Knowing Jesus Through the OT Reflection

Bradford McCall

NT520

9/21/04

I was immediately moved into agreement with Wright at the onset of this book, by way of introductory comments in the preface. He notes that he is saddened by the ignorance that most Christians have of Jesus, and with that sentiment I heartily concur (pg. ix). I detest strongly the apathy that modern Christendom expresses in their “Christianity”. This apathy, note, is expressly revealed in the postmodern pursuit of knowledge, or rather, the lack thereof. It is both comical and saddening at once the marked ignorance that we modern people of God possess regarding our supposed God. We claim to know God, but then deny Him by our actions, because we know not how to act in the proper manner. We have taken the Reformation’s emphasis on salvation by faith alone through grace alone and perverted it to the extreme (note further that humanity knows not moderation, only the extremes) in that we now declare that “faith” requires nothing but mere mental assent to the historical Jesus (more pointedly, to the idea that He lived, dismissing what He taught). We have grown well fed, rich, and have as a byproduct forgotten the God who got us here. The parallels with Israel in the OT are numerous. I conclude, then, that in fact history does repeat itself. Wright began here on a wonderful note with me indeed. 

Moving on to the content of the book, I find much solace in the thrust of the author’s intent: that Jesus of Nazareth completes (perfects, fulfills, etc.) the story began in the OT. I immediately find further agreement with Wright in his assertion (or, rather, his acknowledgement) of the true Jewish-ness of Jesus (3). This is an often abhorred fact of Christianity. We do not serve a white Jesus from North America! I deem the perversion of Jesus’ identity to be tantamount to idolatry. We white protestants absolutely adore the conception of Jesus as one of our kindred--- complete with high cheeks bones, a pronounced nose, and other prominently Caucasian features. For example, it is no strange occurrence to find, hanging upon our church walls, a graven image of a false god (i.e. a white Jesus). Jesus was not white, and Wright rightfully acknowledges this fact. He was a Jew, and to properly understand Him, we must recreate Him in the light of His Jewish-ness, and abolish the Anglo-Saxon idol. 

Differing from most theologians of this postmodern age, I appreciate Wright once more, regarding his assertion that God is a covenant God. Being a Covenantal theologian myself, I affirm that God will forever be faithful entirely to His already established covenant with His people, Israel. America is not the new Israel, no matter how much to the contrary it may be thought. However, we who do believe in His Son do become a part of the Israel of God by being grafted into the root (cf. Romans 11), but we must not become haughty in our position in Christ. Whereas God has broken down the barriers in and through Christ so that in Him there is neither male nor female, God has not forsaken His people of Israel (cf. Romans 9). Regarding this idea of covenant, Wright is quick to mention the necessity of obedience, and the priority of response (11). I deem him to be once more correct in this assessment. All we do for God is merely in response to what He has already done for us, which is the very basis of salvation by grace through faith (and not through works). Right relationship with God flows only through our obedience and proper response, things which are sorely lacking in the church of today, note, to our corporate detriment. 

I additionally appreciate Wright’s acknowledgement of the completion that Jesus brings to the story of God, in conjunction with the acknowledgement that in Jesus a new beginning onsets (Wright again rightfully advocates tension between the two concepts). Jesus onset the kingdom (i.e. reign) of God, but said Kingdom shall only be brought to completion at the Eschaton (7). Thus the tension between the Already/Not Yet exists on earth, in reference to the reign of God (somewhat alluded to on 250). This Inaugurated Eschatology beckons our response of reorientation to the ethics of God and our entire obedience (at least as much as humanly possible, cf. Romans 7:14-22). To deny this ethical thrust of Jesus’ mission would be parallel to dismissing Him wholly, for Jesus and His message cannot be separated (cf. John 14:6). In response to Wright’s book, I must conclude with the words “Amen! Come Lord Jesus, come”.