What Exorcisms in the Life of Christ really meant.

As I wrote a few days ago, I am currently reading through the book 'Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus' written in collaboration by many scholars and edited by Darrell Bock and Robert Webb. I currently finished the second chapter of the book labeled: Exorcism and the Kingdom. In this chapter Craig Evans makes a very powerful case for Kingdom and its meaning. It is not enough to think that the gospel simply means the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, but it means the reclaimed Kingship of God in the world. Evans writes, "The herald of "good news" has announced the presence and reign of God, which in the language of the later Targum is understood as the revelation of the "kingdom of God" (Evans 155). So for a first century Jew, the good news would not necessarily mean 'salvation', but it would mean that God is finally going to reign as King. In early Jewish thought it was understood that God would be King over Israel and the world, and this is the expectation for a first century Jew.

So what do Exorcisms have to do with the Kingdom of God? Over and over Craig Evans uses Luke 11:20:

"If it is by the finger (hand) of God that I cast out demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you"

Essentially when the messiah begins battling the Kingdom of Satan (through exorcisms, headings, etc) the Kingdom of God has finally arrived. There are obvious implications for this such as the fact that one must admit that Christ did do all the miracles the gospel tells, but also if Christ did indeed performed these wonders, then it must be safe to assume that the Kingdom of God is already 'upon us'.

Evans also discusses aspects of Christ sending of the twelve, and how this sending involved the same type of miracles and Kingdom of Satan combat that he himself was involved in.

So to conclude, the incoming of the Kingdom of God is in all actuality a battle of creation. Satan has staked his claim of creation, and God (through the messiah and the church) is taking this control back. I believe that it is rather obvious that exorcisms and healing no longer occur in the same capacity they did through Christ and the twelve. How today might we participate in this battle against the Kingdom of Satan?

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.