However, the Gospels are so shocking because the King who inaugurates his kingdom does so by dying on a cross.Second, Wright correctly resists some of the popular ways Christians have approached the Gospels.
However, the Gospels are so shocking because the King who inaugurates his kingdom does so by dying on a cross.Second, Wright correctly resists some of the popular ways Christians have approached the Gospels.Stated otherwise, Wright’s central thesis is that the Gospels are all about “how God became king—in and through Jesus both in his public career and in his death” (175). First, Wright does us all a favor by taking us back to the Old Testament, demonstrating that the story of Israel has its fulfillment in the person and work of Christ.Tags: Wiley Guide To Writing Essays About LiteraturePrinciples Construct Essay TestDemystifying The DissertationEssay On Education Should Be Knowledge BasedWriting A Dissertation AbstractOf Divorced Parents Essay
Wright believes this oversight is “the reason why Christians to this day find it so hard to grasp what the Gospels are really trying to say” (12).
The early church fathers were so consumed with proving that Jesus is God, and the Reformers were so consumed with Paul’s emphasis on the gospel consisting of what Jesus achieved in his death (atonement and justification), that the church has lost sight of the life of Jesus and what it is all about.
We know Jesus was born of a virgin and that he died on the cross and rose from the grave. What does the life of Jesus have to do with anything? “I have had the increasing impression, over many years now, that most of the Western Christian tradition has simply forgotten what the Gospels are all about” (vii). According to Wright, the early church creeds and the early church fathers are to blame for having failed to say anything about the life of Jesus.
Wright, Christians have neglected all that stuff in the middle (the “missing middle” as he likes to call it).
Gathercole and Tilling’s chapters drew from their Christological works, but the lack of space restricted the discussions to feel at times like teasers for their respective books y.
Each of these criticisms traces back to either the nature of the book (a response to Ehrman) or the time the authors were given to write their responses; the criticisms should be tempered when those elements are considered.In contrast to many popular-level response books, these men are sophisticated scholars in their respective fields.I would like to praise the authors for, on the whole, managing to make scholarly debates accessible to the layperson.Therefore, a massive, fundamental rethinking about the Gospels is overdue.And here is his antidote: While the creeds were “focused on Jesus being God,” the “Gospels were all about God becoming king” (20).While they are very interesting and useful in general Christology discussions, they are completely irrelevant in a response to Ehrman, as he holds that Jesus is believed equal to God as early as in the Gospel of John.The book suffers from a lack of organization in places.I was looking forward to a book that I could recommend to people who wanted to dig into the issues but weren’t going to be reading someone like Bauckham any time soon!Admittedly, this was a very high expectation, but at the very least I hoped for more of a standalone positive case than simply sniping at Ehrman’s troops on the wall.What’s even more striking, these authors had very little time to prepare their responses.The responses to Ehrman and positive argumentation in the individual chapters vary in strength, but are largely effective.