matthew, accordingly, points his Jewish audience upward to the new Moses who lays the law down once more. "But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment. . . (Matthew 5:21) "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery . . . (Matthew 5:27.

A strong reiteration of law and its meaning appears in Matthew but not in Mark. Matthew stresses discipleship and makes it clear that "No man can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24) and that no attachments have priority over the claims of the new Moses. (Matthew 10:37 and 38). Notice carefully the methodologies used - Mark uses the miracles and acts of Jesus. Matthew uses parables sermons, and words. In this setting, it becomes easier to understand why John Mark departed from Paul and discipled with Peter. Paul was the ultimate philosopher - Peter was the ultimate actor. John Mark was linked to Peter by life style and personal abilities and he sees through Peter’s eyes and records the basic raw gospel - filled with demonology and miracles which the critics and learned society have long since rejected along with the religious humanists.

If Mark writes to Gentiles and Matthew to Jews, to whom does Luke write? Luke is a gentile converted by a Jew. He addresses a side of gospel not well stressed by Mark or Matthew. Luke is aware of social class and maturation. His medical training doubtless emphasized that. In Matthew, Jesus directs his disciples to go only among the "lost sheep of Israel." (Matthew 10:5 & 6) In Luke, we find the hated Samaritans receiving commendation. The Roman officer has more faith than Israel. (Luke 7:9).

Luke shows that Jesus cared for the poor and oppressed and stresses that the "lost" are special objects of God’s love and concern. The story of the "Good Samaritan" (Luke 10:29-37) is part of Luke’s powerful social polemic about Jesus as well as despised Zacchaeus. (Luke 19:1-10)

The Roman jailer was ready to commit suicide and was restrained (Acts 16:27, 28). Jesus is a friend of the poor, the despised, the hated and even the Romans. This Jesus even eats with all classes, a custom unheard of in Jewish culture. Luke makes his point - the love of God is universal - Luke takes time to mention the women, they, too, are objects of God’s love. Luke does not want the gospel to be seen as anti-social or ethnic (Jewish in orientation) or to be viewed as anti-intellectual. Mark preaches the power of God, Luke, the love of God. Both are downward arrows. Matthew reverses direction and speaks of what it means to be a disciple. As a unit, the gospels spell out divine sovereignty and human responsibility! Luke firmly establishes the universal Jesus.

It must also be noted that of Mark’s 661 verses, 601 are reproduced in Matthew. Here is the truth which one must arrive at when pondering hermeneutics in the historical context. The writers of Scripture were not historians. They were not as much concerned with the exact details of historical fact as they were with the soteriological meaning of facts. In short, the apostles were not history teachers defending only a historical Jesus, but evangelists developing their remarks for a particularaudience in a particular historical and culturalsetting.

A dead man is not a product - not in the Roman mind - not in the Jewish mind, and not in the mind of any class of citizens. "The memory of them is forgotten" The challenge these writers faced was to present a dead man who was resurrected and ascended to heaven and said he would return soon, very soon. Jesus clearly said "I say to you, you will not have gone throughout all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Matthew 10:23). This statement by Jesus has accounted for much of the theological struggle and sets the message of Jesus apart as eschatological. Therefore, since the (parousia) did not transpire, the oral traditions were necessarily written down, first for the Roman mind, next they were reinterpreted for the Jewish mind and finally again reinterpreted for the universal mind and for all social classes. Romans were the most removed from the Christ event and salvation history.

Saint John, when considering the reason for the writing of his epistle, puts his finger on the exact reason for its writing. "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." John 20:31-32.

They are not precise historical documents; they were written for "belief and confession" and not for exact historical accuracy. The gospels are, therefore, homiletical by nature. Every gospel has in it the confession of who Christ is "but who do you say I am?" Simon Peter replied, "you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." (Matthew 16:16). All gospels record this confession (Luke 9:20), (John 6:69) and Mark the confession of the Roman centurion (Mark 15:39)

Scripture assumes its ultimate meaning when there was confession that "God has made Him both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36). The 1^st Christian creed: "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures . . . was buried . . . was raised on the 3^rd day in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3, 4). This is the earliest historical declaration of the life of Jesus and finds its ultimate meaning when it leads to a confession that He is Savior. (Romans 10: 9-10) Therefore, the emphasis of the New Testament writers was both soteriological and eschatological, with a confession of salvation in Christ being primary. "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already . . . (John 3:18) this composed the 1^st century thrust of eyewitnesses.

There was another thrust created by the ministry of Jesus Himself. It was eschatological in nature: The "coming" (parousia) concept has been believed by all Christians of all generations.. It is critical to comprehend not only what transpired in the first century, but also, during the ensuing Christian centuries. Why did the confessional gospel assumed a lesser position in the scholarly mind, and why has the search for the historical Jesus dominated, and what has the outcome been in the Christian world?

The Scriptures present 4 different records of the life of Jesus. These 4 records do not always agree on what is reported concerning Jesus. Following Tatian’s Diatessaron (4 in 1) up until the age of John Calvin, most scholars looked at discrepancies through the eyes of faith. "John Calvin despaired of producing a continuous narrative like the Diatessaron and simply present similar stories from different gospels side by side in parallel columns."

John Calvin also worked within a context of faith not skepticism. Following the reformation dawned the "Age of Enlightenment," the Renaissance, the European movement which exalted reason. Reason, it was theorized, was the only way to discover truth. Along with the "Enlightenment" came the discovery of the "orderliness of nature," this, naturally, led to well-defined methods for testing and verifying hypotheses.

Along with "enlightenment" came the development of critical thinking. Such minds as Rousseau, Descartes, and Voltaire emerged as did the French Revolution and the overthrow of established order and the substitution of individual reason. There were, of course, both positive and negative historical outcomes. However, one of the major outcomes was a casting distrust of non-verifiable data. Thus religious faith descended to the superstition level. Hence scholars began the "quest" for the historical Jesus. Harmonies of the gospel disappeared and serious attempts were made to develop a biography of Jesus. Dozens of these accounts of the lives of Jesus were produced mainly during the 19^th century. All of these are to numerous to recall. However, we will center on two.

Reimarus was a professor at the University of Hamburg. His works on Jesus were not published until after his death because he feared retribution. Reimarus’s claims disputed traditional scholarship. He believed that Jesus ‘planned to establish a new political kingdom on earth and would deliver Israel from the Romans and establish Himself as King. This is why Jesus was executed and charged with being "King of the Jews" (Matt. 27:37). This is why He also cried out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me." (Matt 27.46) He realized he had failed in His mission. The reason for relaying the story Reimarus is that Albert Schweitzer, while disagreeing with Reimarus’s proposition, hailed his publication "as one of the greatest events in the history of criticism"

Paulus became well known for his naturalistic explanations of the ‘miracle stories of Jesus as reputed in the gospels.

The specific reason for our meeting in this conference is because we believe soteriology and eschatology are inexorably linked. In other words, the salvation theme of Jesus is linked to eschatology which ends with the (parousia). We are obliged to thank Albert Schweitzer for identifying the missing element in the theology of "The Age of Reason" - eschatology. Schweitzer, as did most of his German predecessors, studied the gospels through form criticism. His search was ". . . to determine which parts of the written material had been preserved in a form most similar to that used for oral transmission." He concluded that the numerous sayings of Jesus regarding the future belong to the oldest and best-preserved stratum of material. This material, neglected by most Jesus scholars today is as close to the original, primitive setting of Jesus as we get. And what does this material reveal? It reveals Jesus to be a prophet who announced the end of the world, who declared that the kingdom of God was about to arrive (Mark 1:15). Especially in the first three gospels. Jesus talks more about the Kingdom of God, i.e., heaven, than he does about anything else . . . This realization could be embarrassing to Christian scholars, Schweitzer realized, because in the modern world people who go about declaring "the end is near" tend to be regarded as crackpots. Furthermore, we are left with the unsettling conclusion that if Jesus did claim this, He was wrong." Jesus was wrong, Schweitzer concluded - twice wrong. . . " At one point, he sent His disciples out on a brief preaching tour, telling them, "You will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Matt. 10:23).

"When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next." Matt. 10 is a warning about the impending suffering and persecution awaiting the disciples of Jesus.

Verse 14 - "You will not be received"

Verse 16 - "You must be like sheep among wolves"

Verse 17 - "You will be delivered up and flogged"

Verse 23 - "You will be persecuted"

Verse 27 - "You may even be killed"

This warning about impending suffering and death can be understood only against the belief, The Apocalyptic Conviction, that before the end of the world arrived, there must be an intense period of suffering.

Mark ties this time to the "desolating sacrilege" of Daniel 9:27 which contemporary scholars link to General Titus and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Mark continues on with his polemic "For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation . . ."

There is little doubt that Mark had in mind Daniel 12:1 "And there shall be a time of trouble such as never has been" Mark 13:19 is an almost world for word recitation of Daniel 12:1. One can never comprehend the Divine Mind. It appears, however, from a careful scrutiny of the gospels, that Jesus discovered His mission progressively and only in light of the confirmation of His Father. At the baptism, Matthew records "The Heavens were opened and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on Him; and lo, a voice from heaven saying, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." Matt. 3:16, 17. Following the baptism came the temptation ". . .and behold angels came and ministered to him" Matthew 4:11

Again at the transfiguration experience Moses and Elijah appeared, probably to assure Christ about His coming agony, ". . . a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, ‘This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased . . .’" Matt. 17:5

It is certain that Christ had read the Old Testament scriptures which pointed to the Role of the Messiah and the confirmation of The Father. Certainly by the time he reached Cesarea Phillipi He had discovered what His mission was to be - Hewas to become the suffering servant of Isaiah 53.

The question, of course, is, did He clearly understand this when He sent out the 12 disciples in Matt. 10:23.

Schweitzer thinks not! In addition he entertains a very German mechanical view of the atonement. So much sin must evoke an equal amount of suffering. The Divine scales must balance. If the sin of man is in one pan - in the other is the wrath of God. Thus before the kingdom of heaven can come, the scales must balance - recompense must be realized. For Schweitzer the "suffering" is the punishment of God on sin. Thus the "tribulation must precede the kingdom. It is Schweitzer’s claim that in Matt. 10 Jesus expected the "wrath of God" (suffering) to be poured out on the disciples. The suffering of the disciples may satisfy Divine Justice. This is possibly why in Matt. 10 Jesus predicts the (parousia).

It is with these words of Jesus in mind that Schweitzer proclaims that the oldest oral sayings of Jesus confirmed by form criticism dictate that the message of Jesus was eschatological and at the forefront of His entire mission. Because of this, Schweitzer rejects Christ message because His predictions did not come true and His (parousia) failed.

Schweitzer ends his analysis with these thoughts [Jesus] lays hold of the wheel of the world to set it moving on the last revolution which is to bring all history to a close. It refuses to turn, and he throws himself upon it. Then it does turn; and crushes him instead of bringing in the eschatological conditions . . . [the] great man, who was strong enough to think of Himself as the spiritual ruler of mankind . . . is hanging upon it still. The Kingdom did not come - Jesus was wrong again (two times the parousia and the cross) Schweitzer sees Jesus as a two times misguided eschatological prophet .

"The Historical Jesus," said Schweitzer, "will be to our time a stranger and an enigma."

After Schweitzer the search for "The Historical Jesus" was abandoned. It became abundantly clear to "enlightened" man that moderns could not live with the "eschatological" Jesus. The Jesus who Schweitzer presents is not unhistorical, He is intolerable. Schweitzer discovered that Jesus offends the sensibilities of a non-eschatological scientifically society. Schweitzer gave us not only an eschatological figures, but worse, one who was absolutely mistaken. The fatal weakness of Schweitzer was that he concentrated on eschatology but ignored its genesis Demonology. He is to be commended for discovering eschatology, but he never dealt with the depth of eschatology which is Demonology. Schweitzer sailed in an uncharted ocean and he accomplished a single monumental feat - before Schweitzer eschatology was merely a footnote, it was never seen as the "formative factor" in Christ’s thoughts. Schweitzer is solely responsible for changing all that. The historical Jesus is eschatological.

Following Schweitzer, Dodd struck like a cobra. He recognized that if one could argue that this world was under the control of God, no necessity would exist for the rule of Christ to be re-established in the future. Dodd challenged Schweitzer’s eschatology on the basis of the "Divisiveness of the natural order"

He discusses the typology of the nature parables. The parables, the birds, the flowers, the sower describing the world below really explain the nature of God’s rule in heaven; they are "Parables of the Kingdom." His point is that this world below, can be used to explain the world above because parallels exists. In insisting upon the "divisibleness of the natural order;" he denies demonology. He is claiming that this world order is not "Pessimistically - dualistically" corrupted but is already under God’s control. God’s rule, therefore, is not future but already present, an already existing fact. God’s rule is already reality but not everyone will recognize it. Dodd thus believed the "kingship" is present - now. "But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you.: Matt. 12:28

Has come is a past tense thus a present reality not a future eschatological hope. Eschatology, is not to be cast in some history ending event but is to be grasped in a personal religious sense. The question is not when is the end of my existence or when is the moment I am to be judged - at the eschatological end of the age? NO. The moment I decide for or against Jesus giving Him kingship of my life or else rejecting Him - This is Eschatology - Realized Eschatology. Thus Dodd declares "my destiny is decided not at some future eschatological moment, but it is decided when I decide for or against Jesus!

He, of course, is faced with the task of explaining away Mark 13:26-27 which actually looks forward the final "gathering of the elect" at the (parousia.) Dodd, explains this by disassociating Jesus from this chapter. He explains that this is not the language of Jesus but that of a later editor - the Church- the passage He contends tells us nothing of Jesus’s teachings only those of the later church. The Eschatological accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are simply statements of the retribution of the Romans on the Jews. Dodd would not and could not hold that Jesus was speaking of a final tribulation due to a cosmic struggle between Satan and God!

The Jesus Seminar

Before we draw conclusions on the status of soteriological / eschatological links and the role of hermeneutics, we must first access The Jesus Seminar founded in 1985 by Robert Funk, a New Testament scholar who taught at Texas Christian, Harvard, and Emory Universities. Funk assembled an impressive array of scholars. Some 200 were involved over a period of time. Their task:

To compile a list of all words attributed to Jesus in documents prior to 300 B.C.

1. To examine the saying of Jesus to determine authenticity
2. They would vote on whether they believed the saying of Jesus were historically accurate. The vote would be determined by a progressive color scheme: red; pink; gray or black, black being the most in doubt. See page 67, Jesus as a Figure of History

"Funk believes that the Jesus Seminar is laying the foundation for a New Reformation" . . . He says "it is time to reinvent Christianity, complete with new symbols, new stories and a new understanding of Jesus. Christianity, as we know it, Funk contends, was not invented by Jesus but by Peter and Paul - Christianity is a "2^nd hand faith" not the religion of Jesus but a religion about Him.

The Jesus Seminar has friends and foes. Howard Clark Kee calls the Jesus Seminar "an academic disgrace" and Richard Haus accused them of "reprehensible deception." Thus attempts to locate a Historical Jesus did not cease with Rudolph Bultmann but have been reinstated in the Jesus Seminar by theologians like Marcus Borg, John Meier, John Crossan.

Perhaps a most notable recent theologian to arrive upon the scene is N. T. Wright. He is a well known scholar in Great Britain who has taught at both Oxford and Cambridge Universities. His book, The Victory of God, brought raving reviews. One scholar said of him "Wright is one of the most formidable of traditionalist Bible scholars" and Marcus Borg wrote, "Wright has established himself as the leading British Jesus scholar of his generation."

One of the reasons for reviewing Wright is that while he is seen as a "traditionalist" he is not always so. He does, however, alter form criticism into a form of criticism he calls "Critical Realism"

What then marks Jesus as an eschatological prophet?

1. Jesus preached "Jewish Restoration eschatology"
2. Jesus preached Repentance and Faith (Mark 1:15)

 

 
 
 

A. Repentance represented "Awaiting a different sort of vindication than had been expected. It did not mean "moral repentance" nor did it include Temple sacrifice nor Restoration"

B.. Faith meant "Believing that Israel’s God was acting in Jesus."

C. Similarly, Wright believes that "Christ’s controversies with the Pharisees, while historical, were all about eschatology and politics not religion or morality."

3. Jesus was announcing a message that focused on Himself.

It was the tradition of Jewish kings to ride to the coronation on an ass. They were forbidden in the law (Deut. 17:16) from multiplying horses hence the tradition of an ass. When the people saw Jesus on an ass, all the multiplied history of Israel broke forth - a new King had arrived, a "Son of David"

If Schweitzer had an Achilles heel, so does N. T. Wright.

Just as Schweitzer did not see demonology as the logical culmination of his eschatology; Wright does not see eschatological consummation as a 2^nd advent. He does not believe that Jesus predicts His own return in the clouds of glory. Wright, however, discovers what Schweitzer missed:.

He states: "Ultimately, the Satan must be defeated and that brings us to consideration of another aspect of Jesus’ career - His crucifixion."

Wright believes that the crucifixion / resurrection event is the TOTAL VICTORY as well as an inaugural event. He is correct but the picture is not finished the (Parousia) is not complete. It is just as fatal to believe that the cross is not the Inaugural event as it is to believe that the (parousia) is not an eschatological "end of the world" consummational event. So Wright is half right and he is half right because:

Jesus unequivocally speaks of the Kingdom of God as present, he insists that the "Kingdom of God is in the midst of you." (Luke 17:21). It must also be grasped, unless one is attempting to rewrite the New Testament, that for the "New Testament the Kingdom of God is essentially a temporal future."

The Cross, the victory of Christ, is an inaugural event plainly set forth by scripture. The inauguration was celebrated at his assent ion. Historians, of course, feel more secure placing "end of time" events within a current historical framework. Security, however, is Christocentric, rooted in the Cross - not in time or the unfolding of history. Inauguration theology is Christocentric not histocentric. Thus it places an existential meaning on salvation in the NOW, in the absolute victory which Christ has already been crowned for.

2 Tim. 1:9 is a clear statement of the outcome of the cross. ". . . Who saved us and called us." Paul is unequivocal about judgment in the now [a judgment on sin and Satan] "Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of the world be cast out." Paul means that at the "now" of the Cross the verdict against Satan was delivered the victory is fait accompli’. It follows then that a verdict in favor of the saints has been delivered. And the apostle John is adamant about it;

"My sheep hear my voice. . .and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. . .and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. This has the promise of the whole Godhead behind it based on the crucifixion, and the inauguration, which sat Christ "at the right hand" of God both as King and priest/ mediator:

"Christ - "the official appellation of the long promised and long expected Savior, denoting His Kingly authority and mediatorial position . . ."

Daniel 7:13 is, therefore ,an inaugural expose:

It seems to me that the Inauguration of Christ has the noble ring of assurance and is worthy of blaring trumpets in this age of terrorism. It is in effect the "everlasting gospel" which makes possible the consummation, the (Parousia).

Daniel 9:24-27 decrees the coming and cutting off of an "Anointed One."

Christ is the "anointed one." Peter’s response "You are the Christ . . ." [the anointed one]. (Many scholars disagree on this point, it will be further addressed during this conference) It is the belief of this writer that Daniel 9:27 is paradoxical - Christ and Antichrist must be held in tension

"Christ - "the official appellation of the long promised and long expected Savior, denoting His Kingly authority and mediatorial position . . ."

Looking through the eyes of history, without a workable hermeneutic and the tool of exegesis we miss this Christocentric event, of Christ being elevated to Kingship. This is especially true If one ascribes Kingship to consummation events only when Christ visibly becomes "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" and "every knee bows"

The question was originally raised regarding hermeneutics. The question has not been adequately answered. More evidence must accumulate before conclusions can be tenured. It is the belief of many theologians .that the New Testament is replete with typology

The Lord swore to David a sure oath from which he will not turn back ‘one of the sons of your body I will set on your throne.’" Psalms 132:11

Jesus wanted to know - was there any hope in Israel beside the "Davidic" hope. Had the apocalyptic hope of the "Daniellic" kingdom survived in the Pharisees or had the Pharisees given up the "Daniellic" hope and held only to the "Davidic" hope as the Sadducees had. Were any of the Messianic promises of the Old Testament still alive or was all hope dead. It must be stated that the purpose of apocalyptic literature is to keep "hope" alive:

Jesus asks a question "What do you think of the Christ? [anointed One] "Whose son is he?" They said to him "The Son of David" He said to them, "How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord saying "The Lord, (Kurios) says to my Lord,(Kurios) sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet? If David thus calls Him Lord, how is he his son? No one was able to answer Him a word . . ." Matt. 22:41-44.

The Old Testament text reads thus: "The LORD says to my lord . . . " (Psalms 110:1) Certainly Jesus knew this most assuredly he is using typology thus the argument can never be in the text it is in the context. The question is, did the Pharisees subscribe only to ‘Davidic’ thinking or was there indeed ‘Daniellic’ - Messianic - eschatological considerations in their mind regarding this text . - The answer is obvious - There was Messianic thinking in their mind - because they "answered Him not a word." They did not argue text which they would have had there been no Messianic understanding. Thus all 3 gospels record this event: Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; and Luke 20:41-44

A staggering statement - Does this mean that the Jewish leadership were basically only interested in the ‘Davidic’ Kingdom and that their ears were stopped up about the "Son of Man" and the coming eschatological King and His Kingdom - without question!! Which brings us to reckon with the fact that David was King and leaves us to reconsider that Christ was thus inaugurated "King" upon His assention. He therefore He is both "Lord" and "Christ" (the Anointed One)" (Acts 2:36)

It is now time to examine Isaiah 53 upon whom many build exegetical hope. The question is how did Christ understand Isaiah’s prophecies.

Isaiah 53 clearly states that the Suffering Servant was "Smitten by God"

". . . the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all . . . It was the will of the Lord to bruise Him. He has borne our griefs . . . He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities . . . The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:1-6.

Isaiah 53 insists that suffering is from God and "iniquity" to be laid on a "suffering servant" but Isaiah 42 and 61 suggest that all suffering is overcome by destroying it not by bearingit. The proof of Jesus ministry Matthew and Luke state early on, is that He destroys suffering and sickness and disease, not by bearing it but by destroying it. Jesus believes at the beginning of His ministry that suffering is demonic from Satan, not from God. He overcomes blindness by healing it, not by bearing it. This is clearly reflected in Matt. 10 when He sends His disciples out to be "suffering servants.

As proof of His ministry, Jesus quotes Isaiah 61:1, 2 and Luke 4:18:

More significantly, previous to this was the arrest of John the Baptist. If John was in prison, obviously the enemy had succeeded in an attack. John preached the Kingdom and he had been counterattacked; The Kingdom was suffering violence and attack. "From the days of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force." Matt. 11:12.

It is John who begins the eschatological drama and he is the first attacked and killed. Between the events of Matt. 10 and Matt. 16 Jesus realizes the naked truth of Isaiah 53 - He is the suffering servant and He must be smitten, afflicted, wounded, and bruised for our iniquities, not for His. The ancient Jews believed that the "suffering servant" suffered for His own iniquities.

It is because of the Demonic attack on John the Baptist that Jesus comes to realize the truth of Isaiah 53 that He must suffer and bear the sin.

1. The Gospels were written because ALLearly Christians believed the "parousia" would occur in their generation. When there was no "parousia," the remaining ‘eyewitnesses’ were compelled to write down ‘the Gospel’ for the next ‘generation’ and for ‘verification’ by the remaining eyewitnesses.
2. An exact picture of the historical Christ is not available because the gospels are homiletical - thus form criticism born of "The Age of Enlightenment" has failed and the Jesus Society has failed. N. T. Wright has correctly instituted a new set of criteria.
3. The gospel writers were not knowledgeable about modern concepts of "objectivity" or "higher criticism." They did not write an exact account of a historical Jesus. They wrote to a specific audience at a specific time in history with specific cultural concerns. The Gospels are all confessional.
4. The message of Jesus was "eschatological" at its ancient "oral origin." His mission was soteriological and His message eschatological. They are inseparable.
5. Jesus and the Gospel of Mark are not compatible with modern society - Perhaps society and not the Gospel ought to be altered. Moderns reject the supernatural and the demonic. Mark presses them most - It is Peter’s Gospel. This is why moderns eschew Mark and turn to Matthew, it is more verbal and the later church turns to John - It is easier to believe the Church put "words" in the mouth of Jesus than to accept the Acts He performed, which Mark records. Mark is difficult because it accepts unconditionally the existence of demons.
6. The Scriptures are hermeneutical and borrow typology from the Old Testament. Certain Old Testament prophecies carry direct Messianic messages recognized both by the Pharisees and Jesus (Daniel 9:25-27, Psalm 110, and Isa. 53) - The Jews certainly understood these to be Messianic (Daniellic) as concluded in Matt. 22 by His arguments with the Pharisees. Therefore - exegetical must be implied because of intent.
7. Schweitzer is correct. The ‘parousia’ did not happen and it was predicted by Jesus Himself. Matt. 10:23. Dodd is correct "The Kingdom of God is in the midst of you’ (Luke17:21) and N. T. Wright is correct behind the whole scene of the Jews and Romans the ultimate destroyer was ‘Satan’ His demonology is absolutely correct. He is equally correct in stating that "Jesus is the new Temple."

1. Matt. 22:44 verifies that Jesus refers to historical and cultural (in context) methodologies as a means of verifying Scripture. It makes Him both King and Priest - paradoxical. Out of the Davidic Kingdom comes the Daniellic Kingdom.
2. Schweitzer, Dodd and Wright all contribute to the meaning of the New Testament. One must not pit them against each other, they must be held in tension. Form criticism has been a total failure at discovering the historical Jesus in both the 19^th and 20^th century.
3. Wright’s belief that ‘Jesus and His followers’ compose the Temple and supercede the Temple at Jerusalem has merit upon which other presenters at this conference will dwell.
4. History is best understood from the attack and counterattack perspective, not from a time line. We must not make the same mistake as Schweitzer; we must rediscover demonology, the central theme of Mark.

Barclay, William, A New Testament Wordbook

Benge (from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)

Calvin, John, A Harmony of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, trans. A. W. 8 Morrison 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972

Cottrell, Ray. Hermeneutics, What Difference Does it Make?, Unpublished manuscript.

Cottrell, Ray, A Paper Entitled "Truth/Freedom"

Cullmann, Oscar, Christology,

Dodd, C. H., The Parables of the Kingdom

Gaston, Lloyd, No Stone on Another

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary

Kallas, James, class notes based on Jesus and the Power of Satan

Kallas, James, class notes based on The Satanward View: A study in Pauline Theology

Keil and Delitsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)

Powell, Mark Allen, Jesus as a Figure in History

Schweitzer, Albert, Quest of the Historical Jesus

Wikenhauser, Alfred, New Testament Introduction

Wright, N. T., Jesus and The Victory of God

Wright, N. T., New Testament and the People of God

Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible