The Calling of the Twelve

I have just finished reading Scot McKnight's chapter in the book 'Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus'. McKnight's chapter 'Jesus and the Twelve' is, in my opinion, a re-imaginative look at what the calling of the Twelve disciples really meant. Scot is doing good exegesis and great history.
The heart of this chapter comes with its conclusion:

"Jesus' sending out the Twelve shows little parallel with the expectation of the reunification of the twelve tribes. Instead, the connotations of his choice and sending out of the Twelve show more significant parallels with Qumran leadership, and covenant reestablishment as found in Joshua 4" (McKnight 209)

As having just finished a degree at a fundamentalist dispensationalist school, it is refreshing to hear words like this. The point of the twelve is not to show that Jesus is finally putting Israel back together, but he is starting something 'New' with the 'remnant' he chose. The symbolism of the Twelve is obvious, in that it represents the Twelve tribes of Israel, but it is also clear that the Jesus did not exactly attempt to find each disciple from each different tribe (and he obviously didn't). If this is true, then it is hard to argue for the number twelve being an eschatological number (meaning Israel would finally return from exile). Jesus may have seen the final reunification of the Twelve tribes, but the text seems to tell a different story. The point of the Twelve is to start something new...maybe a 'New Israel'?

McKnight argues that the calling of the Twelve and the Baptism of Christ are both proponents of Joshua 4, and this seems very convincing. According to the gospel, Christ called the Twelve and immediately the next story is Christ at the Jordan river (hint. hint.) Jesus (or the Gospel writers) clearly identified these two acts of calling the Twelve and Baptism as a re-do of the original Joshua story (by the way Jesus and Joshua are the same name...again hint hint). Jesus seems to be re-starting Israel through his life and this is what Scot McKnight seems to be drawing out.

Do you think that Jesus was intentionally creating some kind of 'New Israel' starting with Joshua 4? I would love to hear your comments!

John the Baptizer and the Kingdom of God

I recently just finished reading a very long scholarly work named 'Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus'. This book is a collaboration and I recently finished the section pertaining to John the Baptizer and Jesus's ministry written by Robert Webb. I do not see myself as a professional theologian, but I do want to offer a view words pertaining to the conclusions that Webb made about John the Baptist and Christ.

What I found incredibly convincing was that Webb claimed vigorously that Jesus began his ministry as John's number two. This holds significant theological weight due to the fact that if God's Kingdom mission started with John the Baptist, then one must conclude that the Kingdom of God predated Christ's ministry. This was a conclusion I formed myself, but I find it convincing. Webb claims that John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, but this repentance was used as entrance into the 'new' Israel or remnant. If Webb is correct, and I think he is, then we must rethink what the meaning of baptism is even outside the apostle Paul. Baptism then was used as entrance into a community. To me it reminds me of that backstage pass people get at concerts. Baptism is entrance into community through repentance. For those of us who believe that the Church today is somehow related to the people of Israel (God), then we can find this view possible.

One of the other issues Webb entertains is the question of why Christ himself was baptized. Jesus was no sinner, yet he still felt led to participate in this baptism of repentance. Why? Webb again is genius in his historical/theological interpretation. Webb thinks it is possible that Christ was baptized as repentance not in a personal salvation type of thinking, but in a national way. Israel needed to repent, and Christ was repenting on behalf of Israel, and because he was apart of this nation, then repentance was then necessary for Christ as well.

I am finding this book thus far very challenging to my thinking, but also informative. I am new to participating in this historical method of Biblical Study, and I am finding that this form of study has the ability to answer questions that theological study fails too.

As I continue through this work I will begin to offer in-depth conclusions about the book and the historical Jesus. This was a just a post done (without the book in hand) to get out some of my initial thoughts. My next posts will be much more informative and scholarly in conclusions.