The Jesus of theology is the Jesus discussed conceptually in intellectual circles, churches and Bible studies. This is the many “historical Jesus’” (although there have been many honest attempts to find the “real” Jesus), the Jesus of orthodox doctrine, the Jesus of deity alone, the Jesus who rules and who only loves in the abstract. The Jesus of theology has been developed over two thousand years, and has increasingly made Jesus, as a person, more philosophical and able to put in a box. Although this Jesus is arguably greater than the Jesus of the gospels, he is less “touchable” and more moldable by whatever concepts we find most dear within our own worldview.

Perhaps the Jesus of the gospels is more static, but he is more touchable, more realistic, and more difficult to conform to our notions of morality and reality. The Jesus of the gospels always challenges our thoughts and who we are. The Jesus of the gospels never panders to us, or tells us what we want to hear.

But the Jesus of the gospels is the one who looked with compassion at the rich young ruler. The Jesus of the gospels is the one who drew in the sand when asked for judgement. The Jesus of the gospels yelled at his disciples. The Jesus of the gospels insulted the Pharisees. The Jesus of the gospels cried to God to change the plan they had determined upon already. The Jesus of the gospels didn’t know everything. It isn’t just that this Jesus is human– he is real.

Sorry, hope I didn’t get too carried away with this.

Tim,

Jesus often quoted Scripture - Mosaic law, Jonah, etc. How do you reconcile a Christo-centric vision of the Bible with his explicit appeal to these stories/teaching that may be in tension with Jesus’s vision? In my opinion, they are not in tension, but I’d like to get your view of it.

“the Jesus of the gospels, not the Jesus of theology”

Could you clarify this distinction? Thanks.

The Anabaptist ideal I have issue with in this subject is the idea of community interpretation. Of course, we interpret nothing except through the eyeglasses we obtain through experience, one of the great parts of which is society. But what I’ve seen is that community interpretation often leads to the idea that everyone in the community has an equal voice as to the truth of Scripture, and the other problem I see is that the truth of Scripture is best found by the agreement of the selected community.

If truth is found in each individual, then everyone’s silly interpretation is possible, and we have no real truth in Scripture. If that’s the case, then Jesus is a bunch of contradictory concepts. I think that Jesus is unified and that the Bible is unified in Jesus. That doesn’t mean we can’t have disagreements– certainly different equally valid interpretations exist. But there are a number of interpretations that are not possible to support through a clear reading, and I don’t think we should give those “interpretations” equal voice.

Secondly, to say that the true interpretation is found in the agreement of the community is equally false. Communities are formed by a common worldview, even when there is dissent, and the interpretation of all things are formed by that worldview. And this worldview is unlikely to be identical with that of Jesus, or even the first century Jewish world. So, in reading the Bible in community, we tend to interpret through our own glasses, not the glasses of Jesus.

Somehow, through the grace of God, we need to get past our own ideas of what Scripture “should” say, and accept what it does say, in Jesus. And then, understanding that, we need to take on another Anabaptist principle: The purpose of Scripture is not to understand it, but to do it.