What's Exciting about Jesus?

Lent and Easter must be around the corner because I'm beginning to see secular news articles on the topic of who Jesus of Nazareth was. What can we know about Jesus? Do the four gospels portray a historically reliable portrait of Jesus?

Today's CNN article about who Jesus was takes up this question. It's interesting that most articles like this do not focus on the classic/orthodox approach on the identity of Jesus. There is an assumption that a hidden understanding of the real identity of Jesus is much more exciting to people. So in this article, New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan argues for a picture of Jesus who primarily offered a non-violent revolt against Rome and their oppression of the Jewish people.

The famous "Jesus Seminar" a collection of scholars who lean toward this direction in their understanding of Jesus made news several years ago when they met to paint an alternative portrait of Jesus. Since the Jesus Seminar, I have met several people inside and outside the church who say that this kind of scholarship has helped them to see their faith in a new way. For many people, this is a more palatable understanding of Jesus and fits into their 21st century post-enlightenment "closed universe" worldview. I would imagine that a lot of these folks wouldn't admit that they are influenced by this worldview, but it is so embedded in our thought process, that we don't realize that we have settled for a more deistic faith. A deistic approach can be summed up as the belief that God is way up there in heaven somewhere and we are way down here and once in a while God intervenes. In contrast, the biblical understanding is that God is active in our world in a much more dynamic way.

Fortunately, scholars such as Ben Withingerton, Craig Evans, N.T. Wright, and others have used the same 1st century historical context of Israel/Rome and have drawn very different conclusions from Crossan and the Jesus Seminar scholars. Instead of trying to explain away the miracles of Jesus and conclude that many of Jesus' sayings were not originated by him but inserted by the gospel writers, they claim the gospel portrait of Jesus makes sense from a historical perspective when seen in Jesus' Jewish/1st century context. In other words, the gospel writers did not need to add or edit what Jesus' said and did to make this fit into their motivation in writing the gospel accounts.

The Jesus Seminar and scholars such as Crossan have helped to raise interest on who Jesus really was. This is a positive thing even though I don't accept their conclusions because of the reasons stated above. Contrary to what the secular media assumes, the more classic/orthodox understanding of Jesus is as exciting if not more so than what the Jesus Seminar scholars propose.

When we set aside our modern day biases and allow the gospels to speak for themselves in light of their historical context, we discover a Jesus who not only fits into the ancient creeds, but who challenges us to take our faith to a deeper level. If we're looking for an exiting and fresh adventure in the study of who Jesus really is, this approach will fill that need quite well.

.