Undergraduate Programmes in Theology and Mission and Ministry

BIB200 Topic 1
Undergraduate Programmes in
Theology and Mission and Ministry
Student Study Guide Spring Term 2022-23
BIB200 Intermediate Biblical Studies

Topic 1: Narrative Approaches to Key Texts in Scripture
ForMission College ©: BIB200 2022-23
Student’s Name:
1
BIB200 Topic 1
Contents
BIB200 Reference Books to Help Students Engage with their Assignments .............. 3
Module Introduction .................................................................................................... 6
Session 1: Narrative Approaches to Reading the Biblical Story ................................. 7
Session 2: C.J.H. Wright: People who Represent God to the World ........................ 16
Session 3: Walter Brueggemann: Prophetic Voices in Exile .................................... 27
Session 4: The Gospels: NT Wright: Literature, Story and the Articulation of
Narrative Worldviews ............................................................................................... 45
Session 5: Paul: N T Wright, The plot, the Plan and the Storied Worldview ............. 56
Session 6: Dale Allison: Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination and History ...... 71
Session 7: Kenneth Bailey: Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes ............................ 85
Session 8: Michael White: Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Re-write .................... 101
Each student needs to purchase and read the textbook for this Module:
Wright, CJH, (2010), The Mission of God’ People: A Biblical Theology of the
Church’s Mission, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Copies are widely available from bookshops and various online sites, including
Amazon.co.uk.
2
BIB200 Topic 1
BIB200 Reference Books to Help Students Engage with their Assignments
Books Held at Campus

Fee, Gordon, Stuart, Douglas. (2003) How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 3rd ed.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Wright, N. T., (2005), Scripture and the Authority of God, London: SPCK
Wright, N. T., (1996), Jesus and the Victory of God, London: SPCK
Brueggemann, W., (1986), Hopeful Imagination: Prophetic Voices in Exile, London:
SCM
Wright, C. J. H., (2010), The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the
Church’s Mission, Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Journals to be consulted for this Module

Themelios Journal (also online here: http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/archive)
Also consult the Biblical Studies website: www.biblicalstudies.org.uk
Ebsco E-books to be consulted for this Module: for assignments and extra
reading
Goldingay, J. (2003). Old Testament Theology : Israel's Gospel. Downers Grove, Ill:
IVP Academic., e-book collection (EBSCOhost) EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e093mww&AN=642402&sit
e=ehost-live
Goldingay, J. (2006). Old Testament Theology : Israel's Faith. Downers Grove, Ill:
IVP Academic., e-book collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=642403&site=eh
ost-live
Goldingay, J. (2009). Old Testament Theology: Israel's Life. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP
Academic., e-book collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost.
ost-live
Cabrido, J. A. (2010). A Portrayal of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew: A Narrative-
Critical and Theological Study. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press., e-book collection
(EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost.
ost-live
3
BIB200 Topic 1
Brueggemann, W. (2001). Prophetic Imagination: Revised Edition. Minneapolis, MN:

Fortress Press. e-book collection, (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost.
ost-live
Carr, D. M. (2010). An Introduction to the Old Testament: Sacred Texts and Imperial
Contexts of the Hebrew Bible. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, e-
book collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost.
ost-live
Alter, R. (2011). The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, e-book
collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost.
ost-live&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_Cover
Halvorson-Taylor, M. A. (2011). Enduring Exile: The Metaphorization of Exile in the
Hebrew Bible. Leiden: Brill.
ost-live
Goldingay, J. (2014). The Theology of the Book of Isaiah. Downers Grove, Illinois:
IVP Academic.
ost-live
Journal Articles as Readers Referenced for each session: Topic 1
Session 4: Wright, N. T., (1992), The New Testament and the People of God, London:
SPCK, chapter 8.1-8.2, pages 215 – 223.
ost-live
Session 5: Wright, T, (2007), Surprised by Hope, London: SPCK, chapter 6

ost-live
Session 8: Bauckham, Richard. ‘The Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts’.
Copy this into Google to download the article:
richardbauckham.co.uk/uploads/Accessible/Denver.pdf
4
BIB200 Topic 1
PDF Readers to be found on Moodle for sessions: Topic 1

Session 1: Adams, Edward (2011), Parallel Lives of Jesus, London: SPCK, Chapter
2.
Session 3: Brueggemann, W., (1986), Hopeful Imagination: Prophetic Voices in Exile,
London: SCM, chapter 2
Session 6: Allison, D.C., (2010), Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination and
History, London: SPCK, chapter 4, ‘More than an Aphorist: The Discourses of Jesus’.
Session 7: Bailey, K., E., (2008), Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies
in the Gospels, London: SPCK, pp. 309 -320 and pp. 332- 342.
Session 8: White, L. M., (2010), Scripting Jesus the Gospels in Rewrite, New York:
Harper One, pp. 259-289
5
BIB200 Topic 1
Module Introduction
Module Introduction
The module will engage with a range of writers who use a variety of approaches to
explore some key biblical texts. An underlying theme which links these writers together
is that they all, to some degree, see the part of the story they are dealing with as part
of a continuous whole.
A central and primary narrative will be the experience of exile and how this defining
framework or paradigm encourages deeper missional reflection and subsequent
engagement in postmodern and post-Christian settings. This topic introduces a
framework – or rather, a choice of frameworks – for how to approach the biblical text
and examines the thinking of several key contemporary theologians and some of those
who paved the way for the present upsurge of interest in these significant ideas about
narrative.
In the second part of this module we shall focus on an exegetical approach to some
key exilic texts in order to help us appreciate how the biblical narratives can give us
insight into the situation of the Church in a postmodern, post-Christian society.
6
BIB200 Topic 1
Session 1: Narrative Approaches to Reading the Biblical Story

By Andrew Fraser and Tina Trevett
Learning Outcomes:
By the end of the session the student will be able to:
1. Understand what we mean by ‘narrative approach’
2. Understand how the individual biblical texts relate to the Bible as a whole and
articulate the idea of a biblical metanarrative
3. Recognise the importance of this approach for communicating the gospel in
their missional settings.
There is PDF Reader on Moodle for this session:

Adams, E., (2011), Parallel Lives of Jesus: Four Gospels, One Story, London: SPCK,
chapter 2
Introduction: What is narrative?

In this session we shall look at what characterises a ‘narrative-critical’ approach to
Scripture before looking at some of implications of this for a theology and ministry. At
its simplest a narrative approach focuses on ‘the texts in their finished form’1 and
emphasises the value of story as a way of recording and analysing what has taken
place. We will look briefly at the significance of this for a postmodern context.
In contemporary educational circles, narrative is considered to have two strands:
recount and story. Recount is the sequence that would emerge if someone followed
you around for a day and spoke into a voice recorder or wrote down everything you
did and said in a factual, accurate and dispassionate way. It famously produces a dull
product; imagine your favourite thriller movie retold as ‘A did this, then B said this’.
Recount however is a valuable way of recording what has happened with a minimum
of analysis and interpretation, although this is impossible to remove entirely, since the
recorder has, at least, to make choices about what to put in and what to leave out.
Story on the other hand requires the sequence of events to pass through a creative
lens. Consideration has to be given to the effect that the retelling has on a hearer (or
reader, or watcher). In particular, mechanisms are adopted to raise the level of human
response to the retelling. Young beginner authors are instructed to give story a
beginning, middle and end. Mature writers may think about an introduction,
complication and resolution; and experienced authors are skilled in precipitating
human responses in many sophisticated ways by varying the structure and the
language of a story. A key component is the complication of a story: that element that
raises a problem in the mind of a reader that will cause her or him to invest emotional
energy in waiting for, almost willing on, a resolution. What will Dorothy find at the end
1 Adams, 2011, p25
7
BIB200 Topic 1
of the Yellow Brick Road? What are David’s chances against Goliath? We feel sure
he will win, but how will he do it?
Story makers from pre-literary cultures are considered to have developed intense skill
in the formation of stories, precisely because of the process of their transmission. The
human mind has developed a very marked capacity to memorise complex sequences
and their manner of retelling, and when a pre-literary community offered its ‘critical
response’ to the offering of a story, the only agency open to the teller was to improve
the sequence (the pre-literary version of structure), the language and the
presentational use of voice and body language. It was worth refining and
remembering the best way to present the story so as to maximise the hearers’
satisfaction so as to preserve the reputation, and perhaps social or physical wellbeing
of the teller. Writing stories down, and since the beginning of the twentieth century
presenting them with full visual animation in movies, has eclipsed these skills, although
the biological capacity to manage them orally must still remain.
Story, then, is a creatively managed retelling or invention of a set of events in which
an author has made choices so that the level of human response is maximised
according to criteria chosen by the author, and in which interrelationships have been
assumed by the author, who has attached significance to them according to those
criteria. So how does this understanding of story relate to our understanding of
Scripture?
A Narrative Critical Approach

As noted above, a narrative approach focuses on ‘the texts in their finished form’2 and
approaches Scripture in the way that we have long approached other forms of
literature.
‘... this approach analyses plot, theme, motifs, characterisation, style, figures of
speech, symbolism, foreshadowing, repetition, speed of time in narrative, point
of view and the like.’3
Adams notes that some critics of this approach say that
‘interpretation of the Gospels in narrative terms divorces the Gospels from their
historical authors and the historical contexts.’4
He goes on to argue that this is not an inherent characteristic of this approach, saying
that
‘it is possible to ... retain a robust view of the texts as authored, seeing their
“narrative artistry” as deriving from the evangelists themselves ... and
2 Adams, 2011, p25

3 Klein, Blomberg et al, 2004, p65
4 Adams, 2011, p25
8
BIB200 Topic 1
maintaining a keen interest in the historical realities and processes behind the
texts.’5
Summaries of earlier critical approaches tend to assume that a contemporary scholar
will use a composite of Source, Form and Redaction Criticism, thereby focussing on
origins, micro-styles of composition and author-editor objectives at the same time. In
the quote above, Adams iterates that adopting a narrative approach does not mean
that we abandon the insights from these earlier critical approaches.
Klein and Blomberg support this view asserting that focussing on the unity of the text
demonstrated by this approach does not necessarily undermine the ideas of the
historical critical approaches of form or source criticism for example. So, in the story
of Joseph (Gen. 37-50), which we read as a ‘unit’ – a continuous narrative – they would
argue that ‘the burden of proof lies ... on the person who wants to argue that the unity
is synthetic’.6 What they are saying is, that in this approach, the issues are not so
much about whether the story gained its current form over an extended period of time
or on the role of the redactor in bringing together several sources but on what the story
in the form in which we receive it actually means and how it functions in its context.
You will note that Brueggemann takes this view in his approach to the prophets in
session 3.
Klein and Blomberg argue that this approach has many advantages:
• It helps us to ‘focus on the major emphases and not get side-tracked with
peripheral details.’7 So in the story of Abraham we should understand
Abraham’s ‘twice-aborted attempts to pass Sarah off as his sister’8 in the light
of the overall theme of Abraham’s story as the one whom God has chosen to
be the vehicle of his blessing, rather than trying to work out what these incidents
teach us about lying, for example.
• It helps us understand repetition. Where we have two similar accounts, they
argue that the similarities can help us identify the ‘form’ or genre and the
differences can help us discover unique emphases. This approach, comparing
accounts of the same – or similar looking – events has been used to identify
how specific theological emphases vary between the gospel writers.
• Likewise ‘a careful study of plot and character development also helps us
identify ... the most important idea of a passage.’9 When we link this with an
appreciation of the historical and cultural setting of a passage we gain a greater
insight into the significance of the story. And we shall see examples of this at
many points in this module.
The narrative critical approach has been particularly used in gaining a fresh
understanding of the Gospels and Bock draws our attention to the fact that
5 Adams, 2011, p25

6 Coates quoted in Klein, Blomberg, 2004, p66
7 Klein, Blomberg, 2004, p67
8 Klein, Blomberg, 2004, p67 – see Gen. 12:10-20; 20:1-18
9 Klein, Blomberg, 2004, p67
9
BIB200 Topic 1
‘one of the things most often lost in studying a Gospel is that it is a narrative,
presenting a sequenced story.’10
We looked earlier at what we meant by ‘story’. Adams, in applying this approach to the
Gospels, distinguishes between the terms ‘story’ and ‘narrative’:
‘Story exists only at the theoretical level. What readers actually encounter is the
narrative expression of the story in the form of a text (... a film, a play etc.)...
The distinction between story and narrative implies that a given story might be
narrated in countless ways and that each telling would be different from the
others.’11
He explains this in the opening two chapters of his book: chapter 2 is listed as the
reader for this session and it will be helpful at this point to look at how Adams uses
this approach in his study of the Gospels.
Exercise
The student should spend some time doing the exercise set out below and should
come to the facilitation prepared to discuss their findings
Read the PDF reader for this session: Adams, Parallel Lives of Jesus, chap. 2.
What are the three main elements of story?
Adams lists nine main aspects of narrative; list them here and make sure you
understand what each of these means.
10 Bock, 2002, p206

11 Adams, 2011, p26
10
BIB200 Topic 1
Make notes on what Adams says about the shared story in the four Gospels:
Make notes on what he says about the shared narrative features:
The Contemporary Emphasis on Narrative

Narrative interpretation is an important means of making the theological schema and
epistemology of the Christian story found in Scripture intelligible to postmodern people.
Narratives can be expressed in a number of different ways:
• Narrative Communication – this is the type of communication which seeks to
share the Christian message through stories and narratives
• The Christian Community living the Narrative of God’s love in action
11
BIB200 Topic 1
• The living human narrative/document which each of us present as

ambassadors of God to others is also important to grasp.
Moyise comments on the importance of Narrative theology:

'When we read stories, we sometimes get so involved with the characters that
the ending can have a huge emotional impact on us. Had the author stated the
point right at the beginning, we might have been impervious to it, but we were
taken along by the story. The author got behind our natural defences by luring
us into their story world. Just for a while, we suspended life in the present world
to live in the world of the story. In short, we were caught off-guard. An excellent
example of this occurs in 2 Samuel 12. David has committed adultery with
Bathsheba and then plotted to have her husband killed.'12
David gets drawn into the story Nathan tells him, and by so doing unwittingly makes a
judgement on himself, which he then has to embrace as a means of evaluating his
actions leading him to repent and change. Narrative is a very important part of
postmodern psychology, and it is necessary to communicate the Christian story in this
way in order to help postmodern people reinterpret their present narratives (life stories)
in the light of the Christian story. Here are some key facets of narrative which make it
a helpful tool for missional biblical interpretation:
1. Biblical stories catch us off guard as they did in David’s case. We come to
take part in the story and start to reinterpret our stories in the light of it.
2. Biblical stories embody truth in people/characters as we identify with

certain character types, we can start to reinterpret ourselves and our
personalities by comparison. We may start to embrace the story character’s
worldview.
3. Biblical stories stimulate imagination, we imagine ourselves in the story and

think how we would react or fit. We may come to embrace reactions which
subvert our previous story and beliefs.
4. Biblical stories invite participation, we may identify with the story and key
characters so much that we want to take on a character’s story, thus changing
our story to a more Christian story.
5. Biblical stories have plots; stories have a dominant narrative that guides the
process of how the story develops and ends. We may therefore help
postmodern people to identify with the metanarrative of the God of Missio Dei
that has a purpose to unite people to his cosmic kingdom community.
The contemporary fascination with narrative comes from three sources. The first is
the recognition that biblical doctrine sits within storytelling rather than propositional
statements.13 The second is that philosophers such as Wittgenstein focus a great deal
12 Moyise, (2006), pp. 73-74.

13 See for example: Newbigin, L., 1989, and C.J.H. Wright and N.T. Wright – see sessions 2 & 4
12
BIB200 Topic 1
on what may be properly known and the place of language in relation to it 14, and the
third is that a postmodern generation that is weary of grand explanatory narratives is
however, still disposed to engage with story. This has implications for our
understanding of missio Dei which may be seen to have narrative as part of its
communicating mechanism. Therefore, this is an important idea to grasp as you seek
to communicate the Gospel within your missional setting.
Missional Significance
Every person on Earth has a story, although in our postmodern age many never
consider that it might fit within an existing story. To understand, respect and
supportively articulate other people’s stories is one of the greatest services that we
can do for them. This can be applied to individuals and to groups. Whilst each
individual within a group will have their own different stories, most intentionally formed
groups share a ‘founding story’: a shared purpose or identity that draws them together.
As individuals we inhabit a range of stories at any one time, even though there may
be one particular story that defines us more than any of the others. This requires us
to develop two skills: one is the ability, by respectful proactive listening, to learn about
other people’s stories. The second skill is to be able to imagine how their story and
the ‘Ongoing Story’ are interacting in the present. It is important never to imagine that
another person’s story has not begun to interact with the ‘Ongoing Story’. In the same
way that Shakespeare tells us that we are simply ‘players’ in our time, each person is
in the Story by virtue of being ‘on the stage’.15
Reflect on some recent encounters you have had in your missional context.
Can you think of any situations where you might have responded differently if you had
been more aware of your audience’s story – whether an individual or a group?
So far, we have focused on understanding the significance of a narrative approach to

reading scripture. Throughout the rest of part one of this module, we shall be looking
at how different writers have interpreted key narratives within scripture based on the
assumption of an underlying unifying metanarrative. So it is important to end this
14 See also session 4, NT Wright on a critical-realist approach to knowledge.

15
Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act 2, Scene 2
13
BIB200 Topic 1
session with a very brief look at a contemporary understanding of the idea of

metanarrative.
The word metanarrative and its meaning

Jean-Francoise Lyotard, (1924-1988) was a philosopher and leading figure in the
intellectual movement known as postmodernism and is an early user of the term
‘metanarrative’. James K.A. Smith writes that ‘Lyotard was one of the first to have the
courage to attempt a definition of the new creature postmodernism’. He comments
that Lyotard wrote a ‘report on knowledge’ commissioned by the government of
Quebec and that he opened his analysis with the claim: ‘Simplifying to the extreme, I
define postmodernism as the incredulity towards metanarratives.’ 16
Metanarratives may themselves, as a spin-off of this definition of postmodernism, be
explained as: the grand explanatory stories that modernism tends to provide and which
the people of this generation are reluctant to believe. The idea of a biblical
metanarrative therefore has to be handled carefully if it is to avoid the suspicion and
incredulity of postmodern people. In the post-Christendom world where secular people
in general do not see the world through Christian eyes, as was formerly the case in a
Europe largely shaped by Christendom, we can no longer assume that these people
will agree with our interpretations of Scripture and the reality of the resurrected Jesus
and God. What has made this even more difficult is the tendency of postmodern
people to have rejected the idea that there is such a thing as a stable truth or one
overarching story which everyone can discover and verify as the agreed basic truth.
Having made that point however, it is the argument of most of the writers with whom
we will engage in the rest of this topic, that the individual narratives within scripture
only make sense when seen within the overarching metanarrative of the Bible as a
whole. And the New Testament writers clearly felt that they were working within an on-
going literary tradition or story that describes God’s interactions with his creation within
this story; Israel’s history as recorded in the OT accounts.
For a reminder of how some key writers have summarised the metanarrative structure
please refer to BIB100, Topic 1, Session 2. The simplest structure which all the models
agree on would include:
Creation/Fall/Redemption/New Creation
Summary
In this opening session we have explored ways of reading the Bible story in relation to
the contemporary emphasis on narrative and we have explored some of the key
reasons for using a narrative approach to help us understand and interpret biblical
texts. We have reflected on how the contemporary emphasis on story may be helpful
in engaging missionally in a postmodern context which has a suspicion of
16 Smith, K.A., (2006), 63.
14
BIB200 Topic 1
metanarrative. We will now move on to explore how some recent writers have used
this approach to deepen our understanding of the stories within the story of scripture.
Reflection
How might this suspicion of metanarrative but openness to ‘story’ be helpful in
communicating the Gospel in your missional setting?
PDF Reader on Moodle:

Adams, E., (2011), Parallel Lives of Jesus: Four Gospels, One Story, London: SPCK,
chapter 2.
Bibliography
Adams, E., (2011), Parallel Lives of Jesus: Four Gospels, One Story, London: SPCK
Bock, D. L., (2002), Studying the Historical Jesus, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic
Klein, W. W., Blomberg, C. L. And Hubbard Jr., R. L., (2004, 2 nd edn), Introduction to
Biblical Interpretation, Nashville Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Inc.
Smith, J. K. A., (2006), Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism: Taking Lyotard, Derrida and
Foucault to Church, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Church’s Mission, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Wright, N. T., (2005), Scripture and the Authority of God, London: SPCK
15
BIB200 Topic 1
Session 2: C.J.H. Wright: People who Represent God to the World
Session 2: C.J.H. Wright: People who Represent God to the World17

By Tina Trevett
Learning Outcomes:
By the end of this session the student will be able to:
1. Understand how the exodus narrative demonstrates the Missio Dei.
2. Understand how the exodus narrative lays the foundation for the later prophetic
role within Israel’s story.
3. Relate this learning to their missional situations.
Introduction
In this session we will be exploring how Wright sees the ‘exodus’ narrative speaking
to us today in the on-going narrative of God’s mission to the world. He says that
mission – ‘representing God to the world’ – is no New Testament afterthought; rather
it is integral to the metanarrative rooting our understanding of the purpose and role of
the church within the context of the whole of Scripture.
Wright uses four key divisions to capture the broad sweep of the biblical narrative:
‘creation, fall, redemption in history, and new creation’18, and sets his understanding
of the exodus narrative within this structure:
‘The exodus provides the prime Old Testament model of God acting as
Redeemer ... It is an act that simultaneously demonstrates God’s faithfulness,
justice and love. And the people who know themselves to be the redeemed
people of this God ... are called upon to model before the nations what it means
to be redeemed and to live redemptively in their own society.’19
Wright says that people who represent God to the world ‘know the story they are in’.20
In the chapter, which is the focus of our study, he uses a short passage from Exodus,
which draws together the key elements of his argument, to illustrate how the exodus
narrative is a central part of the story we are in today:
Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain
and said, “This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you
are to tell the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt,
and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if
you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be
my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for
me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to
speak to the Israelites.”21
17 Wright, 2010, chapter 7

18 Wright, 2010, p39
19 Wright, 2010, p41
20 Wright, 2010, chap.2 (see title of chapter)
21 Exodus 19:3-6
16
BIB200 Topic 1
Wright looks at this passage under three headings:

Past Grace:22 rescue/salvation; election/calling.
Future Grace:23 mission/purpose.
Present Grace:24 how to be God’s people in the world; ethics/holiness; being
a distinctive people.
At first sight this does not seem logical: we would tend to assume that we should
consider the present before the future but as we follow Wright’s argument it becomes
clear that this not only helps us make sense of the exodus narrative and Israel’s role
within the metanarrative but also of our own story and our role within the metanarrative.
By looking back and remembering where they have come from, Israel is reminded that
their redemption and rescue is the result of God’s grace and not their own efforts. Their
future is given purpose: they have been redeemed to take part in God’s long-term plan
of rescue; a plan which is to include all the nations, for ‘the whole earth is mine’. Their
present is to be shaped both by their past experience of grace and by the future grace
of the purpose for which God has called them.
‘... we see here the future grace of God’s ultimate mission to the nations
alongside the past grace of God’s historical act of redemption. And the whole
story of Old Testament Israel is slung between these two poles.’25
We shall use these headings to help us explore how the exodus narrative shows us
what it means to be a people who represent God to the world and, at the end of this
session, look at how this insight can help us become people who represent God to the
people within our ‘worlds’.
Past Grace
Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain
and said, “This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you
are to tell the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt,
and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself’.”26
Our starting point is an understanding of the situation the people of Israel were in
before the exodus. It is a familiar story but important to remember nonetheless. Egypt,
originally Israel’s place of safety and refuge from the famine in the time of Joseph, had
become their place of oppression and slavery. And it is from this place of bondage that
God acts to redeem them; to deliver them from the ‘political, economic, social and
spiritual’27 bondage of Egypt. Implicit in this act of deliverance and redemption is God’s
judgement on the oppressive and controlling powers of Egypt and a demonstration of
the superiority of Yahweh’s powers to defeat the gods of Egypt.
22 Wright, 2010, p116

23 Wright, 2010, p118
24 Wright, 2010, p120
25 Wright, 2010, p119
26 Exodus 19:4
27 Wright, 2010, p99
17
BIB200 Topic 1
We shall see in the next session that Brueggemann sees this as vital in understanding
the stance and the messages the prophets were delivering but his view merits a brief
comment here:
‘The participants in the exodus found themselves ... involved in the intentional
formation of a new social community ... which [was] utterly discontinuous with
Egypt.’28
Remembering this decisive break was crucial to their formation as new community of
‘priests’ and as a ‘holy nation’29 because it reminded them of the power of God at work
in bringing this about. As we shall see in the next session, it was the failure to
remember this complete and radical break with the dominant Egyptian social and
economic system, and Israel’s subsequent imitation of it, which led to the breakdown
of the covenant relationship between Israel and their redeeming God.
God’s act of redemption had brought Israel not just into freedom but back into the
covenant relationship God had first established with Abraham. This relationship had
always had a purpose and this act of deliverance began the next stage of that purpose.
But this is the crucial point that Wright stresses: God’s act of deliverance and
redemption came first. Everything that follows flows from this act of grace. It was
important for the Israelites to look back and remember where they had come from and
to recognise that their rescue and redemption was as a result of God’s initiative; God’s
grace. Their call to be a missional people and a holy and distinctive people came after
their redemption out of bondage into the renewed covenant relationship with the God
of Abraham.
This is an important principle to grasp as we too often focus on what came next in the
story: the giving of the Law and the instructions for how they were to live and worship
as the newly formed people of Israel. But as Wright points out,
‘Grace came first, faith next, and obedience to the law a necessary third, as a
believing response in action to what God had already done.’30
This is just as important for us to remember as it was for the newly redeemed Israelites.
Our obedience and response to God’s ethical demands and to his call to mission must
flow out of our recognition of his prior action of grace. Our obedience is a response to
the blessing we have already received as those who are saved and redeemed by
grace in Christ.31
Future Grace
‘... out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole
earth is mine ...’32
28 Brueggemann, 1978, p17

29 Exodus 19:6
30 Wright, 2010, p117
31 Ephesians 2:4-5
32 Exodus 19:5b
18
BIB200 Topic 1
Under this heading Wright focuses our attention on God’s purpose and draws us back
to the bigger picture: the bigger story of which the exodus event is just a part – albeit
a pivotal and significant part. Wright reminds us that although Israel were indeed a
special people – a chosen people – indeed God’s ‘treasured possession’33 YHWH was
not exclusively the God of the Israelites. He is the God of the whole earth as the earlier
part of the biblical narrative tells us and Wright sees God’s dealings with Israel as:
‘his unfinished business with the rest of the world, as it has been ever since [the
events of] Genesis 10 and 11.’34
As God speaks to Moses on Mount Sinai, he is reminding the Israelites that they are
part of a bigger story; an on-going story. It was here at Sinai that YHWH appeared to
Moses in the burning bush as the ‘God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of
Jacob’35 when the next part of his plan of redemption was revealed. And it is at Sinai
again that Moses is charged to remind the Israelites that they are part of the story that
goes back to YHWH’s covenant promises to Abraham:
‘I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you ... and all people on
earth will be blessed through you.’36 (My emphasis)
The people of Israel have been redeemed to play their part in God’s wider purpose;
his mission to offer salvation to all the nations. That is God’s plan: the outworking of
his future grace.
We see two principles at work here as we follow this story of God’s unfolding plan for
salvation: particularity and universality.
• Particularity – Israel is the chosen nation. They are chosen for a purpose,
namely to bear witness to God’s power and saving grace and to be the light-
bearers. We will explore what this means in the next section.
• Universality – the scope of God’s mission is for all the nations. Wright reminds
us that the exodus event, though pivotal in the biblical narrative, is part of God’s
bigger story. The past act of grace – their rescue from Egypt – is to be seen
alongside the future plan to effect the same sort of redemptive act of grace for
all the nations.
This dual perspective is what defines the people of Israel:

‘[It is] what made sense of the part of the story they had just lived through, and
[it] was the foundation for what God now expected from them.’37
Seen as part of the bigger story of God’s salvation plan, the exodus lays the foundation
for the rest of Israel’s story in the Old Testament and we see how that calling and
purpose were worked out in practice throughout their history. And it is to that we now
33 Exodus 19: 5a
34 Wright, 2010, p119
35 Exodus 3:1-17
36 Genesis 12:2, 4.
37 Wright, 2010, p119
19
BIB200 Topic 1
turn our attention: what would it look like for this newly redeemed people to play their
part in God’s on-going purposes and plan?
Present Grace
‘... you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’38
The role of priest was not yet defined in this newly formed nation of Israel but the
concept would have been familiar: the priest as the intermediary who stood between
God and man, who taught the people about God’s law and brought the people’s
offerings and sacrifices to God on their behalf. And as Israel began their journey out
of captivity into their God-given future, the formation of a priestly group within their
midst was one of God’s first provisions for them.
‘It was the role of the priests to teach Israel about God’s law: ‘... and you must
teach the Israelites all the decrees the Lord has given them.’39
As we shall see in the next session, one of the prophets’ criticisms was that Israel had
abandoned God and gone their own ways because the priests had failed in their task
of the constant and faithful teaching of God’s ways to his people. Every generation
needs those who will pass on faithfully the knowledge and truth of God’s laws and his
plans and intentions for his people.
The priests were also to bring the sacrifices of the people to God. As we have already
seen in the exodus story, the God of Abraham – YHWH – is a holy God and cannot
be approached directly by a sinful people.40 The role of the priests was to stand
between the people and God and offer the sacrifices on their behalf so that they could
remain in covenant relationship with Him.41
And as they faithfully carried out these roles, and as the people responded obediently
to them the priests brought God’s blessing to the people of God:
‘Then Aaron lifted his hands towards the people and blessed them. And having
sacrificed the sin offering, the burnt offering and the fellowship offering, he
stepped down.’42
So what does it mean when we read in Exodus 19: 6 that Israel is to be ‘a kingdom of
priests’? Clearly not that everyone in Israel is to have the specific role of ‘priest’. These
are words addressed to the nation as a whole and they define Israel’s role within God’s
plan to be a blessing to the nations and to bring his redemptive grace to all the nations:
‘those who have been redeemed are called to live redemptively in response.’43
Wright goes on to argue that this priestly role is in fact ‘a missional function’. This is
the purpose for which Israel was called and chosen:
38 Exodus 19:6
39 Lev. 10:11
40 Exod. 19:10-23
41 Lev. Chap.1-7
42 Lev. 9:22
43 Wright, 2010, p97
20
BIB200 Topic 1
‘Israel as a whole is called and chosen to be the servant of God and all peoples
... [carrying] forward the intention of Genesis 12:1-3, in the saving purposes of
God for the world.’44
The second part of Exodus 19:6 throws light on how Israel is to fulfil this role and
purpose by being ‘a holy nation’. Holy (Hebrew qadoš) means different or distinctive.
This call to be holy was at the heart of Israel’s relationship with God because it was
rooted in the character of God:
‘You are to be holy to me, because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you
apart from the nations to be my own.’45
This vital aspect of being ‘a kingdom of priests’ with a missional purpose was to be
worked out in the practical aspects of daily living. Being holy did not imply being more
religious: surrounding nations with their pagan worship were just as religious, if not
more so. No, what was required of Israel was to live ‘differently’; to be distinctive from
the pagan nations amongst which they would be living once they reached the
Promised Land. God had taken a nation whose memory was of slavery and now he
was giving them laws to govern both their personal and societal relationships which
would set them apart from other nations.
‘Israel as a ‘holy people’ then represents a third dimension of what it means to
be committed in faith to Yahweh ... they are to be a people set apart ... by what
they are and are becoming – a display-people, a showcase to the world of how
being in covenant with Yahweh changes a people.’46
Wright cites Leviticus 19 as a key chapter that shows what holiness was meant to look
like and how it was meant to be expressed in Israel’s life. Spend a few minutes reading
Leviticus 19.
What characteristics of holiness can you see in this chapter?
Israel’s ‘holiness’, their call to be different from the rest of the nations was:
‘not just that they worshipped a different God ... but that they actually lived and
behaved differently in every dimension of personal and social life.’47
44 Wright, 2010, p121

45 Lev. 20:26
46 Durham, 1987, p263 (in Wright, 2010, p124)
47 Wright, 2010, p125
21
BIB200 Topic 1
Their very lifestyle was intended to be a powerful witness to the nations of the nature
of the God who had redeemed them and who had called them to be ‘a kingdom of
priests and a holy nation’ for the blessing of all the other nations of His earth. Israel’s
‘holiness’, their obedience to God’s laws, was a response to his past grace as he called
them to be agents of his future grace. This is an important aspect of the exodus
narrative for us to bear in mind as we consider how this story can serve as a model
for Christians today.
Wright concludes this section with the apposite comment that: ‘there is no biblical
mission without biblical holiness.’48
The Exodus as a key narrative in Scripture
Wright sees this view which we have explored above as arising directly out of a
narrative reading of Scripture. This exodus story is part of, and foundational to, the
whole story of salvation within the Bible. The exodus story sets out a pattern that we
should look for and expect to find repeated as the story of salvation unfolds throughout
the metanarrative of the Scripture: a pattern of grace leading to a decisive break with
the patterns of the dominant worldviews within which we live; a calling of people into
a new relationship with God and a corresponding response of obedience to the ethical
and purposive call of God.
The Gospels
We see this pattern reaching its fulfilment in the New Testament and in the redemptive
act of Jesus’ death. The New Testament writers consciously echo the exodus motif in
their narratives. Wright says that ‘the clearest reference to the exodus in the Gospels
comes ... on the Mount of Transfiguration.’49
‘Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendour, talking with
Jesus. They spoke about his exodus, which he was to bring to fulfilment at
Jerusalem.’50
Most English translations of the Bible translate the Greek word ‘exodus’ as ‘departure’
which loses the significance of what that ‘departure’ was to achieve:
‘[What the exodus] achieved for ... Israel under Moses [was] now to be achieved
for the world by Jesus. His imminent ... death would constitute God’s great act
of redemption ... delivering the whole creation from the bondage of sin ...
leading his people out of the darkness of captivity into the light and liberty of
God.’51
N.T. Wright points out how the significance of the timing of Jesus’ death and the meal
we call the ‘Last Supper’ are also to be understood in terms of the exodus narrative.
For the Jews the key to remembering the events of God’s past grace in the exodus
event was the annual celebration of the Passover meal and Wright suggests that:
48 Wright, 2010, p125

49 Wright, 2010, p103
50 Luke 9:30-31
51 Wright, 2010, p103
22
BIB200 Topic 1
‘Jesus saw the meal as the appropriate way of drawing the symbol of the
Passover, and all that it meant in terms of hope as well as of history, on to
himself and his approaching fate.’52
Jesus shared this last meal with his disciples but departed from the traditional script
of the Passover meal to give it new significance:
‘Passover looked back to the exodus, and on to the coming of [God’s] kingdom.
Jesus intended this meal to symbolise the new exodus, the arrival of the
kingdom through his own fate. The meal focused on Jesus’ actions with the
bread and the cup, told the Passover story, and Jesus’ own story, and wove
these two into one’53
The Epistles
We saw earlier in Exodus 19:6 that Israel is called to be a kingdom of priests and
Wright showed how the ‘priesthood of the people of God ... is a missional function.’54
In his letter to the Romans we find echoes of this as Paul describes his calling to take
the gospel to the Gentiles in terms of a ‘priestly duty’ flowing out of his experience of
God’s past grace in his life:
‘... because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the
Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God.’55
Peter also picks up on this exodus theme in his first epistle, echoing the words from
Exodus 19 with which we started this session:
‘You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging
to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness
into his wonderful light.’56
All the familiar elements are there: God’s past grace: ‘who called you out of darkness
into his wonderful light’: God’s future grace: ‘that you may declare the praises of him’:
God’s present grace: ‘You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a
people belonging to God ...’
By now it should come as no surprise to us when we see the words addressed to the
Israelites now being addressed to the early Christian believers which would, of course,
have included Gentiles: Peter, a Jewish believer, recognises that they too are part of
this on-going story of redemption. Peter uses these words for the same purpose that
Moses had been instructed to use them: to show them the purpose for which they had
been called and the sort of people they were called to be to fulfil this purpose in
response to ‘their exodus experience.’57 And much of the New Testament teaching
that we see in the Epistles addresses the very practical issues of what it looks like to
52 N.T. Wright, 1996, p556

53 N.T. Wright, 1996, p559
54 Wright, 2010, p121
55 Romans 15:15
56 1 Peter 2:9
57 Wright, 2010, p105
23
BIB200 Topic 1
live in God’s present grace: to be ‘a holy nation’58 or as Paul frequently puts it ‘to live
a life worthy of the calling you have received.’59
Application for today

As we draw this session to a close we need to focus briefly on what this narrative has
to say to Christians today. I want to do this by posing some questions as we will be
considering this in more detail in later sessions.
Please take some time to reflect on the questions below in relation to your own
placement contexts.
Past grace
Wright argues that:
‘The exodus affected real change in the people’s real, historical situation and
at the same time called them into a real new relationship with the living God.’60
It is for this reason he says that ‘exodus-shaped redemption demands exodus-shaped
mission.’61
Is ‘exodus-shaped mission’ simply about having our sins forgiven or does the exodus
story suggest there are other dimensions we need to consider?
Has what you have learned from this session’s notes about the exodus as a pattern of
redemption made any difference to your understanding of mission?
And what difference does it make to remember that for Christians today, ‘all Christian
mission flows from the cross?’62
58 1 Peter 2:9
59 Ephesians 4:1
60 Wright, 2007, p271
61 Wright, 2010, p102
62 Wright, 2010, p109
24
BIB200 Topic 1
Future grace
Wright says,
‘this is what frames the mission of God’s people. All our missional response to
God lies between the past and the future, between grace and glory, between
what God has done and what God will yet do, between where we have come
from and where we are going.’63
How can Wright’s three headings – past grace; future grace; present grace – help you
keep a right focus in your role as a missional leader?
Present grace
‘The participants in the exodus found themselves ... involved in the intentional
formation of a new social community.’64
Israel had to make a decisive break with the old political order of Egypt and form a
community based on radically different values to the societies around them in order to
serve as a missional kingdom of priests to the surrounding nations. The challenge for
today’s church is to work out what it might mean in practice to live by alternative
lifestyles just as the Israelites had to work it out in the midst of opposition and
temptation.
Brueggemann observes that:
‘The shaping of Israel took place from inside its own experience and confession
of faith and not through external appropriation from somewhere else ... if the
church is to be faithful it must be formed and ordered from inside of its
experience and confession and not by borrowing from sources external to its
own life.’65
How does this relate to our call to be a holy people/nation living out of a response to
our experience of God’s grace with a sense of being faithful priests and witnesses to
the world around us of God’s future grace?
63 Wright, 2010, p119

25
BIB200 Topic 1
Try and give some practical examples of what this does, or might, look like in practice.
Conclusion
What we have sought to do in this session is to look at how Wright uses the story of
the exodus to show what it meant for Israel to be a ‘people who represent God to the
world.’ We have looked at how they were shaped by their memory of God’s past grace
in redeeming them out of bondage; by the sense of purpose in recognising their place
within God’s plans to extend his future grace to all nations, and by the call to live in
his present grace as a holy people: distinctive in every aspect of their community life.
We have also looked briefly at how the exodus story fits into the overall narrative of
the whole biblical story of redemption and the calling of a people to share in God’s
plan to extend his saving grace to all the nations: the Missio Dei. We have seen how
the exodus story picks up the covenant promise made to Abraham and how it sets the
scene for the later situation within Israel that led to the exile and the voices of the
prophets.
And finally we have reflected on how the church today fits into this story: what it might
look like for us to be living faithfully in God’s present grace as ‘a kingdom of priests
and a holy nation’66 in order to fulfil our calling to bear witness to God’s future grace
within our world.
Bibliography
Brueggemann, W., (1978), The Prophetic Imagination, Philadelphia: Fortress Press
Durham, J. I., (1987), Exodus, Word Bible Commentary, Waco, Tx: Word
____________ (2007) The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative,
Nottingham: IVP
Wright, N. T., (1996), Jesus and the Victory of God, London: SPCK
66 Exodus 19:6 and 1 Peter 2:9
26
BIB200 Topic 1
Session 3: Walter Brueggemann: Prophetic Voices in Exile

By Tina Trevett
Learning Outcomes:
1. Understand the role of the prophets within their historical context
2. Understand the place of the exile within the narrative of the Missio Dei.
3. Relate this learning to their missional situations
For this session, there is a PDF Reader on Moodle:

SCM, chapter 2
Introduction
In this session we will be using Brueggemann’s Hopeful Imagination67 as our main
guide as we explore the role of the prophetic voices in the period of the exile. But
before we look at that we need to set this period of exile in its context within the wider
narrative of Scripture. In an earlier book Brueggemann says that
‘... we take as our beginning point Moses as the paradigmatic prophet who
sought to evoke in Israel an alternative consciousness.’68
He sees the story of the period of history covered by the prophets as continuing the
story of the exodus. As we shall see, the prophetic understanding of what was
happening to Israel in this period of exile only makes sense when we understand their
identity in terms of their relationship with Yahweh:
‘Israel can only be understood in terms of the new call of God [at the exodus]
and the assertion of a new social reality.’69
This idea links back to our previous session and Wright’s interpretation of the exodus:
Israel as a nation called to live in God’s present grace70, ethically and religiously
distinct from the nations they were to live among. It is this understanding of Israel that
shapes the prophets’ message to the nation as they faced the prospect of exile, the
reality of exile, and the return from exile.
Brueggemann argues that at the exodus Israel was called out of the bondage of a
politically, socially and religiously oppressive regime to a new freedom within their
renewed covenant relationship with Yahweh. During the time when they became
settled, and with the establishment of the Temple at Jerusalem, he argues that, under
67 Brueggemann, 1986
70 Wright, 2010, p120
27
BIB200 Topic 1
the rule of their kings, they had reverted back to those same oppressive conditions.
They had failed to live up to the covenant conditions of justice and fairness based on
the laws given to them by Yahweh.71 Into this context Yahweh spoke again through
his prophets.
Brueggemann focuses on the ministry of three prophets: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and
Isaiah who are often referred to as the Major Prophets because of the length of the
writings bearing their names. They were prophesying at a time of great political
upheaval: Jerusalem itself was under threat and, in 587BC, it was finally to be
destroyed and the remaining population, who had survived the earlier deportations,
was to be taken into exile in Babylon. Whilst the political realities are not to be ignored,
Brueggemann sees the role of the prophets, speaking into this politically charged
situation, as Yahweh’s response to Israel’s lack of faithfulness to the covenant: a
theological, indeed a pastoral, response to Israel’s plight. Brueggemann says that
these events can ‘be understood politically ... or theologically as the end of Yahweh’s
patience with this people.’72
The rest of this session will focus on Brueggemann’s understanding of the roles of
Jeremiah, Ezekiel and second Isaiah as they exercised their God-given task of
‘pastoral responsibility ... to help people enter into exile, to be in exile, and to
depart out of exile.’73
Citing Von Rad, Brueggemann says that these three prophets
‘enunciate new actions of God that are discontinuous with the old traditions ...
but they are cast ... in images of the old memories so that discernment ... of the
new depends profoundly on knowledge about the old.’74
This highlights two important aspects of the prophetic ministry that should be borne in
mind throughout this session: that these events are part of the ongoing narrative of
God’s redemptive plan; and that remembering God’s past actions is important for
understanding the present and having hope for the future.
Brueggemann’s underpinning principle for his understanding of these three prophets
is that what made their messages so compelling was
‘the power of their imagination’. A new poetic imagination [that] evoked new
realities in the community.’75
They were not concerned primarily with giving the people new strategies but with
enabling Israel, at each stage of this exilic period, to have a renewed understanding
of the realities of their situation.
This session will look at how that took shape within the lives of these three men, called
by God to speak into their communities in this time of crisis.
71 Brueggemann, 1978, chap.2

28
BIB200 Topic 1
It is quite difficult to separate out what Brueggemann says about how each of these
prophets addressed their own situation from how he applies this to the contemporary
situation of the US church as he interweaves these ideas throughout his writing.
However, I think that it will be more helpful for us if I attempt to do this in these notes.
We will come back to look at how this might be relevant to your missional situations at
the end of the session but we will also return to this material and explore it in more
detail in Topic 2.
Jeremiah:
‘Only grief permits newness’76
Brueggemann uses this phrase to sum up his understanding of Jeremiah’s role within
Israel’s approaching demise and judgement. Brueggemann sees the events of 587BC
as pivotal and necessary in Israel’s history and in God’s story and he encapsulates
this in the following diagram:
The end of the known world > 587BC < The reception of a new world
and its relinquishment given by God through these
poets 77
Speaking before the events of 587BC, and despite his reputation as a prophet of
doom, Jeremiah’s message was one of profound hope. Brueggemann argues that his
message was not simply one of resignation to the inevitability of Babylonian victory
but that submission, rather than resistance, to the coming onslaught was in fact God’s
plan; a that plan would lead to renewal and restoration. Israel’s problem was a
reluctance to let go of the familiar and known ways (relinquishment) and an inability
to see that there could be a new and better way (reception of a new world). They
were reluctant to hear Jeremiah’s message that this coming defeat and exile was
deserved; that it was the result of their own actions and persistent disobedience within
their covenant relationship with the God who had redeemed them and brought them
out of Egypt.
‘For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt ... I gave them this command:
Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people ... But they did not
listen ... instead they followed the stubborn inclinations of their evil hearts ...
day after day ... they did not listen to me ...’78
Brueggemann sees the root of their current demise in their collective failure to
remember the story they were in:
‘Judah had lost its way. It had forgotten the story of deliverance that Israelites
had always told (Jer. 2:6–7) ... when the story was forgotten, the claims
contained in the story were also forgotten.’79
76 Brueggemann, 1986, section heading for chapter on Jeremiah.

78 Jer. 7:22-26
29
BIB200 Topic 1
God’s case against his people is that they should have known better; they should have
remained faithful to the God who had brought them out of Egypt.
Jeremiah saw and preached this clearly and his message was not a popular one.
Unlike the false prophets, Jeremiah understood the political and theological reality of
their situation and we see this expressed clearly and repeatedly throughout his
ministry. Jeremiah chapters 25 – 28 give a good example of this. Please stop and
read these four chapters now.
Jeremiah’s message is in sharp contrast with the message of Hananiah the prophet
favoured by the king and court. Hananiah prophesies peace, a speedy restoration of
those already taken into exile, and the defeat of the Babylonian king. 80 Jeremiah
advises acceptance of the inevitability of defeat at the hands of the Babylonians and
prophesies that they will be in exile in Babylon for seventy years.81
Jeremiah’s message was based on acknowledging and articulating the reality of the
situation in contrast to the messages of ‘hope’ spoken by the false prophets: words of
comfort that the people and rulers desperately wanted to believe.
‘Prophets and Priests alike, all practise deceit. They dress the wounds of my
people as though it were not serious. “Peace, peace,” they say when there is
no peace.’82
By his use of poetic language and vivid metaphors Jeremiah’s purpose was to bring
home to the people and rulers the seriousness of their plight: to challenge their
complacency; to bring Israel to the realisation that Yahweh would abandon them, that
He would not preserve their traditions and that he would destroy even the focal point
of their faith, the Temple itself. 83
‘God is now dismantling the defended, presumed world of Jerusalem ...’84 and this is
not the message the people are willing to hear. Brueggemann says that ‘loss of control
of the known world is what 587 BC as a metaphor is all about.’85 But it was no metaphor
for Jerusalem – it was their reality and Jeremiah spoke powerfully and honestly into
that situation. His role as a true prophet was not primarily to give strategy and advice
but to prepare the people for what would inevitably happen. His task was to bring
pastoral support to a people unwilling to face the reality of the political situation and to
do so in the face of opposition to his message from the religious and political rulers in
Jerusalem.
Jeremiah’s message did not come without a personal cost. He did not speak from a
place of safety or detachment but from a place of anguish and personal suffering. He
experienced their pain and grieved for their predicament.
80 Jer. 28:2-4
81 Jer. 25:11-12
82 Jer. 6:13-14
83 Jer. 5:7-13; 7:13-15; 12: 7-13;
30
BIB200 Topic 1
‘Oh, my anguish, my anguish! I writhe in pain. Oh the agony of my heart! ... I

cannot keep silent ... I have heard the battle cry. Disaster follows disaster; the
whole land lies in ruins.’86
Although he was sustained in his ministry by his clear sense of being called,87 at times
this sense of being embattled and alone spilled over into complaints addressed to
God, as if he felt that even God had abandoned him.88
Only grief permits newness89

Jeremiah’s powerful poetry and vivid metaphors were also intended to enable Israel
to grasp the idea that Yahweh could indeed bring about a new thing. 90 Defeat and
despair would surely come but after that, and only once the defeat had been accepted,
God could and would:
‘do an utterly new thing which violates [their] reason ... and [their] despair’, God
will ‘bring a newness ex nihilo.’91
And so Brueggemann moves on, in the second part of his section on Jeremiah to focus
on the more positive aspect of his assertion: ‘Only grief permits newness.’
Brueggemann uses Jeremiah 30:12-1792 to explore the idea that true hope can only
come out of true grief; denial keeps them imprisoned in their false reality and does not,
cannot stop the inevitable.
12 “This is what the LORD says:
“‘Your wound is incurable,

your injury beyond healing.
13 There is no one to plead your cause,
no remedy for your sore,

no healing for you.
14 All your allies have forgotten you;
they care nothing for you.

I have struck you as an enemy would
and punished you as would the cruel,
because your guilt is so great
and your sins so many.
15 Why do you cry out over your wound,
your pain that has no cure?

Because of your great guilt and many sins
I have done these things to you.
86 Jer. 4:19-20
87 Jer. 1: 1-19; Brueggemann, 1986, p13 & 18.
88 Jer. 15:10-21; 18: 18-23; 20:7-18
90 Jer. 23:5-8; 25:1-14;
91 Brueggemann, 1986, p29-30
92 Jer. 30:12-17, NIV
31
BIB200 Topic 1
16 “‘But all who devour you will be devoured;
all your enemies will go into exile.
Those who plunder you will be plundered;
all who make spoil of you I will despoil.
17 But I will restore you to health
and heal your wounds’

declares the LORD,
‘because you are called an outcast,
Zion for whom no one cares.’”
This passage draws together some of the key points that Brueggemann says
demonstrate the main thrust of Jeremiah’s prophetic message. It illustrates
Brueggemann’s point about the power of language as an effective tool in evoking a
new understanding of the present realities. He sees the key metaphor in this short
passage as one of sickness and healing.
Read the passage carefully and identify the different stages this passage takes
the listeners through:
• Diagnosis: v12
• Abandonment and hopelessness: v13-14a
• Cause of ‘illness’ – a theological explanation: v14b-15
• Hope and assurance: v16-17 – note the ‘But’ at the beginning of v16.
Brueggemann renders this as ‘therefore’ in his own translation of this verse.
We expect a continuation of the judgement of the previous verses but:
‘The voice of harsh threat has inexplicably become the sound of assurance ... in
one quick rhetorical move ... At the point of deep hurt ... God has made a new
move.’93
Where we expect to read of further judgement on Israel, the ‘but’ of the NIV paves the
way for a reversal. God will turn his judgement on Babylon and Israel will be ‘restored
to health.’
This passage underlines, for Brueggemann, the idea of vivid, poetic language being a
powerful tool which enabled Jeremiah to speak harsh truths. There is no pretence that
their situation of impending defeat and exile will not happen but this powerful language
is equally able to paint a surprising and shocking picture of hope. Through the power
of language Jeremiah is able to challenge Judah to face the reality of their situation
and to offer them the hope that it is through accepting this reality that renewal will be
realised. It is only through the relinquishment of their false hopes that God can bring
about a new thing. But there is a further surprise in Brueggemann’s analysis of this
passage and of Jeremiah’s message as a whole: that it is God’s grief that permits
newness. Look again at verse 17:
‘If God had not grieved when hearing the mocking voice of the nations, there
would have been no healing ... the possibility for Judah, for Israel, church, is to
32
BIB200 Topic 1
participate in God’s grief about the terminal illness, to participate so deeply that
newness has a chance.’94
For Brueggemann, this participation in God’s grief is what the poetry of Jeremiah is all
about: the grief has to be expressed and the truth has to be exposed and
acknowledged.
‘If the grief does not become visible, the charade of the old order can be
sustained indefinitely.’95
Jeremiah stands as an example of prophets throughout the ages who have exposed
the lies of the dominant worldview; the rulers and leaders who want to hold on to the
status quo because it benefits them and because they cannot see any possibility of a
different situation. Jeremiah stands in a long line of prophets and poets who bring
about change because the language of their poems, stories and songs enables
people, oppressed by a self-serving worldview that subjugates them, to envision a
different future. We shall return to this theme at several points during this module.
Before we leave Brueggemann on Jeremiah I suggest you read the following
passages:
• Luke 13:31-35; 19:41-44; 6:21,25
• John 16:20-22
Brueggemann links these New Testament passages to the theme of 'grief and
newness’96 and shows how these words of Jesus pick up that theme: ‘Jesus’ ministry
is at the pivot point where the old arrangement is in jeopardy.’97 Jesus, like Jeremiah,
is showing that ‘the new gift is premised on relinquishment.’98
So Brueggemann ends his section on Jeremiah by returning to his starting point: that
the exile and, in particular, the events of 587BC were necessary for Israel to engage
in the process of letting go – relinquishing – the old patterns and, through the grief of
exile, being brought to a place where they could receive the new gift of God. This was
a newness they could not imagine but which Jeremiah imagined for them and offered
to them through his faithfulness to his calling to be a true voice amidst the comforting
lies of the ‘establishment’ voices.
Ezekiel
Only Holiness gives hope99
Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel’s ministry covered the period both immediately before and after
the fall of Jerusalem in 587BC. But, unlike Jeremiah, the whole of Ezekiel’s prophetic
ministry took place from within Babylon, where he had been taken in an earlier group
94 Brueggemann, 1986, p41.

33
BIB200 Topic 1
of exiles before the final destruction of the Temple in 587BC. It is among those already
in exile that Ezekiel is called to minister. Ezekiel was a priest and, according to
Brueggemann, his
‘priestly perception of reality caused him to make a deeper, more anguished
assessment of his situation than even Jeremiah did’.100
Brueggemann continues to use the themes we considered earlier of ‘relinquishment’
and ‘reception’ and he sees these two themes being worked out in the two distinct
parts of the writings in the book of Ezekiel. Chapters 1-24 mainly concern the pre-exilic
period and warn of Jerusalem’s impending destruction. ‘The purpose of this text ... is
to relinquish the old city ...’101 Chapters 33-38 concern the post-exilic situation and
are ‘statements of hope and new possibility, helping the people in exile to receive the
newness of God’.102 The exiles still longed and hoped for a speedy return to Jerusalem
but Ezekiel’s message was to help them face the reality that relinquishment must come
before restoration. He only spoke hope when all hope had – seemingly – gone.
Brueggemann sees Ezekiel’s picture of God as rather different to Jeremiah’s and
Isaiah’s. Jeremiah’s God is approachable but Ezekiel’s God seems too remote and
holy to be approachable. Isaiah’s God remembers his promises to his people and
shows concern for them, but Ezekiel’s God is ‘not so much for [them] as for God’s
self.’103 Ezekiel’s God ‘will not be mocked’.104 The opening chapter of the book of
Ezekiel, with its powerful vision of the glory and presence of God, sets the tone for the
whole of his message.105 God’s glory is about to depart from the Temple at Jerusalem
and those who have been unfaithful and ‘presumed upon God’106 will be punished.
It would be helpful to read Ezekiel chapters 7-11:15 to get a clear picture of this.
For Ezekiel God’s holiness was not just meant to keep his people at a distance but
was ‘a summons to righteousness ... the ethical imperative follows from the theological
vision.’107 We see echoes of Wright’s picture of Israel here: called to live ethically in
God’s present grace because of God’s past grace in redeeming them from Egypt and
for the sake of his future grace.108 This idea of ‘future grace’ links well with Ezekiel’s
picture of a holy God concerned for his ‘name’ because Israel, by their failure to live in
God’s present grace, were failing in their calling to bear witness to the holiness and
grace of God to the rest of the nations.
Idolatry, sexual immorality and economic injustice and the failure of the priests to hold
the people to account and to maintain the holiness of God’s holy Temple lead to what
Brueggemann describes as a:
100 Brueggemann, 1986, p52; Ezek. 1:2

105 Ezek. 1:4-28; 3:12-15
107 Brueggemann, 1986, p55; Ezek. 14:6
108 Wright, 2010, p120
34
BIB200 Topic 1
‘mismatch ... between the disinterested holiness of God and the utilitarian
unrighteousness of Israel.’109
Chapters 7-11 paint a graphic picture of what was happening and of the consequences
of Israel’s failure to live up to the ethical requirements of their calling. Brueggemann
sees Ezekiel’s words as a tough pastoral response intended to:
‘guide people into an awareness of the mismatch so that new decisions could
be made appropriate to Israel’s actual situation.’110
Like Jeremiah before him Ezekiel saw the situation as it was and spoke the truth and
reality of it in searing terms, not simply to condemn but to bring about new possibilities.
Ezekiel saw where Israel’s disobedience was inevitably heading: ‘Then the glory of the
Lord departed from over the threshold of the Temple.’111
And then the Temple was destroyed and the remaining inhabitants of Jerusalem were
taken to Babylon. The centre of their faith and tradition had been ‘relinquished’. This
had to happen before Israel could be in a position to receive a new thing from God.
Brueggemann makes an important point about Ezekiel which will be relevant for us to
consider when we apply the lessons of the exile to our postmodern situation. Ezekiel
is a priest and he speaks from within their shared tradition. Brueggemann’s comments
on this link with the idea that he explores more fully in the section on Isaiah: the
importance of remembering. Their memory has become distorted and their telling of
the tradition has become selective.112
Ezekiel is aware of the past story of which they are a part but he understands their
history – his history – as one of ‘on-going violation.’113 Israel is not going through a
momentary blip in her relationship with God, but Ezekiel sees with brutal clarity that
unfaithfulness to this holy God has been their constant response. In chapter 16 we
see some startling and powerful imagery as Ezekiel gives a scathing critique and re-
reading of their history and tradition. These powerful metaphors were intended to
confront the people with the inescapable realities of their situation and to force them
to accept the hollowness of their own memories and to accept a new reading of their
history.
In a remarkable passage in chapter 24, the pain of Israel’s loss is enacted in Ezekiel’s
own life as his wife, ‘the delight of [his] eyes’, dies and he is told not to mourn for her.
Ezekiel is then given his final words to speak to the people:
‘I am about to desecrate my sanctuary – the stronghold in which you take pride,
the delight of your eyes ... you will not mourn or weep ...’114

111 Ezekiel 10:18
112 Ezek. 13:10-17
113 Brueggemann, 1986, p60; Ezek. 16
114 Ezek. 24:21-24
35
BIB200 Topic 1
The warnings that Ezekiel has been giving to the exiles are about to come to pass.
Their hopes of a speedy return to Jerusalem have finally been dashed. And then
‘silence’. Ezekiel will not speak to the exiles again until:
‘the city has died, when the news has come, when the loss is ... acknowledged,
then speech is possible.’115
Hope at the break point116

It would be helpful to read Ezekiel chapters 34-37, 40-48 at this point.
Now, when it seems that there is no possibility of hope, Ezekiel is given words and
images that point to a new future. His images of new shepherds, dry bones and a new
Temple all speak of restoration.117
The new shepherd looks forward to ‘a restored political order ... that will practice
justice’.118 The resurrection metaphor of ‘dry bones’ is linked to the promise of
‘homecoming’: ‘I will bring you home into the land of Israel’.119 It is a hope based not
on ‘political analysis ... [rather] the point is theological.’120
It is worth quoting Brueggemann at length on this next point as his own language
mirrors the poetic and expressive language he is describing.
‘The metaphor for new possibility is shifted in chapters 43-44, which serve to
counter the departure of the glory in chapters 9-10. Now one can hear the flutter
of the returning cherubim ... reclaiming the Temple, the return of glory, the
restoration of presence ... But the return of glory comes after, never before, the
city is fallen ... The hope is not spoken too soon. When it is spoken, it is
overwhelming. As chapter 34 speaks of the resumption of political life, so these
chapters speak about the resumption of liturgical life.’121
There is no talk now of repentance. The time for that has passed. Ezekiel
‘speaks words of radical grace ... God will do for God’s people what they could
not do for themselves.’122
Chapter 36 sums up this message of hope and underlines the idea that for Ezekiel,
unlike for Jeremiah, God acts, not out of his love for his people, but out of his
holiness.123
‘It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but
for the sake of my holy name which you have profaned among the nations ...

117 Ezek. 34; 37; 40-48
119 Brueggemann, 1986, p66; Ezekiel 37:12
36
BIB200 Topic 1
then the nations will know that I am the Lord ... when I show myself holy through
you ... I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from
you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh ... I want you to know that
I am not doing this for your sake, declares the Sovereign Lord.’124
‘For the sake of my holy name’125
Brueggemann’s understanding and interpretation of Ezekiel’s message is in contrast
to Jeremiah’s, and as we shall see, to Isaiah’s. The initiative and the reasons lie not in
God’s compassion but in his character and his concern for his name and reputation. It
is his holiness which must cause his glory to depart from the Temple because ‘this
holiness cannot and will not be present amidst ritual defilement.’126 It is God’s holiness
that leads to the withdrawal of his presence and the judgement that brings about the
destruction of Jerusalem and the final exile of the people. But it is also God’s holiness
that provides a surer ground for hope. Brueggemann points out that God’s reputation,
defiled by Israel’s acts of disobedience, is also dependent on Israel. They are the
people God has chosen to represent him to the nations. And so God must act to
restore them ‘for the sake of [his] holy name.’
Brueggemann comments that this may sound ‘hard-nosed and calloused’ to us ‘with
our therapeutic inclination’127 but that ultimately it is a more certain basis for hope. For
Jeremiah ‘only grief permits newness’; for Ezekiel ‘only holiness gives hope.’
Second Isaiah
Only Memory allows possibility128
It would be helpful to read through Isaiah 40-55
Whilst there are disagreements about the dating of Second Isaiah and its relationship
to chapters 1-39, Brueggemann does not engage with these as he regards these as
extraneous to his treatment of this material.
‘... we appeal to the imaginative practice of the poetry and not to historical
facticity. Our exposition posits a theological situation of exile and newness,
without respect to specific historical location.’129
Be that as it may, Brueggemann dates these words around 540BC when Israel has
been in exile for almost 50 years and the signs are that the seemingly invincible
Babylonian empire is under threat from the rising power of Persia. Isaiah’s ministry is
to a people who have experienced ‘the loss of their entire world of faith.’130 His words
are addressed to a people, long in exile, who have lost hope and, as we have seen
throughout this session, it is through the power of language, through the use of vivid
124 Ezek. 36:22-23; 26;32

125 Brueggemann, 1986, p69; Ezek. 36: 22-32
37
BIB200 Topic 1
metaphors and images, that Isaiah offers the possibility of hope. It is worth reading
these fifteen chapters because they illustrate clearly and powerfully the point
Brueggemann has been making all along about ‘the power of language to shape reality
and not just describe reality.’131 In this situation it is the power of Isaiah’s language
that ‘evokes an alternative social reality’132 which enables the exiles to prepare ‘to
disengage from the dominant reality’133 of Babylon.
Three metaphors for re-reading Israel’s life: exile; Babylon; homecoming.

Brueggemann uses these three metaphors to draw explicit parallels with the situation
of the church in America today. As before, I want to try to separate these strands and
look first at the metaphors as they applied to Israel in exile and then look briefly at the
end of this session at how they might be applicable today before picking up on these
themes in more detail in the second part of this module.
Exile
Isaiah’s task was to prepare the people for a homecoming, a return from exile. Like
Jeremiah before him, he had to make the people aware of the truth of their situation.
For many of the ‘exiles’, the idea of homecoming would have appeared strange as
Babylon was ‘home’. They had settled, established homes and businesses, and no
longer regarded themselves as exiles. They had assimilated into the dominant culture
and perceived themselves to be part of it;
‘[they] accepted Babylonian definitions of reality and did not know others were
available.’134
‘The poetry of second Isaiah ... is a summons away from such assimilation.’135 It is a
wakeup call to acknowledge the reality of their situation in readiness for God’s next
move.
Babylon
The power and the reality of Babylon’s gods and culture had become Israel’s truth and
commanded Israel’s loyalty. Isaiah’s pastoral task was to challenge that perception,
suggesting the possibility that Babylon’s gods were false, and powerless to compete
with Israel’s God. (See below.)
Homecoming
This is the key message of second Isaiah and Brueggemann makes the point that this
metaphor ‘makes sense only to those who read their context as exile.’136 Whilst Isaiah,
like Jeremiah, is acutely aware of the realities of the political situation, his message is

38
BIB200 Topic 1
expressed in the language of ‘imaginative poetry.’137 Because, as we have already

seen, it is the vivid and poetic language of the prophets’ message that can ‘evoke
reality and [can] lead this community out beyond their present situation.’138
There are two key themes that Isaiah articulates repeatedly in these chapters as he
takes up the task of preparing a people in exile to be a people ready to depart from
exile:
• The power of Yahweh as opposed to the powerlessness of the Babylonian
gods.139 A key theme within this is the idea of ‘the word’;140 ‘Speech is power.’141
And the Babylonian gods are noticeably silent and therefore powerless. 142
• The covenant relationship between God and Israel in exile (see the exercise in
the box below)
Brueggemann points out that what is significant about the way these themes are
presented in Isaiah’s poetry is that they are rooted in the language of their own
theological tradition. Isaiah does not merely state in political terms how their freedom
will come about but he uses imagery from Israel’s history and traditions
‘in an astonishing way to jar the perceptual field of Israel and to cause a wholly
new discernment of reality.’143
This is ‘prophetic imagination’ at its best. Isaiah uses familiar imagery and stories to
awaken a new hope in Israel by evoking their old memories. He reminds them
repeatedly of the power and truth of Yahweh in contrast to the powerlessness of the
Babylonian gods. He evokes old memories of how God has acted in their past and we
have some of the most astonishing metaphors in scripture that describe God’s love for
Israel. This is something of a contrast to Ezekiel but here too in Isaiah we get glimpses
of the concern Yahweh has for his own reputation.144
Look up the following references. What images and metaphors does Isaiah
use to describe God’s attitude towards Israel?
41:8-10
42:6-7

139 42:5; 44:6-20; 46:5-9
140 Brueggemann, 1986, p100; Isa. 40:8; 55:11
142 Isa. 48:14; 44:6-8
143 Brueggemann, 1986, p96.
144 Isaiah 42:8; 43:7; 48:11
39
BIB200 Topic 1
43:1-7
44: 1-5; 21-22
46: 3-4
49: 8-16
54: 4-8
What images can you see in these verses that relate to Wright’s picture of Israel (in
the previous session) as a nation called to live in God’s ‘Past Grace, Future Grace
and Present Grace’?145
Isaiah’s powerful use of imagery and metaphor undermines the claims of Babylon to
be all-powerful. Even before Isaiah mentions Cyrus146, the threat on the horizon to
Babylonian supremacy and Israel’s hope of restoration, he has challenged captive
Israel to think again: to remember the truth about their God; to see through the lies
about the Babylonian gods; to remember who they are – God’s chosen and special
people. Many of the passages where Isaiah evokes these memories remind us of what
we saw in the previous session. They remind us, as they were intended to remind
Israel that they were a people who were called to live in God’s ‘past grace, his future
grace and his present grace.’147 They were a redeemed people, set free from the
dominant worldview of Egypt to live under the righteous worldview of Yahweh that they
might be a witness to the grace and power of the true God whose plan was for all
nations to be drawn into that redemptive grace. And they were about to be set free
again to fulfil that calling and purpose.
145 Wright, 2010, p116-120

146 Isaiah 44:28- 45:5
147 Wright, 2010, p116-120
40
BIB200 Topic 1
Memories with a future148

Isaiah, like Ezekiel, evokes memories from their own history and tradition. Like Wright,
he grounds their future hope in their memories of how God has acted in the past, and
Isaiah draws on three key narratives from their past to make his point: the story of
Abraham and Sarah; the story of Noah; and the story of David. 149 These were
significant figures in Israel’s history. Their stories were at the very foundations of
Israel’s relationship with God and evoked memories of God’s blessing and covenant
love and faithfulness.
Brueggemann makes two key points about the importance of memory in this context.
Firstly he says that if we forget the past then ‘we will absolutise the present.’150
Forgetting the past hinders us from seeing that the future can be different. If we do not
remember that things were ever different, we have no grounds for believing that things
can ever again be different. We are trapped into the belief that the way things are is
the way things must always be. This is particularly relevant as we come to consider
how the exile can be a relevant metaphor for the church today. Secondly
Brueggemann comments that,
‘it takes a powerful articulation of memory to maintain a sense of identity in the
midst of exile.’151
Like Jeremiah, Isaiah articulates his hopes for Israel’s future, not only powerfully
through his use of poetic images rooted in their own traditions, but he articulates them
within a hostile context. His purpose is to enable the people to see their situation with
fresh eyes but in doing this he risks the wrath of the Babylonian authorities. Like
Jeremiah, he must speak out a message that is neither obvious to his audience nor
welcome to the dominant power: a message which is by its very nature subversive
and therefore a threat to the stability of the exiles many of whom had assimilated to
the Babylonian worldview.
Look back at the exercise above and remind yourself of how this strange and
challenging message was also framed with the pastoral assurances of God’s love,
faithfulness and care for his people. The act of prophetic challenge was delivered with
‘pastoral sensitivity.’152
Isaiah’s role was very different to those of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and in many ways
we might think, the easiest. Isaiah is calling Israel to be ready to return ‘home’ but,
despite a residual longing for the liturgy of Jerusalem, the security of their life in
Babylon seemed more attractive than a return to a place of destruction. In fact many
of them chose to remain when Cyrus granted them freedom to leave. Isaiah’s task is
to remind them that Babylon is not home, that they are a people in exile.

149 Isa. 51:2-3; 54:1-3; 54:9-11; 55:3
41
BIB200 Topic 1
‘“Exile” articulates that the new place is not home ... because its realities are
essentially alien and inhospitable to [their] true theological identity.’153
That is why Isaiah’s poetry focuses so much on their own traditions and stories. Only
by remembering their past can they move forward into the future God has planned for
them. And we have seen how Isaiah does this by reminding them of who their God is
and comparing the Babylonian gods to him in very unfavourable terms. He reminds
them of God’s promises and his love for them through some of the key events in their
history. He uses powerful language to challenge them to see the situation through
fresh eyes; to see that there are other possibilities. Brueggemann notes that for Israel
‘exile’ is about more than just geography. It is about living within an alien culture with
a worldview that is opposed to Israel’s worldview. It is for that reason that Isaiah
speaks in powerful poetic language to provoke their imagination because only
‘if that imaginative transference can be established [can] the actual geopolitical
move be made.’154
We need to come back to Brueggemann’s title for this section on second Isaiah: ‘only
memory permits possibility.’ It is not just that the power of Isaiah’s poetry produces the
hope of restoration and release from exile within the people and therefore it happens.
Rather, the point of Isaiah’s message is to point to the truth that with God all things
are possible. The memories he evokes by his poetry remind them that God has acted
in powerful ways in the past to bring about a new thing. That when Abraham and Sarah
thought there was no hope of the promises of becoming a great nation being fulfilled,
God acted and brought about a new situation which no-one could have imagined. That
when God acted and brought Israel out of Egypt he brought about a complete break
with the past and shaped a new future for them.155 Isaiah evokes these memories to
provide a link with the present.
‘How can one assert that something which the empire judges to be impossible
is possible for God? The answer is found in the memory ... [that] makes
available to Israel in exile ... concrete references about old impossibilities which
linger with power.’156
Summary of the key themes of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah

Brueggemann sees these three prophets as articulating important truths about Israel’s
exile and he applies the metaphor of ‘exile’ to the church today. We will consider this
in part two of the module but it is helpful to review his three key points here.
Jeremiah: the grief of Jeremiah and of God permit newness, for newness
comes out of grief articulated; it is offered against establishment denial and
cover-up that Jeremiah regards as a lie.

155 Isa. 43:16-21
42
BIB200 Topic 1
Ezekiel: the holiness of God becomes the ground for serious hope, for no hope
will be found as long as it is reduced to things useful, short of God’s holiness; it
is proclaimed against conventional theology that never quite faces the
otherness of God and always ... forms a utilitarianism that links God’s holiness
to some historical purpose.
Second Isaiah: the practice of memory permits articulation of new possibilities,
for memory is the only alternative to absolutising imperial claims; it is asserted
against amnesia in which nothing is noticed or critiqued and everything is
absolutised in its present form.157
There are some common themes that run through Brueggemann’s treatment of each
of these three prophets. These will be helpful for us to remember when we consider
what relevance they may have for today’s church.
• A strong sense of calling.
• A sense of being in opposition to the ‘establishment’.
• Speaking the truth; articulating how things really are; not offering false hope
and platitudes.
• The use of poetry and powerful imagery to convey their message.
• Changing the way people think about and perceive their reality rather than
offering strategies for action.
• Articulating the truth that ‘relinquishment’ must come before ‘newness can be
received.’
• Rooting that hope of newness in what God would do; offering a theological
explanation not a political solution.
Questions for reflection

How can we discern the prophetic voices speaking into our culture and church
traditions in our time?
How do we ‘test’ these voices and discern the word of God within them? How might
the idea of call and conflict help us in this?
43
BIB200 Topic 1
PDF Reader on Moodle:

SCM, chapter 2
Bibliography
SCM
_______________ (1978), The Prophetic Imagination, Philadelphia: Fortress Press
Wright, C.J. H., (2010), The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the
44
BIB200 Topic 1
Session 4: The Gospels: NT Wright: Literature, Story and the Articulation of Narrative Worldviews
Session 4: The Gospels: NT Wright: Literature, Story and the

Articulation of Narrative Worldviews158
By Tina Trevett
Learning Outcomes:
1. Understand the place of the Gospels within the metanarrative of Scripture
2. Show an understanding of Wright’s critical realist approach to the Gospels
3. Understand the significance of the Gospels as key missional narratives
There is a reader for this session:

Wright, N. T., (1992), The New Testament and the People of God, London: SPCK,
chapter 8.1-8.2, pages 215 – 223. Online here:
ost-live
Introduction
Our text for this session is N. T. Wright’s, The New Testament and The People of God,
focussing primarily on chapter three but also drawing on material from chapters 8, 13
and 14.159 We will be looking at how Wright sees the gospels as narrative accounts
which are part of a bigger story: the metanarrative of the Bible. He argues that the
gospels use the language and key themes of this bigger story to evoke a new
understanding of it. This has echoes of Brueggemann’s approach which we saw in the
previous section where the prophets:
‘... enunciate new actions of God that are discontinuous with the old traditions
... but they are cast ... in images of the old memories so that discernment ... of
the new depends profoundly on knowledge about the old.’160
Wright takes a ‘critical realist’ approach to the Gospel narratives arguing that these
accounts are rooted in a clear historical place and time, and that, on this basis, it is
possible to know something about the historical Jesus. In this session we will give a
brief explanation of Wright’s critical realist approach and explore how this ‘reading’ of
the text and his understanding of ‘story’ supports this view. We shall then look briefly
at how he applies this approach to his reading of each of the Gospels.
Critical realism
Critical realism is a theory about how we know things – an epistemological theory. This
is the lens through which Wright approaches the key narratives of the New Testament.
158 Wright, 1992, chapter 3

159 Wright, 1992
45
BIB200 Topic 1
In contrast to the approach of the theologians involved in the various approaches

known collectively as the Quests, which claim that we cannot know anything of what
the original authors intended and so cannot gain any knowledge of the historical Jesus,
Wright’s critical realist approach allows for the possibility of being able to get some
level of understanding.
How can we ‘know’ history? Is it objective or subjective? Wright says we all read things
from a point of view. There is no such thing as a view from nowhere – a purely objective
view. Our views are shaped by our own perspectives and the community of which we
are a part. Wright says that critical realism is:
‘the process of ‘knowing’ that acknowledges the reality of the thing known as
something other than the knower ... whilst also fully acknowledging that the only
access ... to this reality lies [in] ... appropriate dialogue or conversation between
the knower and the thing known ...’161
Wright describes this in a diagram:
Observer……………………………………………..»Object
Initial observation
˂……………………………………………………………….
Is challenged by critical reflection
………………………………………………………………..»
But can survive the challenge and speak truly of reality162
In other words, Wright takes the view, in contrast to those in the Quests, that there is
a reality to be found in the Gospel stories and that part of the dialogue that will help us
discover this lies in understanding their place within the bigger story of Israel’s history.
He argues that there is meaning in the text and that one way to get at this meaning is
to understand its allusions. The way to do this – at least to some limited extent – is to
read the text as a part of its wider context: to read the story within the story. Jesus’
stories are to be read from within the story of which he was a part: the Jewish story;
the story of the OT.
The Jewish story shaped the worldview of Jesus’ hearers and, like the prophets,
Wright’s approach shows Jesus re-telling the old story in new ways to challenge their
understanding in order to open up the possibility of a new worldview, a new way of
relating to their God. He sees this as the key to understanding Jesus’ frequent use of
parables.
Stories in the Early Church
A key to understanding Wright’s approach is to appreciate that ‘story’ is central to his
thesis. This is not only rooted in the idea that story-telling was a very natural and typical
Jewish way of articulating their worldview but that ‘stories are one of the most basic
161 NT Wright, 1992, p35

162 NT Wright, 1992, p36
46
BIB200 Topic 1
modes of human life’.163 Our worldviews are shaped by the stories we learn in our
communities. The Jewish worldview was shaped by the stories of a God who had
created the world, who was ‘good, wise and omnipotent ... who had chosen Israel as
his special people’.164 The story they told reminded each generation that their God
was a God who was involved in their history. He was the God who rescued them, who
made covenants with them, and who sent them into exile and rescued them. Their
stories were about ‘events in the real world.’165
Therefore even though the stories the redactors recorded in the Gospels were shaped
by their worldviews this does not render them meaningless or inaccessible to us.
According to Wright’s critical realist approach, if we engage in a critical conversation
with these narratives we can obtain some understanding regarding the early Christian
worldview about Jesus.
If stories are good at shaping worldviews, Wright makes the point that they are equally
good at subverting and changing worldviews.
‘Where head-on attack would certainly fail, the parable [or story] hides the
wisdom of the serpent behind the innocence of the dove, gaining entrance and
favour which can then be used to change assumptions ...’166
He points out that ‘telling stories was ... one of Jesus’ most characteristic modes of
teaching’167. Jesus uses the familiar ‘referents’ of his hearers’ story to challenge their
worldview. He interprets the Gospel stories in the light of the bigger story told through
the Old Testament. It is this back-story that gives meaning – often subversive meaning
– to the Gospel stories. Wright uses the parable of the wicked tenants at several points
in his book to illustrate his argument.
Please stop and read Mark 12:1-12 – the parable of the wicked tenants
Make some notes on this passage and discuss it in your facilitation:
What is the familiar ‘referent’ or background to this parable?
Who is ‘the vineyard’?
163 NT Wright, 1992, p38

164 NT Wright, 1992, p41
165 NT Wright, 1992, p78
166 NT Wright, 1992, p40
167 NT Wright, 1992, p77
47
BIB200 Topic 1
What assumptions and current worldview is Jesus challenging by telling this parable?
See the final page of this session’s notes for Wright’s analysis of this after you
have done some research yourself.
This parable of the wicked tenants is ‘a story which already has a history ... receiving
a new and worrying twist.’168 But, as we saw in our section on Brueggemann, the new
meaning ‘will have ... demonstrable continuity with the historical meaning.’169 And as
with the prophets, the story, with its resonances of the listeners’ worldview, will be
understood as being subversive. It is understood as ‘undermining a current worldview
and attempting to replace it with another.’170
For Wright, understanding the intention of both Jesus and the Gospel writers
‘means not least to understand the stories [they] were telling ... and particularly
where they constituted a challenge ... to the stories told in the Judaism and
paganism of the day.’171 (My emphasis – we often overlook this aspect of his
teaching.)
Because we can see how the stories Jesus and the early church told come out of and
challenge Israel’s narrative and worldview, Wright argues that many of these ‘would
lose their point unless they concerned historical reality’.172 This is a key point in his
argument. It is because of their relationship to the bigger story, because they are
‘concerned with historical reality’, that we can gain some knowledge of the historical
Jesus and his world.
Gospel Readings
So how does Wright interpret the Gospels in the light of this understanding? He points
out that these accounts are almost the only record we have of the life of Jesus and,
whilst it is undoubtedly the case that these stories tell us about the worldview of those
who penned them, Wright argues that it is through them that we can get at the
‘essential information about Jesus’.173 I want to end this session with a brief look at
how Wright applies his approach to each of the Gospels. This material is a very brief
168 NT Wright, 1992, p67

169 NT Wright, 1992, p67
170 NT Wright, 1992, p67
171 NT Wright, 1992, p79
172 NT Wright, 1992, p79
173 NT Wright, 1992, p371
48
BIB200 Topic 1
summary of chapter thirteen of ‘The New Testament and the People of God’ and gives
a taste of how Wright understands the Gospel stories to be taking up the themes of
the Jewish story, bringing new meaning and significance to them.
Luke
Wright starts with Luke because this Gospel, along with the book of Acts, also
generally accepted as being written by Luke, make up almost two-fifths of the whole
of the New Testament. He sees in the opening story of Elizabeth and Zechariah, and
the birth of John the Baptist echoes of the story of Hannah and Elkanah, and the birth
of Samuel. Both Samuel and John were born to bring messages of judgement.174 Both
were born to announce messages of salvation: Samuel anoints David as Israel’s
king175:
‘the David of whose son Israel’s God said, later in the narrative, that he would
establish his kingdom for ever.’ 176
As John baptises Jesus the anointing of God’s Spirit descends upon him in fulfilment
of the earlier promise to David. 177 Jesus is the king bringing in God’s kingdom.
This is the telling of the new story using the referents of Israel’s founding story to evoke
in his hearers a new understanding of where their story was heading. Wright is not
claiming that this is the only key to understanding Luke’s story but he sees it as a way
of
‘telling his story ... in order that it may say, as much by its shape and outline as
by its detailed content [that] this story is the climax towards which Israel’s
history has been building all along.’178
These parallels are not simply ‘typology’ – ‘taking an event from the past and setting
it in relation to a parallel event in the present’.179 The parallels are there because of
the historical reality of both stories. Luke’s story of Jesus is being told as the long-
awaited fulfilment of the story of David. Luke’s account is intended to challenge its
hearers to see things differently, to adjust their worldview to take account of this latest
twist in their ongoing story.
Luke’s story though is not just intended to subvert the Jewish worldview, Wright claims
that he has written a bios180 ‘which subverts the normal thrust and context of pagan
bioi’.181 Luke’s account draws on the historical Jewish story to remind them of their
calling: that their redemption meant salvation for the Gentiles too.182 And Luke gives
us the account of how that story will be worked out in the book of Acts.
174 1 Sam. 3:11f; Lk. 1:16-17; 3:7f

175 1 Sam. 16:13
176 NT Wright, 1992, p379
177 Lk. 3:22
178 NT Wright, 1992, p380
179 NT Wright, 1992, p381
180 See BIB100 session 2 ‘literary types’ & S3, ‘literary types’.
181 NT Wright, 1992, p383.
182 See session 2 on CJ Wright: ‘past grace, future grace, present grace.’
49
BIB200 Topic 1
‘The story of Israel has reached its basic fulfilment in the story of Jesus, in order
that its further long-term goal may be attained through the mission of Jesus’
spirit in the church.’183
Matthew
Wright points out that from the opening words of his Gospel, Matthew’s story not only
sees itself as ‘part of a larger story ... [but] presupposes a previous story’184. Matthew’s
opening words,
“‘Biblos Geneseos’, mean literally ‘the book of Genesis’ – ‘the book of the
generation’”185.
The structure of this genealogy, beginning with Abraham, is seen as a way of telling
the story of Israel’s history. He structures the genealogy into three periods of fourteen
generations with the three key markers being Abraham, David and, perhaps less
obviously, the exile186. As Wright points out,
‘most Jews of the second-temple period regarded themselves as still in exile ...
until the great day of redemption dawned, Israel was ... still in need of rescue’187.
Numbers were very symbolic in Jewish literature and Wright posits that these three
divisions of fourteen generations would have ‘hinted at six periods of seven
generations’188 – seven being the number for perfection and completion. So the
seventh period is hinted at as the final chapter of Israel’s story with ‘a new David who
will rescue his people from their exile.’189
Wright goes on to argue that, although not referred to explicitly in the genealogy, the
idea of a human as God’s agent of delivery from exile would raise memories of that
defining moment of Jewish history and identity – the Exodus. And Wright, along with
other scholars, understands the structure of Matthew’s Gospels, with its five large
blocks of teaching, as a deliberate echo of ‘the Pentateuch seen as covenant’190.
He uses Deuteronomy 27-30 as pattern for understanding these blocks of teaching.
He sees the promises and warnings of the covenant expressed in these chapters
echoed in the first and last of Matthew’s five blocks of teaching: chapters 5-7, and
chapters 23-25. Wright argues that these two blocks of teaching are much longer than
the other three (10:1-42; 13:1-52; 18:1-35) and by arranging them in this ‘deliberately
stylised’191 manner, he suggests that Matthew had this passage from Deuteronomy in
mind. Wright’s argument is quite complex but so fundamental to his point that I will
quote some of it in detail:
183 NT Wright, 1992, p383

184 NT Wright, 1992, p385
185 NT Wright, 1992, p385
186 Matt. 1:1, 6, 12.
187 NT Wright, 1992, p385-6
188 NT Wright, 1992, p385
189 NT Wright, 1992, p386
190 NT Wright, 1992, p387
191 NT Wright, 1992, p387
50
BIB200 Topic 1
The theme of the whole passage in Deuteronomy is thoroughly germane to the

complex theme of his first chapter: Israel has indeed fallen into the curse of
exile because of her sins, and now the story of Abraham is to be brought back
on course by a new exodus, by the renewal of the covenant. As a result Israel
is again faced with a choice. Life or death, curse or blessing: the house on the
rock or the sand; ... the sheep or the goats. Jesus like Moses goes to his death
with the promises and warnings still ringing in his people’s ears. After his
resurrection, Jesus like Moses goes up the mountain and departs from his
people, leaving them with a commission to go in and possess the land, that is,
the entire world (Matt28:16-20) ...
Matthew presupposes a telling of the Jewish story according to which Israel has
failed, has ended in exile, and needs a new exodus; he undertakes to show that
this new exodus was accomplished in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus
...
They are not simply a collection of types, historical precedents arbitrarily
repeated. They claim to be the continuation and proper completion of the whole
of history.192
In terms of reading the Gospels as part of the wider narrative, Wright argues that
Matthew’s ‘plot’ – the story as it unfolds in his Gospels – only makes sense if it is seen
as part of a larger whole in which the prequel is that of Israel’s calling to be a blessing
to the whole world. Jesus comes first ‘to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’193 but
‘his ministry ... will result in salvation for all nations’194 in keeping with Israel’s original
calling and purpose.
Mark
As with Matthew and Luke, Wright suggests that Mark too was writing ‘within a Jewish
framework’.195 He reads Mark as an apocalyptic telling of the Jesus event which
subverts the traditional expectation and understanding of the apocalyptic literature
much of which emerged during the Intertestamental period. This is a complex area of
theological study and debate but for the purposes of this session we will focus on what
Wright sees as being the main apocalyptic hopes and expectations of second temple
Judaism at the time of Jesus196.
As we saw in our brief look at Matthew’s Gospel, the people of Israel saw themselves
as still in exile, awaiting restoration. These expectations were linked to ‘the key
symbols of Israel’s entire worldview’197: that of restoration of the Temple and the Land.
This led to an expectation of a new age yet to come when the wrongs of this age,
including Israel’s failure to fulfil its covenant expectations, would be righted. A new age
when Israel would regain its rightful place under the rule of God and all nations would
look to it and worship their one true God. It is important to note that, although looking
192 NT Wright, 1992, p388-9

193 Matt. 10:5-6; 15:24
194 NT Wright, 1992, p389.
195 NT Wright, 1992, p391
196 For a much fuller explanation of ‘apocalyptic’ see NT Wright, 1992, chap,10 and chap.13, p390ff
197 NT Wright, 1992, p299
51
BIB200 Topic 1
for a new age to be inaugurated, the expectation was that this would take place within
this world. The expectation was not, as in Stoic philosophy, for a destruction of this
world with a new world breaking in.
So in what way does Wright claim that Mark’s Gospel can be interpreted through the
lens of apocalyptic? Although Wright points out that we should read the whole of
Mark’s Gospel in this light, Mark 13 is seen as the focal point of his apocalyptic
approach. Wright shows that this chapter ‘subverts the normal Jewish apocalyptic
telling of Israel’s story’198. It will be the fall of Jerusalem rather than the restoration of
Jerusalem that will be a sign of the real liberation of the true Israel. This chapter leads
directly into the trial and crucifixion of Jesus and Wright says that
‘it is the lens through which those earth-shattering events must ... be viewed ...
it invests those earthly events with their heavenly significance’199.
This reading of Mark in terms of apocalyptic literature again shows how the Gospel
writers used the forms and stories with which their readers and hearers were familiar
in order to challenge them to see the new truths that were being revealed by Jesus.
This was not a completely different story but rather the point to which their story had
been leading all along.
Apocalypse has at its root the meaning of ‘unveiling’; something hidden being
revealed, and Wright goes on to look at other parts of Mark’s Gospel to show how this
apocalyptic theme runs through it like a thread.
‘The baptism, the transfiguration, and the words of Peter, Caiaphas ... are
moments when the veil is lifted, eyes are opened ... Mark’s whole telling of the
story of Jesus is designed to function as an apocalypse.’200
Take a few moments to look these events up in Mark’s Gospel (see footnote for
references) and see if you can understand how they demonstrate what Wright is
saying.
John
John’s Gospel is of course different from the Synoptics in structure and, to a large
extent, content. But for all that it should be clear by now that John’s Gospel too follows
the pattern of using Israel’s story to tell Jesus’ story.
Read John chapter 1:1-17
John’s opening chapter clearly evokes the creation narrative; the references to light in
verse 7 picks up the idea implicit in Israel’s calling that they were to be the ‘light to all
men’. Verse 17 takes the reader right back to the exodus and the renewal of the
covenant with the giving of the law.
198 NT Wright, 1992, p393

199 NT Wright, 1992, p393
200 NT Wright, 1992, p395 – Mk. 1:9-11; 9:2-7; 8:27-29; 14: 60-63
52
BIB200 Topic 1
Wright points out that John ‘locates the ministry of Jesus in terms of sacred Jewish
space’201. Look up and note the different festivals mentioned below:
• Chap.2:13-25; 6:4; 11:55 – 19:42
• Chap.7:2ff
• Chap.10:22
John uses imagery from key passages and events in their history which are often
understood by Jesus’ audience, rightly, as subversive:
Chap.6 – ‘the bread of life’ evoking memories of God’s provision for Israel during
their desert wanderings.
Chap.8 – the references to Abraham; see especially verse 58 – why did this statement
provoke such a strong response?
Chap.10 – references to shepherd and lamb evoking memories of Ezekiel 34 and his
warning about the false shepherds and, in verses 11-18, the picture from Isaiah 53 of
the sacrificial lamb.
Wright also points out echoes of a type of Jewish literature with which we may not be
so familiar but which would have been familiar to John’s original audience: wisdom
literature. He asserts that John was telling the story in this way to subvert
contemporary interpretations by challenging their understanding and identification of
‘wisdom’. Wright quotes a passage from the book of Sirach202 which identifies ‘wisdom’
not only with the ‘personified breath and word of YHWH’203 but also with the Torah and
the Shekinah. ‘Shekinah’ was the ‘tabernacling presence of YHWH in the Temple’204.
John picks up on these ideas in his opening chapter. We are familiar with his use of
‘logos’, a word through which creation was brought into being, less so perhaps with
the phrase the NIV translates as ‘lived among us’205. The Greek phrase for this is ‘kai
eskenosen en hemin’206; literally ‘he made his tabernacle among us’. Wright points
out that “‘skene’ is the Greek for ‘tent’ or ‘tabernacle’ and also ... a cognate of the
Hebrew Shekinah itself”207.
So we can see that John, like the synoptic writers, roots his telling of the Jesus story
very clearly within a framework of the Jewish story.
Summary and application to mission

The synoptic writers set out to tell the story of Jesus as the story that makes sense of
the bigger story of which they are part: the history of the people of Israel. They were
writing the history of Jesus because ‘history’ – the real world – ‘was where Israel’s God
201 NT Wright, 1992, p412

202 Sir. 24:1-28
203 NT Wright, 1992, p414
204 NT Wright, 1992, p414
205 John 1:14
206 NT Wright, 1992, p414
207 NT Wright, 1992, p414
53
BIB200 Topic 1
must act to redeem his people’.208 They were not writing their accounts merely as
historical records but rather as the
‘founding myths for their communities ... whose very existence depended on
their being called by the same God to carry on the same story in its new
phase’.209
Wright has demonstrated how everything that is conveyed in the human world is based
on founding stories that shape our worldview whether we are conscious of them or
not. They are the stories that describe our reality as we perceive it. Hence in order to
contextualise missional theology it is vital to understand the founding stories that
shape the worldviews of our missional communities and to seek to tell our Christian
stories in a language that can be understood in terms of their own world-views.210
We have a story to tell, not a set of propositions to proclaim. If this story does not find
its roots in a real, historical context then it is just a fiction and the whole
Jewish/Christian worldview collapses for its central tenet is that the God of Israel, who
continued this story through the person of Jesus, is a God who acts within their history.
Elsewhere Wright talks about the metanarrative – the bigger story – as a drama in five
acts: ‘creation; ‘fall’; Israel; Jesus, and the church’211. The church is called to play out
its part in this ‘drama’ and to live ‘as the people through whom the narrative in question
is now moving towards its final destination’.212 And the church must take as the basis
for its way of ‘acting’ the founding stories of the early Christian communities. The
church has become part of the story:
‘Indeed, telling the story of Jesus as the climax of the story of Israel and the
focal point of the creator’s redemptive drama with his world is itself a major task
of the fifth act.’213
This is of immense importance and provides the missional leader with a new
opportunity to present the Gospel story as historical testimony of what the church knew
to be true about Jesus, the risen Son of God. The story of Jesus can be contextualised
for a postmodern generation that appreciates narratives and founding stories much
more than modernists did.
Reflection
What are some of the assumptions and stories that shape the worldviews of those in
your missional communities?
208 NT Wright, 1992, p397

209 NT Wright, 1992, p396
210 Adapted from BIB201 material – Andy Hardy 2013
211 NT Wright, 2005, p89
212 NT Wright, 2005, p91
213 NT Wright, 2005, p91
54
BIB200 Topic 1
What are the points of contact between their stories and the Christian story?
The parable of the wicked tenants – Wright’s explanation* (from exercise above)
See Isaiah 5
This is the story of Israel ... it was already a tragedy when Isaiah told it, but it
has become ... more poignant. It is now the story ... of a father and his son. This
element too is subversive: in the Old Testament it is Israel who is the beloved
son of the creator God, and now there is apparently a son who stands both in
Israel’s place and over against Israel ... the story [builds] to its climax: 1) the
vineyard is prepared, 2) the owner sends the messengers ... 3) finally the son
is sent, rejected and killed ... 4) the vineyard will be taken away and given to
others.214
Reader:
Wright, N. T., (1992), The New Testament And The People Of God, London: SPCK,
chapter 8.1-8.2, pages 215 – 223. Online here:
ost-live
Bibliography
SCM
Wright, N.T. (1992), The New Testament and The People of God, London: SPCK
Wright, N.T. (2005), Scripture and the Authority of God, London: SPCK
214 NT Wright, 1992, p50
55
BIB200 Topic 1
Session 5: Paul: N T Wright, The plot, the Plan and the Storied Worldview
Session 5: Paul: N T Wright, The plot, the Plan and the Storied
Worldview
By Tina Trevett
Learning Outcomes:
1. Understand how Paul’s letters reflect the bigger story of Scripture
2. Understand how Wright sees the place of story in Paul’s writing
3. Articulate the significance of this approach for Wright’s understanding of the
scope of Paul’s theology of salvation
4. Understand the significance of Paul’s letters as missional narratives
There is an online reader for this session:

Wright, T, (2007), Surprised by Hope, London: SPCK, chapter 6. Online here:
ost-live
Introduction
Our text for this session is N. T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God.215 Wright
continues his study of Paul’s letters using the same critical realist approach he brought
to his study of the Gospels. He argues that Paul’s letters are not
“simply about ‘ideas’ and ‘beliefs’. They are about the creator God, his world
and his people – and this world and these people are creatures of time, space
and matter, open by definition to historical enquiry.’216
He also argues that the way to understand Paul’s theology expressed in these letters
is to understand the story that underpins them. Even though they are not written as
‘stories’ he argues that there is a clear narrative structure that runs through them.
Whilst many theologians would disagree with this view, Wright quotes Morna Hooker
in support of his argument. She writes that,
“since Paul’s theology is concerned with God’s activity through history, it is clear
that his interpreters should not ignore the role of ‘narrative’.”217
Wright also quotes Horrell in support of this view:
215 Wright, 2013

216 Wright, 2013, p72
217 Hooker, M., (2002), ‘“Heirs of Abraham”: The Gentiles’ Role in Israel’s Story. A Response to B. W.
Longenecker.’ pp85-96 in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, ed. B.W. Longenecker,
Louisville: Westminster John Knox in NT Wright, 2013, p468
56
BIB200 Topic 1
“a narrative underpins Paul’s ‘theologising’: the story of God’s saving act in

Jesus Christ ... Paul’s letters are shaped and informed by a ‘myth’.”218
‘Myth’ used in this context to mean a ‘story as an element within a worldview.’219
Wright’s argument centres around the issue of Paul’s relationship with his pre-
conversion, Jewish worldview and he contrasts two widely held views on this subject
before offering his own ‘perspective’. The ‘old perspective’ held that Paul had to
abandon everything from ‘his previous worldview, theology and culture’220. Whilst,
according to Wright, the ‘new perspective’, with its focus on the ongoing role of the law
for Jewish Christians, ignores
‘the deeper question: did Paul actually reaffirm something basic about the
underlying Jewish narrative, or did he reject it ... [and thus] move into an
essentially non-narratival (and hence ... non-Jewish) mode?’221
We shall explore how Wright puts the case for seeing ‘a strongly implicit and frequently
explicit narrative’222 underpinning Paul’s theology. Paul’s letters may not be written in
narrative form but Wright’s key point is that we need to see the story, often expressed
in themes, behind his writing in order to understand Paul’s meaning more clearly.
Wright looks at several key passages in Paul’s letters and explains them according to
this critical realist, narratival approach. It should not surprise us at this point in our
study guide that the underpinning story is the story of Israel’s relationship with God as
it has unfolded through their scriptures: the Old Testament. Wright notes that
‘... the apostle’s most emphatically ‘theological’ statements are in fact
expressions of the essentially Jewish story now redrawn around Jesus ...
statements sometimes so compressed as to be almost formulaic.’223 (Wright’s
emphasis)
We shall look at this in more detail later in this session but for now the idea to get hold
of is that Wright is saying is that we can see the allusions to Israel’s story even though
Paul may allude to it with very few words. So, for example, most of you would
immediately know the ‘story’ or events being referred to if you heard the phrase, ‘9/11’.
It is part of our recent history. For those of a certain age, or certain sporting inclination,
the phrase ‘they think it’s all over ... it is now!’ would immediately conjure up a scenario
unlikely to be repeated any time soon: England winning the world cup 224. And you
probably do not need to have been alive in 1966 to ‘get’ that. That is Wright’s point:
218 Horrell D. G., (2005), Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics, London:
T&T Clark, p85 in NT Wright, 2013, p457
219 Wright, 2013, p456. We will explore this understanding of ‘myth’ in later sessions of this module.
220 Wright, 2013, p460
221 Wright, 2013, p460
222 Wright, 2013, p461
223 Wright, 1992, p79; see Gal. 3:13-14; 4:3-7; Rom. 4:24-25; 7:4; 8:3-4;15:7-9
224 This was the phrase shouted somewhat excitedly by the commentator of the 1966 World Cup final
as England scored their 4th and winning goal in the final seconds of extra time. And sadly, was not to
be repeated in 2014!
57
BIB200 Topic 1
Paul does not need to tell the story in detail. A few words will conjure up the story to
which he alludes.
Wright takes a literary approach, likening the way he sees the story working through
Paul’s writings to the way a book or play will have a main plot, several sub-plots and
then a final drawing together of the main plot in the denouement. He explains this in
relation to Paul’s letters as follows:
• The main plot or the framing narrative – creation and new creation
• The main sub-plot – human vocation, the plight (the failure of humankind to
carry out their vocation) and solution
• The second but vital sub-plot – the story of Israel and the role of Torah within
that story
• The final ‘act of the play’ – the dénouement, through which all the other
plots will find their resolution225
I will attempt to explain this and use some of the biblical texts Wright uses to show
how he sees this unfolding through Paul’s letters. And, by now, the student should be
on the lookout for how these themes and stories connect to the ideas we have already
explored in looking at Chris Wright and the exodus (S2), and Brueggemann and the
prophets (S3).
The main plot: God and Creation

Wright asserts that Paul presupposes and assumes the Old Testament view of God
as creator226. What makes this story a ‘plot’ is the understanding that God created the
world with a purpose and that at some point in this story things went very badly wrong.
Paul’s reference points within the Jewish story are:
• Adam, and linked to this the idea that ‘creation has been put out of joint because
the humans who were supposed to be looking after it have fallen down on the
job.’227
• The idea of the “‘powers’ at work”, seeking to disrupt the creator’s plan and that
‘need to be overcome’.228
• The idea of two epochs of world history: the present age, ‘where evil and death
are rampant,’ and the coming age, where evil and death will be abolished and
‘where justice and peace will triumph but still, in some sense, within the created
order.’229
These themes can be seen at many points within Paul’s letters and it was central to
his thinking that ‘the coming age’ has been inaugurated with the coming of Jesus.
Wright uses Gal.1:3-5 to illustrate this point, arguing that this view subverted both
225 Wright, 2013, p516 – this is a paraphrase of Wright’s points.

226 Rom.1:18-24; 11:36; 14:14; 1Cor 8:6; 10:26 – cf Ps.24:1; Col 1:15-17
227 Wright, 2013, p476 – Rom. Chaps. 5; 8; 1 Cor. 15;
228 Wright, 2013, p476 – Rom 8:34-39; 1 Cor. 15:20-28; Eph. 6:10-20
229 Wright, 2013, p477
58
BIB200 Topic 1
Jewish and pagan understanding of the idea of ‘two ages’ of history. He argues that
these verses indicate clearly that these two ages now overlap:
‘God’s future, ‘the age to come’ has broken into the present age in Jesus ...
and those who are rescued by him ... are rescued from the ‘present evil age’
so that they may now belong ...within that ‘age to come’.’230
He uses two key passages231 to underline his point that in picking up the theme of
creation Paul is going right back to the origins of Israel’s story: the belief that their God
was the powerful creator God and that the whole earth belonged to him. 232 It is a key
part of Wright’s argument that, this being so, the whole of creation, the earth which he
placed under humankind’s stewardship, and which suffered as a result of humankind’s
rebellion and failure to carry out that task, will be restored as the place of God’s rule.
It will be the place where his kingdom will come when the new age arrives.
It would be helpful to read these passages now: Rom. 8:18-25; 1 Cor. 15:20 28.
Wright suggests that these passages bring together all these key ideas:
• the idea of the present age giving way to a new age which is still to come
• that this new age has been inaugurated through the resurrection of Jesus
• that this new age will involve the renewal and restoration of the whole of
creation
It is this last point that has been seen as controversial in some circles. Wright argues
that this presents a challenge to the often narrow emphasis of evangelicals on the
individual nature and focus of salvation, although he never denies the importance of
that. For Wright, the bigger picture and the bigger story involve the whole of creation
as the place where God will ultimately exercise his rightful rule and reign as king. He
will remain faithful to ‘the work of his hands.’233
Within this main plot he sees the theme of judgement as being the way this will be
worked out. He reminds the reader that
‘judgement is in fact a positive thing. It is what restores health to a society ... it
replaces chaos with order.’234
This theme ran like a thread through Israel’s history, as we have seen both in the
covenant blessings and curses235 and through the period of the exile. But also running
like a thread through their history was the hope and expectation that judgement would
come through the future Davidic king who would come and root out all that was evil in
God’s world. He would restore God’s perfect justice and peace to the whole of creation.
Wright uses Isaiah 11:1-10 to illustrate this and so concludes that Paul’s Christian
worldview picks up on and reflects Israel’s story:
230 Wright, 2013, p477

231 Rom. 8:18-25; 1 Cor.15:20-28
232 Ps. 24:1
233 Wright, 2013, p480 quoting Ps.8:3; 100:3
234 Wright, 2013, p481
235 Deut. 28-30
59
BIB200 Topic 1
‘this kind of final judgement is part of the implicit worldview within the Jewish
world of Saul of Tarsus, and it clearly remained so within the rethought
worldview of Paul the apostle.’236
This overarching story of God and his plan to restore his creation provides the
framework for the rest of the themes, the ‘sub-plots’, that Wright identifies in Paul’s
writings and we turn now to the ‘first sub-plot’.
First sub-plot: Humans, Their Vocation, Failure, Rescue and Reinstatement237

We need at this point to understand how Wright views humankind in relationship to
the creator and creation and here one needs to read Wright carefully because he
assigns humankind a dual purpose and we must not lose sight of either aspect if we
are to understand his argument which is quite complex. What follows is an inevitably
simplified but, I hope, faithful account of Wright’s arguments on this point.
We have already touched on his first point above: humans were appointed as stewards
over God’s creation and he says that
‘this is what it meant to be ‘in God’s image’; to reflect God’s wise and fruitful
ordering into creation, and to reflect creation’s praise back to the creator ... so
that creation itself might flourish. ’238
But God, he argues, did not just make humans as ‘mere tools’ but as ‘delightful, unique
creatures who have the capacity to know his love and reflect it back to him.’239
Still using the two passages we looked at above – Rom. 8:18-25; 1 Cor. 15:20 28 –
Wright then draws his conclusion that ‘creation cannot be put right until humans are
put right.’240 Put another way, Wright sees the place where the restoration of
humankind will take place as being within the renewed creation. In terms of Israel’s
story this links to the expectation and promise of the ‘land’ as their inheritance but now
re-interpreted in the light of the promise that the Messiah would inherit the whole world.
The promise that was implicit in the Abrahamic covenant241 and has now been fulfilled
in Jesus the Messiah.
Wright uses Romans 5:17 to make this link back to the story of Genesis, to Adam and
to mankind’s original purpose within creation:
‘For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through that one, how much
more will those who receive the abundance of grace, and of the gift of covenant
membership, of ‘being in the right’, reign in life through the one man Jesus the
Messiah.’ (Wright’s own translation and his emphasis)
236 Wright, 2013, p483

237 Wright, 2013, p485
238 Wright, 2013, p486
239 Wright, 2013, p486-7
240 Wright, 2013, p488
241 Gen. 12:2-3; 17:1-6 – note the repetition of ‘many nations’; Isa. 42:1-7; 52:10;
60
BIB200 Topic 1
Wright makes this verse bear a lot of weight. Before you read on, just pause and
re-read that verse and then list the referents you can see to Israel’s story:
Wright sees in it:

• Clear narrative echoes of Adam’s sin and failure to fulfil the purpose for which
humankind was created with the consequences that brought for both
humankind and creation.
• The memory of the original covenant relationship and how that has been
fulfilled through Jesus who he calls ‘the Messiah’, a word loaded with
significance within the Jewish worldview.
But then he gives the reader the ‘twist in the tale’, the unexpected outcome of this new
telling of Israel’s story. Those who are restored, who receive ‘the abundance of grace’,
will ‘reign in life’ through the Messiah.
He links this to the passage we have looked at in Romans 8. Wright says that in writing
this
‘Paul restores human beings to the place they have in Genesis, the place he
[Paul] will give them in the apocalyptic scenario in chapter 8 ... [where] creation
itself would be freed from its slavery to decay, to enjoy the freedom that comes
when God’s children are glorified.’242
Wright understands the phrase ‘when God’s children are glorified’ to refer to the
‘glorious rule or ‘reign’ of God’s children’243 as in Romans 5:17 (‘reign in life’) above.
This requires him to offer his own translation of this phrase – ‘the glory of God’s
children’244 – claiming that other versions, including the NIV, often get this wrong when
they translate this as ‘glorious liberty’ [NIV ‘glorious freedom’]. This freedom for
creation will come when death itself is finally defeated: ‘at the ‘apocalypse’ of God’s
children’245 when the new age comes in all its fullness.
Thus far his arguments have focussed on the end results for ‘creation’ which is the
larger framework for what he terms ‘the main sub-plot’246. Wright now turns to look at
what he says ‘so many have assumed to be the main plot: the story of humankind.’247
242 Wright, 2013, p488 – see Rom. 8:21

243 Wright, 2013, p488
244 Wright, 2013, p488
245 Wright, 2013, p489
246 Wright, 2013, p490
247 Wright, 2013, p490
61
BIB200 Topic 1
This is a key point of Wright’s thesis: that the church has the tendency to put human
sin and restoration/reconciliation at the heart of the story and to make it the centre of
Paul’s gospel. Wright’s argument is that the problems theologians see in Paul’s
writings are the result of this wrong assumption and that ‘at last we can make sense
of what was before incomprehensible,’248 when we see the human story in relation to
‘the story of creation’.249
So, Wright comes to the focus of this sub-plot: ‘Humans, Their Vocation, Failure,
Rescue and Reinstatement’.250 Once again Paul’s analysis is filled with references to
Israel’s story of idolatry, unfaithfulness to the creator and to their original purpose. 251
This understanding is significant because it enables Paul to maintain the idea of
creation as something inherently good. Created matter is not the source of evil. For
Paul ‘the human problem is traced to the abuse of the good creation.’252
Paul uses many different terms to describe human beings and Wright notes that he
uses them in a positive way and in a holistic way. As Wright points out, these terms
refer to different parts of a human being but they are all part of the one entity. This is
in contrast to other religious systems, such as Gnosticism, that saw a distinction
between the soul/spirit parts of a human as potentially good and able to be saved, and
the flesh/body which was ‘bad’ and was to be saved from.
It will be helpful to look at Wright’s analysis of Paul’s use of these terms:
Body: Gk. – soma – is the visible, physical presence which is ‘God’s creation’.253 The
body will die, not because it is inherently ‘bad’ but ‘because of sin.’ But
‘the soma ... of those who are in Christ ... will be raised to new life ... in this life,
[it is] the means of obedience and ... is to be presented to God.’254
Flesh: Gk. – sarx – has come to stand for
‘the whole human being ... [as] essentially corruptible ... [and] is thereby linked
with his critique of idolatry ... ‘sin’ [is] seen as a human propensity and action
(as opposed to ... a force or power ...)’.255
Mind: Gk. – nous – refers to the human ‘as a thinking, reasoning creature’.
Heart: Gk. – kardia – ‘the human as creature with hidden depths from which
motivations, longings and love emerges’.
Spirit: Gk. – pneuma – ‘the human seen in terms of an interiority which is open to the
presence and power of the creator.’
248 Wright, 2013, p475

249 Wright, 2013, p490
250 Wright, 2013, p485
251 Rom. 1:18-25; 1 Cor. 12:2; Gal. 4:8; 1 Thess. 1:9
252 Wright, 2013, p490
253 Wright, 2013, p491
254 Wright, 2013, p491; Rom. 8:12-16; 12:1; 6:12-23.
255 Wright, 2103, p491-2
62
BIB200 Topic 1
Soul: Gk. – psyche – ‘the human seen in terms of ... human life with its ... self-
awareness, memory and imagination’.
Will: Gk. – thelēma – ‘the human seen as one in whom the motivations of the heart
produce a settled intention towards a particular course of action’.256
Wright says that in Paul’s writings, ‘each of these can be corrupted by idolatry and sin
... and each can be rescued, redeemed and redirected’257.
How does what Wright says confirm or challenge your own ideas about ‘sin’ and
the different aspects of the human being as he describes them?
Wright draws all this back to his main argument: that to see humankind’s sin and the
answer to it simply in terms of Jesus’ crucifixion, ‘is to miss entirely Paul’s answer to
the question as to why and how ‘Jesus Christ’ provides that answer’.258 And that
answer lies in ‘The story of Israel’259: in the call of Abraham as the bearers of God’s
rescue plan which reached its fulfilment in Jesus, the Christ – the Messiah; the
fulfilment of Israel’s hopes and expectations.
The story of Israel260

This is the next significant stage in Wright’s argument: a ‘non-negotiable sub-plot’261
within a sub-plot. His argument centres on recognising within Paul’s writings not just
brief references to characters from Israel’s story as examples of faith but as a radical
retelling of Israel’s story which had led to the equally radical and unexpected resolution
in the crucified Christ the Messiah. He draws attention to the title which very quickly
became attached to Jesus’ name: ‘Christ’ or in the Hebrew ‘Messiah.’ The use of this
title is intended to make a clear and strong link to Israel’s story.
By ignoring the place of this story in Paul, Wright says that we ignore the story of God
and creation and, as he has already argued, we make the focus of Paul’s message
‘simply about the plight of humans’.262 God’s plan is bigger than that:
256 Wright, 2013, p492 – for this whole section

257 Wright, 2013, p492
258 Wright, 2013, p494
259 Wright, 2013, p494
260 Wright, 2013, p495
261 Wright, 2013, p495
262 Wright, 2013, p495
63
BIB200 Topic 1
‘For [Paul], Jesus the Messiah means what he means because in and through
him the creator has been faithful to his purpose not only for creation, not only
for humankind, but also for Israel itself.’263
The narrative of second-Temple Jerusalem was rooted in the vocation of God’s
people, called in Abraham, to be
‘a guide to the blind, a light to the people in darkness, a teacher of the foolish,
an instructor for children – all because, in law, you possess the outline of
knowledge and truth.’264
Wright’s point is that Paul acknowledges that vocation and purpose, but recognises
that Israel, called to be God’s solution has become part of the problem. And here
Wright deals at length with some key sections of Romans where Paul addresses this
issue, in particular chapters 1-3 and 9-11. What Paul describes as Israel’s failure does
not mean that God has abandoned Israel rather Paul sees that the purpose of Israel
is fulfilled through the Messiah. Jesus, the faithful and obedient servant, does what
faithless, disobedient Israel could not do. Through the Messiah, the fulfilment of
Israel’s hopes and expectations have been met, although in a way they were not
expecting, and through the Messiah, the creator has been able to rescue creation, and
the whole of humankind, both Jew and Gentile.
Read Romans chapters 1-3; 9-11 and note:
Where Paul affirms the role of Israel:
Where Paul sees the points of failure within Israel’s vocation:
Where Paul affirms Jesus as the one who fulfils Israel’s role:
263 Wright, 2013, p495

264 Rom.2:19f – Wright’s own translation, p296
64
BIB200 Topic 1
This brings Paul’s argument into focus, and into line with the message we have seen
in CJH Wright’s teaching on the exodus and Brueggemann’s teaching on the prophets.
Israel’s calling and vocation was not simply a ‘gift that God has given to Israel, but ...
the gift ... God intended to give [to all the nations] through Israel.’265 (My emphasis)
This, Wright argues is the key argument running through Romans chapters 9-11.
Wright argues that, because the Messiah has fulfilled Israel’s vocation and purpose,
the covenant promises in Deuteronomy 30, so foundational for Israel’s story, and
which have
‘propelled God’s purposes forwards ... [are now] accomplishing salvation for the
whole world, Jew and Gentile alike.’266
This new reading of Israel’s history is the narrative that lies beneath and supports
Paul’s theology. And it points the way, Wright argues, to how the whole ‘plot’ ‘gets
back on track’.267 Israel’s vocation is fulfilled. The whole of humanity is now the
recipient of the new covenant promises and thus the purpose for the whole of creation
is now also back on track.
The student might like to look back at the previous session’s notes, where we explored
how the author of Matthew’s Gospel referenced this section in Deuteronomy –
chapters 27-30. So we see a continuity between the Gospel writers and Paul as they
began to interpret Israel’s story through a new lens: their worldview changed as a
result of their encounter with the crucified, risen and ascended Messiah.
The role of Torah268
Wright then moves on to the theme of Torah in Paul. This is a key theme within Paul’s
letters and he argues that people have failed to understand Paul’s references to Torah
(Gk. – nomos) because they have not located it within the context of Israel’s narrative
within Paul’s letters. Because, he says, people see only disjointed references to the
key figures in Israel’s history rather than understand these as indicative of the wider
narrative, they likewise interpret Paul’s references to Torah as individual, isolated
comments. This, Wright claims has led to ‘confusion’ and to interpretations and an
understanding of Paul’s use of Torah which are ‘puzzling and contradictory.’269 He
says that ‘when Paul writes ‘nomos’ he normally means the Jewish law, the Torah’270
as opposed to other interpretations which treat Paul’s use of ‘nomos’ as “a kind of
universal moral law ... or as a ‘principle’ or even a ‘system’”271.
Wright makes several points about the role of Torah as he sees it when understood
within Paul’s use of the story of Israel as an underpinning narrative in his letters. These
are summarised below.
265 Wright, 2013, p497 – see also Rom.2:17-24; 3:1-4; 4; Gal. 2-4
266 Wright, 2013, p499
267 Wright, 2013, p502
268 Wright, 2013, p505
269 Wright, 2013, p505
270 Wright, 2013, p505
271 Wright, 2013, p506
65
BIB200 Topic 1
Torah as a good gift from God: see Exod. 19:6 – this links directly to CJH Wright’s
use of Torah as God’s present grace272 within the context of their “vocation to be God’s
‘royal priesthood and holy nation’”273.
Torah’s promise of life: see Rom. 7:10; Gal. 3:21; Deut. 30; Lev.18:5 – Rom.10:5;
Gal. 3:10.
Torah as the conditions which bind Israel to God in their covenant relationship
and which equips them to be ‘bearers of God’s light’ to the pagan world in their
distinctiveness: Rom. 2:17-24.
Torah that condemns Israel: the apparently contradictory role of Torah for Israel.
See Gal.3:10-14; Rom. 4:15; 5:20.
‘Because the chosen nation, the bearers of God’s solution to the plight of the
world, are themselves infected with that plight, Torah must remind them of their
ambiguous position.’274
Wright argues that, correctly understood within the context of Israel’s narrative, this is
not inconsistent because Israel itself has an ambiguous role as ‘the solution-bearing
people who are also part of the problem.’275 The fault is not within Torah but within the
people themselves: Rom. 3:20; 8:3 and see the reference to Galatians 3 above.
Torah: necessary and temporary: see Gal. 3-4. Wright argues that the importance
of interpreting Torah in the light of Paul’s use of Israel’s narrative is made clear in
these chapters. Wright uses the analogy of ‘scaffolding’ to draw out the point Paul is
making here.
‘like a vital piece of scaffolding, Torah must do its job while the building is going
up, but when the building is completed – ‘when the time had fully come’... Gal.
4:4 – then a different marker will be appropriate ...’276
There is a lot more detail to Wright’s argument about how Paul sees the role of Torah
than we can look at in this session but a final quotation should help to draw this section
to a conclusion.
‘Paul ... is precisely declaring that when the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah does
its work, and when people ... Jewish or Gentile ... confess him as kyrios, this is
... the vital sign that the ‘doing of Torah’ (which Deuteronomy envisaged as the
mark of the new covenant people ...) has been launched. This is where Torah
... seen as the narrative from Adam to Moses ... was going all along: it has
reached its telos, its goal. The story of Torah began in the garden of promise,
with the creator walking alongside the humans; it ends on the threshold of the
272 CJH Wright, 2010, p120

273 Wright, 2013, p506
274 Wright, 2013, p507
275 Wright, 2013, p507
276 Wright, 2010, p508
66
BIB200 Topic 1
land of promise, with the covenant God journeying with his people to lead them
back home ...’277
This, concludes Wright, leads us to an understanding of Torah as ‘a vital signpost to
the behaviour’278 of God’s new covenant people.
The King’s New Play: Jesus and His Storied roles279

By now we need to ask the question of how the story of Jesus is seen within the
writings of Paul. Wright’s thesis is that Jesus’ story usually appears in Paul as ‘the
crucial factor within the other narratives [that we have explored]’280: the factor that
‘enables the other stories to proceed to their appointed resolution’281.
Jesus’ story is the euangelion – the good news – that implies something that is both
discontinuous with the old story but also dependent on it. The ‘good news’ is what
breaks into the failure of the old story and offers hope to those living in the expectation
of ‘salvation’ from the old story.
Pause and read 1 Corinthians 15
As Wright has already argued throughout this chapter, behind the Pauline letters lies
the implicit story of Israel. This is the story out of which Paul sees Jesus – the Messiah
– coming to bring it to its ‘telos’. Jesus embodies the resolution of Israel’s story of
vocation, failure and longing for restoration. I will give a very brief summary of Wright’s
exegesis of this text.
v3: ‘Christ’ – the Greek title for the Hebrew ‘Messiah’: the use of this title would bring
to mind the hopes of Israel for a Messiah; ‘see also vss. 25, 27 which recall Psalms
110 and 8: which Wright says give a clear statement
‘of the sovereign rule of this Christos figure, under the ... sovereignty of God the
creator ... [who] will fight the battle against God’s last enemies ...’282
v3-4: ‘according to the scriptures’ – this is an explicit link to Israel’s history and a clear
and strong statement that Paul sees Jesus – the Christ – as the one who brings Israel’s
history to its fulfilment.
‘... the Messiah’s death and resurrection ... [are] the radical new moment which
resolves everything that had gone before in relation to the vast, sprawling
narrative of the ancient Israelite scriptures.’283
v17-28: here Paul takes his hearers back to the founding story of ‘sin’ and failure; the
story of Adam. The good news is that because of the Messiah’s death and
277 Wright, 2013, p515

278 Wright, 2013, p515
279 Wright, 2013, p517
280 Wright, 2013, p517
281 Wright, 2013, p517
282 Wright, 2013, p518
283 Wright, 2103, p519
67
BIB200 Topic 1
resurrection, and only because of his intervention, the ‘state of ‘being in sin’ has been
broken’284.
There are many resonances with the expectations of the Jews in the second-Temple
period. They were looking for a Messiah; his coming may well be expected to involve
suffering as God moved to exercise judgement and put right all that had gone wrong
before he established his righteous reign and rule. Wright argues that for Paul, these
elements came together in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
• Jesus as Messiah – he has accomplished Israel’s rescue and passed
judgement on the evil within Israel.
• Jesus as ‘Israel-in-person’ – he has completed Israel’s vocation to bring
God’s plan for rescue and restoration to the whole human race.
• Jesus as the truly human one – he has defeated the powers that had
threatened to destroy God’s creation and has inaugurated God’s rule over his
new creation.285
This fulfilment of Israel’s story is at the heart of Paul’s worldview but it holds within it
the tension of the ‘now and not yet’ kingdom. Wright says that as we see all these
strands drawn together in Paul’s letters, ‘it is clear that for Paul the events concerning
Jesus are seen as the eschatological turning-point’286.
Wright comments briefly on how Paul sees Jesus not just as the resolution to Israel’s
story but also to the story of the rest of the world. He uses 1 Corinthians chapter 1 to
show how Paul used the contemporary Greek ideas of wisdom to show how Jesus,
the crucified Messiah, was the true wisdom that the Greeks had been searching for.
There are further echoes of Israel’s story as Wright picks up on themes we have seen
in CJH Wright and Brueggemann. The announcement of the Gospel – the good news
– requires a response and it is ‘Israel’s Messiah [who] is ... summoning the whole world
to believing obedience’287. Wright also picks up on the theme of Israel’s expectation of
rescue from ‘the present evil age’ and of ‘the new age’ to come which we looked at
using Galatians 1:3-5 at the beginning of this session. This too has been achieved
through the Messiah and Wright draws us back to his original assertion, that these
verses tell us not just what Messiah has done for ‘our sins’ but that they point us to
God’s wider purpose: the restoration of the whole of his creation to its original purpose.
This brings us back to Wright’s argument about the role of narrative in Paul’s letters.
Using the letter to the Galatians as his reference he argues that we can only
understand the role of Jesus, the Messiah
‘within the implicit triple narrative of God and the world, God and humans
(designed as the means of God’s ruling of the world) and particularly God and
Israel (designed as the means of God’s rescue of humankind)’288.
284 Wright, 2013, p519

285 Wright, 2013, p521 – for this whole section
286 Wright, 2013, p524
287 Wright, 2013, p254
288 Wright, 2013, p527.
68
BIB200 Topic 1
Wright sums up his argument thus:

‘Paul has grasped the point that the Messiah embodies and enacts the creative
power and saving love of God the creator himself; that he is the true Adam,
reflecting God’s image and glory into the world; that he is the true Israel,
rescuing Adam and so the world, from their plight and that, as Messiah, he
stands over against even Israel, doing for Israel and hence for Adam and the
world, what they could not do for themselves’289.
And he concludes that ‘once we recognise this set of narratives at the worldview level
of the Apostle, passage after passage makes fresh sense’290.
Reflection
Do you agree with Wright’s interpretation of Paul? How might Wright’s interpretation
of Paul’s understanding of salvation as relating to the whole of creation being in need
of being rescued be a useful point of connection with today’s postmodern audience?
Reader:
Wright, T, (2007), Surprised by Hope, London: SPCK, chapter 6. Online here:
ost-live
Bibliography
Wright, N. T., (2013), Paul And The Faithfulness of God, Parts I and II, London: SPCK
289 Wright, 2013, p536

290 Wright, 2013, p536
69
BIB200 Topic 1
Sessions 6 – 8
We now move to three sessions which focus primarily on the gospel narratives.
Sessions six and seven assume a narrative approach and take seriously the ideas we
have been considering in this module so far:
• that the New Testament is the ongoing story of the Old Testament
• that there are many allusions to the Jews shared history and story in the
Gospels
Although Allison (S6) and Bailey (S7) write from very different perspectives, both write
with the intention of adding to our understanding of the reliability of the gospel
accounts as we have them.
White (S8) does not approach the gospels as factual accounts of what actually
happened in a historical sense in the life and ministry of Jesus, but calls for us to read
the gospels as, in the first place, stories which were performed on the road in front of
audiences. As you work through this session you will see that it has been included
more for its emphasis on the importance of story as a missional tool than as a guide
to the reliability of the gospels. The aims for session 8 remind us of the importance of
taking a critical approach to our studies and not just reading those authors who
propose similar views. They also remind us of an important aspect of our task: to
contextualise the gospel message to our particular audiences. This session reminds
us that the church has a story to proclaim rather than a set of doctrines to propound.
70
BIB200 Topic 1
Session 6: Dale Allison: Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination and History
Session 6: Dale Allison: Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination

and History
By Tina Trevett
Learning Outcomes:
1. Understand the argument for the role of memory as a means of discovering
some truths about the historical Jesus
2. Be aware of some key Christological beliefs within the context of post-exilic
Jewish thought
3. Understand how this approach might be helpful in apologetic terms within a
postmodern missional context
There is a PDF Reader for this session on Moodle:

Allison, D.C., (2010), Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination and History, London:
SPCK, chapter 4, ‘More than an Aphorist: The Discourses of Jesus’.
Introduction
Our text for this session is Dale Allison’s ‘Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination
and History.’ He says that his purpose in writing is to show
‘that we can learn some important things about the historical Jesus without
resorting to the standard criteria’291.
We shall explore what he means by this throughout this session.
Writing as an historian Allison makes the case against the claims of the Jesus
Seminar, “that it is not ‘possible ... to say very much about the historical Jesus’”292. He
examines the role of memory in the recording of the Gospel accounts and argues that
we should not be so dismissive of the accounts of those who were closer to Jesus
than we are, even if we must read them with a note of caution as to the accuracy and
reliability of memory. Allison’s first chapter which deals with the role of memory in the
production of the Gospels has more footnoted references to psychological studies on
the human memory than actual text. This is not the place to explore these in detail and
so our précis of this chapter will rely on using Allison’s own summaries. Should the
student wish to follow up this interesting area of study in more detail then I suggest
you get hold of a copy of the book and read the footnotes.
291
Allison, 2010, p10
292
Allison, 2010, p159 citing Burton Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the
Christian Myth, 1995, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, p45
71
BIB200 Topic 1
The rest of this session will then look at how Allison explores some key ideas about
Jesus on the basis of his assumption that the Gospels give us a recognisably accurate
picture of the sort of person the historical Jesus was.
1: Memories of Jesus293
Allison’s first chapter deals with the role of memory in preserving the accounts of Jesus
in the Gospels. If you have ever been called as a witness to an accident, or even given
an account of some event you have been involved in, you may have been surprised
to hear someone else give a widely different account of the same event. Human
memory is not detached and objective, and is notoriously unreliable even when we are
trying to be accurate. Allison lays down some basic ideas about memory which we
need to grasp before we see how he applies these to his understanding of the Gospels.
Reproductive memory294: this is what we use when we recite things we have learned
by rote – times tables, poems, and Bible verses.
Reconstructive memory295: this is the sort of memory we use most of the time as we
fill in the gaps – ‘it involves imagination’296. So for example, if we are giving an account
of last year’s Christmas celebrations, we are likely to incorporate details from
Christmases past as we recount what we assume is a true version of the specific
events of last Christmas. We do not do this knowingly or to mislead, it is just that
events blur.
• Memory can convince us that things we have only heard about are events in
which we have taken part.
• It can be shaped by our moral sense, so that what actually happened becomes
remembered as what ought to have happened.
• Memories fade with time and ‘are subject to sequential displacement’297; that is
we remember things out of sequence.
• We re-tell memories with our own interests and agendas in mind, so we may
recount a memory in different ways according to who we are addressing and
the point or impression we wish to make. Form critics saw this process
happening ‘on every page of the canonical Gospels’298 – writing the past so as
to promote their own interests.
• Memory becomes shaped by the conventions of the form in which it is recorded,
so storytellers impose an order to give a ‘neat beginning, a coherent middle,
and a resolution that satisfies’299
293 Allison, 2010, p1

294 Allison, 2010, p2
295 Allison, 2010, p2
296 Allison, 2010, p2
297 Allison, 2010, p5
298 Allison, 2010, p6
299 Allison, 2010, p7.
72
BIB200 Topic 1
Memory then is a fairly unreliable witness, however Allison goes on to show why we
should not be so quick to dismiss the Gospels as unreliable just because of this. What
we can learn from the study of memory, he argues, is that whilst memory may
be unreliable on the details and the specifics, it is generally reliable on the more
general picture. So, whilst two witnesses may disagree about the details of a car
crash, they will both agree that there was a car crash.
Applying this to the Gospels, he argues that this explains why the Gospel writers often
record the same event but disagree on the details of it and even have it occurring at
different points in their narrative.
Exercise: read Matt. 10; Mark 6:7-12; Lk. 9:1-6 and compare these accounts:
What are the similarities? What are the differences? Does this make this event more
or less likely to have happened according to Allison’s explanation of ‘memory’?
Allison’s argument in this opening chapter is that whilst we may not be able to be sure
of the historical accuracy of the details we can, on this understanding of the reliability
of memory, be sure that the Gospels give us a broadly reliable and recognisably typical
account of Jesus’ actions and sayings. He argues that if they do not ‘give us some
sense of his situation ... some habitual themes of his speech, capture the sort of
character he was ...’300 then it is no use expecting, as the form critics do, to find
reliability and authenticity in the smaller, individual pericopes. The bigger, general
picture is more likely to give us a reliable picture of Jesus. He gives an example which
I think will be helpful to work through to help us grasp his point.
Look up the following references and note what they have in common:
• Matt. 4:1-11/Lk. 4:1-13/Mk. 1:12-13
• Matt.12:22-23/Lk.11:14-15
• Matt.12:25-27/Lk.11:17-19/Mk.3:23-26
• Matt.12:29/Lk.11:21-22/Mk.3:27
• Mk. 1:21-28
• Mk.1:32,34,39; 3:22/Matt.8:16
• Mk.3:15; 6:7/Matt.7:22/Lk.10:19-20
• Mk.7:24-30
• Matt.9:32-34
300 Allison, 2010, p17
73
BIB200 Topic 1
• Lk.10:18
• John 12:31; 16:11
I have shortened Allison’s list but I think this makes his point. He argues that whilst he
and others may have some doubts about the absolute historical facts of any particular
detail (did the pigs really run off a cliff?) and our ability to get at that truth, yet the
overall impression is strong and clear:
‘Jesus was an exorcist ... and others saw his ministry as a successful combat
with the forces of Satan.’301
And one could do this with other key aspects of what we hold to be characteristic of
the life and teaching of Jesus. It is in fact the approach that Allison takes throughout
the rest of this book.
But before we move on to his next chapter he makes four general points that support
this theory of the reliability of the Gospel material which we should note:
1. Some of the sayings look as if they were deliberately composed to lodge in the
mind: “‘love your enemies’ as a ‘counterintuitive rewrite of ‘love your
neighbour’.302” Some of the parables, such as the ‘Good Samaritan’ with their
unexpected ‘punch-line’ have the ring of authenticity.
2. ‘Repetition is the key to learning.’303 As the picture we have in the Gospels is of
Jesus on the move from place to place, it is highly likely that he would have told
and retold the same stories in the different villages he visited. Those who
travelled with him would no doubt have become very familiar with those stories,
and those who heard them and were impressed by them would no doubt have
gone on to repeat them to their friends. Allison argues that many of the stories
we have in the Gospels would have been circulating even prior to Jesus’ death.
3. His third point is that when the disciples were sent out on their own 304 they too
would have been telling these familiar stories as they preached in villages were
Jesus had not yet been.
4. His final point on the general issue of reliability is that within a culture dependent
in large part on oral tradition, the community
‘whose identity was given in large part by their deposit of the Jesus tradition
would not take kindly to major divergences in the content of the tradition
...’305
‘material usually entered [the Gospel tradition] because people perceived it
as being congruent with beliefs and images of Jesus already valued.’306
301 Allison, 2010, p18

302 Allison, 2010, p24
303 Allison, 2010, p24
304 Matt.10:1-23; Mk.6:7-12; Lk. 9:1-10
305 Allison, 2010, p29
306 Allison, 2010, p160
74
BIB200 Topic 1
Nevertheless, the Gospels give us variations on a theme which warns us

against the idea of rote learning and repetition and brings us back to his earlier
argument: that it is in the broad and consistent picture we see something of the
real, historical Jesus, rather than in the specific details.
We now move on to look at some of the key aspects of Jesus ministry that Allison
explores on the basis of these assumptions.
2: More than a Sage: the Eschatology of Jesus307
In this chapter Allison outlines some of the reasons he sees for understanding Jesus
as holding ‘an apocalyptic eschatology’ in line with post-exilic Jewish themes some of
whose key ideas are summed up below:
• that God’s good creation has been spoiled by evil spirits, making it a place of
wickedness and injustice
• that there will be a day of future judgement when God will put everything right
and ‘restore a scattered Israel’
• this time will be preceded by a period of unparalleled struggle and tribulation
• that one or more messianic figures will come, through whom God will punish
the unjust, reward the righteous and establish his rule forever.308
As with the example in the section above, Allison lists thirty-two sets of Gospel
passages which point to Jesus as just such a figure, thus meeting his criteria for
reliability. I will give just a few examples here and I am sure that the student will be
aware of more:
• Mk.9:1; 13:30; Matt.10:23 – on the theme of ‘imminence’
• Matt.11:22,24; 12:36; Lk. 10:14; Jn. 6:39-40,44,54; 11:24 – the day of
judgement
• Matt.24:45-51; Lk.12:42-46 – future judgement; being prepared; punishment in
Matthew –‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’
• Matt.13:36-43 – the separation of the just and the unjust
• Matt.5:12//Lk.6:23; Matt.6:19-21//Lk.12:33-34; Mk.10:29; Matt.5:19; Jn.6:40;
14:2-3 –‘retribution has its counterpart in heavenly or everlasting reward.’309
This, he argues, counters the stance taken by Borg that the Gospels do not give a
picture of a Jesus who expected an imminent end to the world, and he cites in his own
support, another prominent member of the Jesus Seminar, Crossan, who is more
naturally an ally of Borg’s: ‘Jesus makes apocalyptic statements at almost every level
and in every genre of the tradition.’310
Again, the basis of Allison’s view of Jesus as an eschatological, apocalyptic prophet,
is not that individual sayings can be proved to be ‘authentic’ but rather that the weight
307 Allison, 2010, chap.2, p31

308 Allison, 2010, p32
309 Allison, 2010, p36 – see pp33-43 for the full list
310 Allison, 2010, p44 citing John Dominic Crossan, Assessing the Arguments, p119-23 in The
Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate, Edited by Robert J Miller, Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2001
75
BIB200 Topic 1
of material within the Gospels points to this conclusion. Individual memories may be
unreliable but the general gist of the Gospel writers gives an unmistakeable picture of
a Jesus who spoke in the language of and echoed the Jewish apocalyptic literature of
his time.
From this Allison, siding here with Sanders, goes on to use the same argument from
consistency and quantity of material in the rest of the New Testament311 and other
early church documents to argue that Christianity ‘probably’312 started out as an
apocalyptic and eschatological movement. He notes also that the fact the apostles
largely based themselves in Jerusalem can be interpreted as a sign that they too
expected an imminent return because Jerusalem was the obvious place to which the
Messiah would come back.
We have seen how a key expectation of Jewish apocalyptic was the end of one age
(the age of evil and disorder) and the beginning of a new age (an age of justice and
the re-establishment of order under God’s rule). Allison now gives several arguments
that support this theory.
The crucifixion
He argues, from both the Gospels and Paul, that the crucifixion was the pivotal event
that triggered this crisis (Gk. – κρίσις) ‘that somehow calls a halt to the malevolent
reign of Satan’.313 The new age has begun with Jesus’ resurrection, ‘the first fruits’314,
a sign ‘that the eschatological harvest is underway.’315
Jesus and the Twelve
Although some, including the Jesus Seminar, have cast doubt on the existence of ‘the
twelve’ as an actual group, Allison sees their actual existence as symbolic and
prophetic. The symbolism would naturally, ‘within the context of ancient Judaism’316,
have pointed to the twelve tribes of Israel and adds weight to the previous arguments
for an eschatological Jesus. It was their hope and expectation that the tribes, scattered
at the exiles, would be gathered together and restored under the righteous rule of God.
Allison quotes Luke 22:28-30 and Matthew 19:28 in support of the link between the
twelve and eschatology, arguing that it is likely that Jesus knew of these expectations
and understood his own ministry with this context.
Fulfilment of Biblical Oracles
There is a link here to what we read in our earlier session on N.T. Wright and the role
of Jesus in Israel’s story, as Allison notes that Jesus
‘drew most of his moral teaching from the well of traditional Jewish discourse,
in large dependence upon the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.’317
311 1 Thessalonians; 1 Cor.16:22; Acts 2:17 ‘in the last days’;

312 Allison, 2010, p48
313 Allison, 2010, p62, Jn. 12:31-33; 16:8-11; 1 Cor.15:25-27;
314 1 Cor. 15:20, 23
315 Allison, 2010, p63
316 Allison, 2010, p71
317 Allison, 2010, p97
76
BIB200 Topic 1
Allison shows how the Gospels portray Jesus as fulfilling the Old Testament
prophecies and oracles in relation to apocalyptic expectation. He lists 19 examples318
which supports his underlying thesis: that one does not need to rely on being able to
authenticate individual sayings but that the ‘global pattern’319 presented in the Gospels
clearly give us a picture of a Jesus who saw himself, and was perceived by others, to
be the fulfilment of Old Testament apocalyptic oracles. A key passage in this context
is Daniel chapters 7-9. I will list some of the New Testament passages he quotes in
connection with this and the student might like to look at these passages and make
the connections with the chapters in Daniel.
• Matt. 10:32-33; 19:27-28;

• Lk. 12:8-9; 22:28-30;
• Mk. 8:38; 13:14, 26-27; 14:62;
• Jn. 5:27.
Kingdom of God
Allison uses a similar analytical approach to exploring the key theme of the Kingdom
of God320, acknowledging the presence of seemingly contradictory passages within
the Gospels. We do not have time to explore each of his detailed analyses in full, but
having explored all the relevant texts and discussed significant theological approaches
to this topic, he concludes:
‘if Jesus sometimes ... proclaimed the presence of God’s kingdom, this is
insufficient reason to urge that he did not also [on the same biblical evidence]
proclaim its future, apocalyptic revelation.’321
Exercise
The student should make a search through the Gospels and find examples of where
Jesus talks about the KoG as a future event and as a present experience.
318 Allison, 2010, p79-82

319 Allison, 2010, p79
320 Allison, 2010, p98-116; 164-204
321 Allison, 2010, p116
77
BIB200 Topic 1
3: More than a Prophet: The Christology of Jesus322
In this chapter Allison examines the question of Jesus’ self-conception: who did he
think he was? Arguing from his basic premise, Allison draws together evidence based
on the consistent picture depicted in the Gospels to show that Jesus did claim
Christological identity for himself. He also deals with the issue of whether or not these
Gospel and other New Testament statements are merely an attempt by the early
church to support their own view of who Jesus was. He will argue in this section that
the material in the Gospels does reflect ‘what Jesus of Nazareth encouraged others
to think about him.’323
Again, the main target of his arguments seems to be the Jesus Seminar, or certainly
individuals who identify themselves with its aims and ideas. Funk and Borg argue that
we can know very little about the historical Jesus. Borg says that
‘if you think you are the messiah, you’re not ... I don’t think people like Jesus have an
exalted perception of themselves’324
Funk says that Jesus
‘had nothing to say about himself, other than that he had no permanent
address, no bed to sleep in, no respect on his home turf.’325
Allison again argues that there is in fact a wealth of material in the Gospels, and in
other early church literature, that paints a consistent picture of Jesus’ self-conception
as ‘the Christ’ – the Messiah – and therefore we must take seriously the idea that this
material conveys an accurate picture of ‘what Jesus of Nazareth encouraged others
to think about him.’326 He points out that all our earliest sources of information about
Jesus are ‘thoroughly Christocentric’327 and emphasise his uniqueness. This early,
consistent view of Jesus is, he argues, strong evidence that what the writers of the
Gospels and Paul wrote reflected an accurate picture of Jesus’ self-conception and is
not a reading back into the situation of their own wish-fulfilment ideas. Against the
ideas of the Jesus Seminar, and others who take a similar approach, Allison argues
that if this consistent pattern is dismissed as unreliable then it is scarcely credible to
claim that we can somehow ‘exhume the truth’328 from within this mass of ‘unreliable’
material some 2,000 years later.
He draws on material, some of which we have already considered in earlier sections
to establish his point:
Jesus’ unique identity: See – Matt. 3:16-17; 11:25-27; 17:2-5; Mk. 1:11; 9:2-7; Lk.
3:22; 8:29-35; 10:21-22; and 1 Thess. 1:1,3; 3:11 – the earliest N.T. document – which
322 Allison, 2010, chap.3, p221

323 Allison, 2010, p225
324 Marcus Borg, ‘Was Jesus God?’ in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, by Marcus Borg and N. T.
Wright, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999, p146-7 cited in Allison, 2010, p223
325 Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium, New York: Macmillan, 1996, p320
cited in Allison, 2010, p222

326 Allison, 2010, p225
327 Allison, 2010, p226
328 Allison, 2010, p232
78
BIB200 Topic 1
already sees Jesus designated ‘Lord’ and closely associated with God in the phrase
familiar in many of Paul’s other letters – ‘God the Father and the /our Lord Jesus
Christ.’329
Jesus’ eschatological identity – see section 2 above but also note: 1 Thess. 1:10;
3:13; 4:13-18; 5:23. Allison notes that ‘this Christocentric eschatology was not Paul’s
alone ... Jesus is the axis of all things eschatological ... in Acts ... the non-Pauline
epistles as well as [the Gospels].’330 He lists 26 gospel references some of which we
have already listed above.
Jesus as leader of the twelve tribes: see above, section 2.
Jesus crucified as King of the Jews331: this specific charge does not meet the
criteria of Allison’s main argument. It is a singular occurrence but he has two main
reasons for accepting this as referring to a real event. It was common practice for the
Romans to display a sign above the crucified criminal to indicate the reason for his
crucifixion. Allison contends that this charge must, ‘in some way [have corresponded]
to his self-perception, as opposed to being conjured against everything he stood
for.’332 And he sees this as linked to the Gospel accounts which show Jesus refusing
to deny the accusation which adds weight to the argument for Jesus’ Christological
self-understanding.
Jesus and the resurrection: Allison points out that the ready acceptance by the
disciples of the resurrection as ‘the vindication of Jesus’333 makes little sense unless
it ‘sanctioned beliefs previously held about him.’334
Jesus the King and the Kingdom of God: as we have already seen, the theme of
‘the kingdom of God’ is a significant one in the Gospels. (If you did not do the Gospel
search for texts relating to the Kingdom of God suggested above, then now would be
a good time to pause and do it.)
Here we get a very clear example of how Allison uses his theory to draw his
conclusions: these beliefs would not find such ready acceptance if they had not
already been part of their earlier understanding. On this basis Allison uses material
which is generally regarded as being ‘early’ on which to build his case.
He argues that despite the ‘ubiquity of the phrase “kingdom of God”’335 only four of
them – all in Matthew336 – refer to ‘God’ as the king whereas the Old Testament
regularly refers to God as ‘king’. The weight of this evidence points to the fact that
Jesus usually referred to God as ‘Father’ and that he saw himself as the one who
would rule on God’s behalf. That it is ‘Jesus himself who is ... the eschatological
329 Allison, 2010, p226

330 Allison, 2010, p226
331 Mk. 15: 2,9,12,18,26,32.
332 Allison, 2010, p239
333 Allison, 2010, p241
334 Allison, 2010, p243
335 Allison, 2010, p245
336 Matt. 5:35; 18:23-35; 17:24-27; 22:1-14.
79
BIB200 Topic 1
king’.337 This would have been quite in line with the Jewish world of Jesus’ day which
was ‘familiar with the idea of a human being serving as eschatological king and/or
judge’.338
As in the previous section, Allison traces Jesus’ self-conception back to the Old
Testament and Intertestamental literature to show how the over-riding Gospel picture
suggests that Jesus did indeed see himself in terms of these Old Testament types339:
• The herald of Isaiah 61:1-3
• A prophet like Elijah
• A prophet like Moses
• The coming one of John the Baptist
• The Davidic Messiah
• The Son of Man
We do not have space here to explore these ideas in detail but having examined the
occurrence of these phrases in the Gospels and looked at a wide range of opinions
concerning their use Allison concludes this chapter thus:
‘No follower of Jesus ... ever called Paul divine or reckoned him a god.
Christians did, however, say astounding things about Jesus, and that from the
very beginning. The differing evaluations, I submit, had something to do with
who those two people actually were. We should hold a funeral for the view that
Jesus entertained no exalted thoughts about himself.’340
4: Death and Memory: The Passion of Jesus341

As we have noted earlier, Allison sees Jesus’ death as a pivotal point for his
understanding of Jesus as an eschatological figure and he turns in this section to
examine if the weight of evidence supports this event as a reliable memory. Again he
deals with the counter arguments and notes that Crossan claims that the Gospel
accounts of Jesus’ passion are “less ‘history remembered’ than ... ‘prophecy
historicised.’”342 In other words, the events of Jesus’ passion are written as a story that
fulfils the Old Testament prophecies. Goodacre makes the case that ‘history
remembered’ and ‘prophecy historicised’ are not ‘mutually exclusive categories’;343
that it is not unusual for events perceived as significant to be written up using the
language of scriptural traditions. Allison concludes that ‘a memory can be told in many
languages, including the language of Scripture.’344
337 Allison, 2010, p245, Matt. 2:2,6; Lk. 1:32-33; Matt. 21:5 & Jn. 12:15 – cf Zech. 9:9; Mk. 14:62; 15;
10:35-40.
338 Allison, 2010, p253
339 Allison, 2010, p263-303
340 Allison, 2010, p304
341 Allison, chap 5, p387
342 John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel
Story of the Death of Jesus, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996 in Allison, 2010, p387
343 Allison, 2010, p388
344 Allison, 2010, p389
80
BIB200 Topic 1
Allison then sets aside the differing views about the Gospel accounts and explores in
detail the evidence for the death of Jesus based on the Pauline letters and makes nine
key points. We do not have the space to go into them in detail here but I will list his
main points with some of the relevant texts whilst not engaging with all the detailed
arguments he makes about each issue:
1. The cross of Christ: Paul always assumes the crucifixion as a real event and
as ‘public knowledge’.345 (1 Cor. 1:17-18, 23; 2:2; 2 Cor. 13:4; Gal. 3:1; 5:11,
24; 6:12, 14; Col. 1:20; 2:14; Phil. 3:18.)
2. The method of crucifixion: there were different methods of crucifixion, some
using rope, others using nails. All of the evidence in Paul points to the latter.
(Rom. 3:25; 5:9; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:25, 27; Col. 1:20; 2:13-14.)
3. The Roman authorities are implicated in Jesus’ death: the evidence seems
to show that only the Romans could impose the death penalty and so the
references to the crucifixion imply Roman involvement. His main argument
apart from this hinges on understanding 1 Cor. 2:8 – ‘the rulers (Gk. archōn) of
this age’ – as applying to the Romans rather than ‘hostile spirits’ and he
engages in a long argument to defend his point.
4. Crucified by the Roman authorities as an insurrectionist with regal
pretensions: based on Paul’s use of royal titles for Jesus: Rom. 1:3-4; 9:5; 1
Cor. 15:3, 24-25; Col. 1:13. Allison points out that this leaves us with a
contradiction because without the Gospel background we would not understand
this view of Jesus as an insurrectionist, as Paul consistently paints Jesus as
humble and meek: Phil. 2:8; Rom. 15:2-3; 2 Cor. 10:1
5. The involvement of the Jews: 1 Thess. 2:14-16
6. The timing of his arrest at night-time: 1 Cor. 11:23-25 and the implication
that ‘he handed himself over’346 willingly and that he saw his death as being for
others: Gal. 1:4; 2:20.
7. That Jesus was buried: 1 Cor. 15:4; Rom. 6:4 and Col. 2:12 also imply that
Jesus was buried.347
Allison then compares these accounts from Paul with the Gospel accounts and finds
that there is substantial agreement between them and that the Gospels answer some
of the questions raised by looking solely at Paul’s letters. (See point 4 above) He
concludes from this the existence of a pre-Markan passion narrative with which Paul
was familiar. In line with his previous arguments he proposes that, despite the
limitations of memory, there are good reasons to believe that the passion narratives
do contain ‘some true-to-life memory.’348 He points out the tendency within all cultures
to ‘respond to death by seeking out and telling stories about a deceased friend or
345 Allison, 2010, p392

346 Allison, 2010, p402
347 Allison, 2010, points 1-9 based on pp392-403
348 Allison, 2010, p424
81
BIB200 Topic 1
relative.’349 And this would be particularly true where the death was ‘unexpected or
violent.’350
He returns then to the key method he has used throughout this book to establish the
likelihood of an account representing an ‘authentic memory’.351 What do other sources
say about Jesus’ death? He quotes thirty-one early New Testament references to his
death, including references from the Gospels which seem to indicate Jesus’ own
awareness of his death. And so he concludes this section by restating his belief that
‘the list as a whole and the genesis of the traditional image, so widely attested’ gives
weight to the argument that these passion accounts are accurate. ‘They believed
[these things] because this is what [Jesus] did and people remembered.’352
5. Memory and Invention: How Much History?353
Throughout this book Allison has argued that the reliability of the ‘Jesus tradition’ does
not depend on whether or not we can reliably assert that any particular story is true
but rather on whether the general and consistent tenor of the Gospel stories supports
a particular understanding of Jesus. In this final chapter he argues that just as we ‘are
by now used to finding meaning in Genesis while dispensing with it as a historical
document’ 354 so too we should be able to approach the Gospels in similar manner.
One basis for this is recognising the genre; being aware of what sort of literature the
Gospel writers thought they were writing and he looks briefly at some different genres
and critical approaches to see if the Gospels fit neatly into any of these categories:
History or biography: he argues that we have traditionally understood the Gospels
to be in one or both of these categories but the Gospel writers seem to have been
more ‘interested in the practical and theological meanings ... [rather] than in literal
facticity.’355
Greco-Roman biographies: these quite consciously relate stories they know are not
factual or readily acknowledge that there are alternative versions of the same event.
He argues that no Gospel writer does that. ‘They present everything from a single point
of view ... and never drop a hint that they have doubts about their stories.’356
Based on the ‘so-called historical books of the Hebrew Bible’357: the idea that the
Gospel writers deliberately ‘imitated the Pentateuch, Samuel Kings and Chronicles,
which preserve the foundational stories of Israel’ in order to set out what they saw as
the ‘foundational stories’358 of the Christian communities. In which case he concludes
they would have been modelling their accounts on writings ‘that from our point of view,
349 Allison, 2010, p243

350 Allison, 2010, p423
351 Allison, 2010, p428
352 Allison, 2010, p433.
353 Allison, 2010, p435
354 Allison, 2010, p440
355 Allison, 2010, p442
356 Allison, 2010, p443
357 Allison, 2010, p443
358 Allison, 2010, p443
82
BIB200 Topic 1
contain large tracts of fiction.’359 (This might raise some interesting discussion about
Allison’s view of the OT here)
He looks at an early Reader Response360 approach and asks whether any of the
early Christians understood the Gospels in a ‘less-than-literal manner’361 . He notes
that Origen found a few passages that he regarded as ‘purely metaphorical’362 but
even he defended as historical events such as the virgin birth and the appearance of
a dove and the voice heard at Jesus’ baptism.
He compares them to how midrash and other haggadic stories363 were understood
with the use of obvious humour and hyperbole to indicate the fictional and allegorical
nature of a story or saying. Whilst some of Jesus’ individual stories and sayings seem
to use this approach we do not find this approach in the Gospel narratives as a whole.
Allison also compares the Gospels to some of the apocryphal literature364 which
used exaggeration and clear historical inaccuracy to show that they were intended as
‘fiction-with-a-message’365 rather than historical accounts. He argues that the Gospel
texts themselves seem to suggest quite the opposite approach: Luke 1-2 clearly sets
out to show the historical setting and reliability of what he intends to write. Likewise,
he argues, that Matthew with his constant references to the fulfilment of prophecy
gives ‘a strong impression of literal promise and fulfilment’366. Their writings give no
sense that they intended to write something that was detached from any historical
actuality.
Redaction criticism: Allison reasons that the undeniable differences between the
Gospel accounts have many plausible reasons: different sources; differences of the
traditions known to their communities; even a sense of correcting some detail they
thought to be inaccurate – one Gerasene demoniac (Mark) or two (Matthew) – ‘without
any sense that [the writer] thought he was falsifying the facts’367.
His final point is to do with worldviews and he cautions ‘that our critical sensibilities are
deficient guides’368 for working out exactly what an ancient author meant a text to be.
Our understanding of reality is shaped by different founding stories than those of the
earliest Christians.
‘The worldview of those who first heard the canonical Gospels was ... shaped
... by the ... spectacular miracle stories in the Jewish Bible ... [and] also by the
conviction that Jesus had ... risen from the dead ... they lived in a world of
miraculous possibilities.’369
359 Allison, 2010, p443

360 Allison, 2010, p444
361 Allison, 2010, p444
362 Allison, 2010, p445
363 Allison, 2010, p446-7
364 Allison, 2010, p449
365 Allison, 2010, p449
366 Allison, 2010, p451
367 Allison, 2010, p455
368 Allison, 2010, p457
369 Allison, 2010, p458
83
BIB200 Topic 1
Conclusion
Allison has often had the members of the third Quest (The Jesus Seminar) in his
sights, rebutting their arguments that we cannot discover anything of the historical
Jesus. He has argued that the consistent patterns and weight of evidence around key
areas of the person and teachings of Jesus we find in the Gospels mean we can get
some glimpses of the real, historical Jesus. He has sought to demonstrate throughout
this book that the ‘synoptic writers thought that they were reconfiguring memories of
Jesus, not inventing theological tales.’370
Reflection
What is your response to Allison’s argument? Do you find it convincing?
In what ways might this approach help you in explaining or defending the reliability of
the Gospels in your missional situations?
PDF Reader:
Allison, D.C., (2010), Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination and History, London:
SPCK, chapter 4, ‘More than an Aphorist: The Discourses of Jesus’.
Bibliography
Allison D.C., (2010), Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination and History, London:
SPCK
370 Allison, 2010, p459
84
BIB200 Topic 1
Session 7: Kenneth Bailey: Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes

By Tina Trevett
Learning Outcomes:
1. Explain the importance of understanding the culture in which the Gospels were
written in order to interpret them more accurately
2. Identify the main rhetorical methods used in the gospels
3. List some of the cultural differences between the Middle Eastern culture of
Jesus’ time and 21st century western culture
4. Understand the importance of identifying the cultural values of their own
missional contexts
There is a PDF Reader on Moodle for this session:

Bailey, K. E., (2008), Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the
Gospels, London: SPCK, pp. 309-320 and pp. 332-342
Introduction
Our text for this session is Kenneth Bailey’s, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes371.
A word of explanation about Bailey’s background helps set this study in context. He
has lived in the Middle East for sixty years: as a child in Egypt and forty years teaching
on the New Testament in Egypt, Lebanon, Jerusalem and Cyprus. His aim in this book
is to give insight into the gospels when understood and read with ‘Middle Eastern
Eyes’. He digs deep into Middle Eastern culture and rhetoric and argues that by seeing
the Gospels from this different perspective our understanding is enriched.
‘All of these sources ... share the broader culture of the ancient Middle East,
and all of them are ... closer to the Semitic world of Jesus than the Greek and
Latin cultures of the West.’372
Whilst we rely for the most part on ancient Greek and Latin texts for our English
translations of the Bible, Bailey points us to the wealth of Syriac and Arabic literature,
ancient and modern, on the Gospels and uses three Syriac translations as a reference
point: ‘the Old Syriac, the Peshitta and the Harclean’373. He believes that the Arabic
Bible, translated from Syriac, Coptic and Greek, continues to give
‘understandings of the text that were current in the churches that produced
them ... they are a gold mine for recovering Eastern exegesis of the Gospels’.374
371 Bailey, 2008

372 Bailey, 2008, p12
373 Bailey, 2008, p12
374 Bailey, 2008, p13
85
BIB200 Topic 1
Before he turns to examining some key passages of the Gospels from this cultural
perspective he focuses on rhetoric and the way that Hebrew ‘poetry and some prose
[are constructed] using parallelisms’375. We need to look at what he has to say about
this before we move on to the Gospel passages.
Hebrew rhetoric and patterns of writing
Parallelism: a pattern of AA BB CC is used. See Psalm 19:1-2 for example:
A The heavens declare the glory of God;
A the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
B Day after day they pour forth speech;
B night after night they display knowledge.
In this example, we can see that the second and fourth lines parallel the idea
expressed in the first and third lines. This is a common pattern found in much Hebrew
poetry and some prose. The ideas are presented sequentially in pairs.
Inverted parallelism – also called ring composition: a pattern of ABC CBA is
used. Bailey uses an example from Luke 16:13376
(a) No man can serve two masters;
(b) either he will hate the one
(c) and love the other
(c) or be devoted to the one
(b) and despise the other.
(a) You cannot serve God and mammon.
In this example the ideas expressed in the first three lines are then reversed in the
following three lines. This kind of inverted parallelism often puts the conclusion or the
climax of the argument at the centre and not at the end of the statement as western,
logically trained minds expect. Understanding this pattern helps in exegesis because
the reader is aware of the need to look at the pattern of a passage in order to
understand its real meaning.
Step parallelism: a pattern of ABC ABC is used.
Bailey uses an example from Isaiah 28 to show how sometimes all three patterns are
used within a portion of Scripture as the rhetorical device for conveying the writer’s
argument.
Please refer to Figure 0.1: Isaiah’s parable of the two builders (Is 28:8-14) at the
start of the reader by Bailey for this session.
He calls this ‘the prophetic rhetorical template’377 and his layout of the text above
should enable the student to see how these different types of parallelism are being
375 Bailey, 2008, p13

376 Bailey, 2008, p16
377 Bailey, 2008, p14
86
BIB200 Topic 1
used to make the prophet’s powerful point, with the climax of his argument coming in
the centre (stanza 4).
So in this example, stanzas 1 matches stanza 7, using step parallelism and stanzas
2 and 6 follow the same pattern. Stanzas 3 and 5 match in a different way with stanza
5 adding extra information (the tools to be used) to the information in stanza 3. The
climax and focal point of Isaiah’s argument comes in the middle at stanza 4.
This is an important point to grasp because this is a pattern that is repeated in the New
Testament and Bailey points out that there are seventeen passages in Mark’s Gospel
that use this rhetorical device. The fact that these styles of writing appear in the New
Testament ‘makes clear that the texts involved came out of a Jewish and not a Greek
world’ which he claims, strengthens the case for their ‘historical authenticity’.378
This then shapes the way Bailey approaches his examination of the Gospels: as an
interpretation seen through Middle Eastern eyes, using the Syriac interpretations of
the Gospels providing a more faithful witness to the thought patterns and traditions of
Jesus’ Aramaic context.
Bailey covers six key areas of Gospel material: the Birth of Jesus; the Beatitudes;
the Lord’s Prayer; Dramatic actions of Jesus; Jesus and Women; Parables of
Jesus.379 I intend to take one example from each category to give an idea of how his
approach sheds a different and, he would argue, a ‘richer’ light on familiar passages.
The Story of Jesus’ Birth380

It is the image of a thousand nativity plays; the familiar scene on our Christmas cards
and in our church nativity displays. The stable: Mary and Joseph surrounded by cattle
with the baby Jesus lying in a manger, because there was ‘no room at the inn.’ But
read from within the culture of a Middle Eastern context, much of our traditional
understanding of Luke’s account does not stand up to scrutiny.
Family and hospitality
Returning to Bethlehem for the census, because ‘he belonged to the house and line
of David,’381 it is simply not believable that Joseph would not have found a welcome
in the hometown of his extended family. Not only was this the place of his origin but,
in a culture that set great store by knowing one’s ancestry, Joseph was of royal
lineage. That would have guaranteed him a welcome in any home in that village, so
proud of its links to David that it was often referred to as ‘the town [or city] of David’.382
Likewise Middle Eastern culture was renowned for its hospitality and no rural
community would turn away a woman about to give birth. Bailey argues that had there
been no room in Nazareth, then they would have travelled on to the home of Zechariah
378 Bailey, 2008, p17

379 Bailey, 2008. These are the section headings – see contents pp7-8.
380 Bailey, 2008, p25, Luke 2:1-20
381 Lk. 2:4
382 Lk. 2:4
87
BIB200 Topic 1
and Elizabeth which could only have been a few miles away, and where Mary had
travelled just a few months earlier. And Bailey reckons that there would have been
time for that, although our re-telling of the story tends to assume that Mary gave birth
the same night they arrived – hence the rush to accept the less than salubrious
accommodation in a stable. But Luke 2:6 (NIV) states ‘while they were there, the time
came for the baby to be born’: Time enough to find a suitable place for the mother-to-
be to give birth.
He points out that Luke’s account contains many accurate details of geography and
customs and so we should expect these other details to be accurate too.
• ‘So Joseph went up from Nazareth ... to Bethlehem’383 – ‘Bethlehem being built
on a ridge which is higher than Nazareth’.
• ‘So Joseph went ... to Bethlehem, the city of David,’ – clarifying the local name
‘city of David’ for his readers
• He mentions that the ‘child was wrapped in strips of cloth’384 – the ‘swaddling
clothes’ of older versions, also referred to in Ezekiel 16:4 and, Bailey points out,
‘still practiced among village people in Syria and Palestine’ today.385
Bailey now turns to examine the two key words at the heart of our telling – and reading
– of this story that have led to our misinterpretation of the situation: ‘the manger’ and
‘the inn’.
Manger
For modern western readers this conjures up an image of a stable. The place where
the animals would be kept and where their feed, the straw and hay, would be in a
trough or a ‘manger’. However, Bailey points to what we know of the style of house
that most people of the time, apart from the very wealthy, would have lived in: a simple
one roomed dwelling with living space for the family at one end and space for the
animals, at a slightly lower level, at the other end. Such houses, he says, still exist in
the region today. At night the animals would be brought into the house for safety and,
in winter, they would provide much needed heat.
Please refer to Figure 1.3: Typical village home in Palestine with attached guest
room on p33 of the reader by Bailey for this session.
The manger would either be a hole cut in the floor of the living space so that the
animals could stand up and feed during the night or a free-standing wooden trough
placed in the lower part of the room. Most homes would have another room, either
adjoining the main house or on the flat roof, which would have been reserved for
guests. 386
Take a few moments to look up the following references which Bailey cites as further
scriptural evidence of this type of arrangement:
383 Lk.2:4
384 Lk. 2:7
385 Bailey, 2008, p28
386 Bailey, 2008, p33
88
BIB200 Topic 1
1 Sam. 28:24 – the woman had the calf ‘in the house’.387
Judges 11:29-40 – Bailey comments that ‘most likely he returned early in the morning
and fully expected one of the animals to come bounding out of the room in which they
had been cramped together all night.’388
Lk. 13:10-17 – the point being that Jesus would know that even on the Sabbath
everyone would untie their animals and lead them outside. He notes that
‘One of the earliest and most carefully translated Arabic versions of the New
Testament ... translates this verse as: “does not every one of you untie his ox
or his donkey from the manger in the house and take it outside ...”’389
He points out that no Greek version has the words ‘in the house’ but that the Arabic
translator understood the text correctly, knowing that everyone in Middle Eastern
villages would have had a manger in the house.
This then provides the first stage for understanding the story of Jesus’ birth in a
different light: the manger was not in some modern day stable separate from the living
space of a family but as another Middle Eastern missionary scholar wrote:
‘It is my impression that the birth actually took place in an ordinary house of
some common peasant, and that the baby was laid in one of the mangers, such
as are still found in the dwellings of farmers in this region.’390
Which leads to our next question: Why then do we read that ‘there was no room in the
inn’?391
Inn
We need to understand the Greek used in this phrase to see why our traditional
understanding is not the correct one.
διότι οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι
dioti ouk ēn autois topos en tō katalymati
because there was no space for them in inn/house/guest room
Bailey says that the phrase ‘no room’ has been misunderstood and that the Greek
word used in the sentence – topos – means ‘space’. So we should not understand this
to mean ‘there was not a room for them in the katalymati’ rather ‘there was no space
for them ...’ This fits in with what Bailey says is the better translation of the word
‘katalymati’: ‘a place to stay’; house (the Arabic biblical translation of more than one
thousand years), and guest room (Luke’s choice).’392 He supports this understanding
with reference to the only other place where Luke uses this word and where it clearly
387 Bailey, 2008, p30

388 Bailey, 2008, p30
389 Bailey, 2008, p31
390 William Thompson, The Land and the Book, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1871, cited in Bailey,
2008, p31
391 Lk. 2:7
392 Bailey, 2008, p32
89
BIB200 Topic 1
means ‘guest room’ – Luke 22:10-12. The ‘upper room’ which is clearly a guest room
in a private home;393 the setting for the Last Supper.
This interpretation then gives a rather different picture of the circumstances
surrounding the birth of Jesus. No longer do we have Mary and Joseph arriving as
strangers in Bethlehem and failing to find a room at the inn; Mary, contrary to all the
rules of Middle Eastern hospitality, allowed to give birth in a stable among the animals.
Rather we have a picture of Joseph, a man with royal lineage, arriving in this royal
town of David; welcomed into the home and main living quarters of – possibly distant
– relatives because the guest room was already full with other relatives gathered for
the census. And ‘while they were there, the time came for the baby to be born.’394 And
so Jesus was born, the women no doubt in attendance as was the custom, and placed
in the fresh, clean straw of one of the mangers, wrapped in swaddling cloths according
to the tradition of the time.
As a final piece of ‘evidence’ to support his reading of this scripture, Bailey refers to
the visits of the shepherds and the wise men. He argues that one of the things that
would have persuaded the shepherds to go and find the new-born baby was that they
would find him ‘wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a manger:’395 A sign that they
would find him in a humble, ordinary peasant’s home and not in the mansion of some
wealthy merchant. He also imagines that had these shepherds not found Jesus and
the new mother in ‘perfectly adequate accommodation [but] in a dirty stable’396 they
would have insisted on moving them to their own homes where their wives would take
care of them. Likewise, he notes that the wise men came to ‘the house’ where they
found the child and his mother.397
Seeing the story of the birth of Jesus through Middle Eastern eyes gives a new
perspective on our traditional understanding because it understands the story through
the customs and language of those whose worldview remains ‘closer to the Semitic
world of Jesus than the Greek and Latin cultures of the West.’398
The Beatitudes399
Bailey’s main focus in this chapter is on understanding the root meaning of the key
word, ‘blessed’, and relating Matthew’s short sayings to the Old Testament passages
that give them their true significance. We need first to understand the meaning of the
word translated ‘blessed’ in our Bibles.
There are two Greek words which have this meaning: eulogeō and makarios. The first
would be used in the sense of praying for a blessing for someone: the second to ‘affirm
393 Bailey, 2008, p32

394 Lk.2:6
395 Lk. 2:12
396 Bailey, 2008, p35
397 Matt. 2:11
398 Bailey, 2008, p12
399 Bailey, 2008, p65, Matt. 5:1-5
90
BIB200 Topic 1
a quality of spirituality that is already present.’400 So, for example, the meaning in the
first beatitude is that ‘the poor in spirit already possess the kingdom.’401
‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven’402
This contrasts with the version in Luke who omits the words ‘in spirit’. But Bailey argues
that this is not simply a case of Matthew trying to spiritualise this saying. Rather this
verse needs to be understood in its Jewish context where Jesus, seen in Matthew, as
teaching within the prophetic tradition, is using the language of the prophets to make
his point. Here Matthew is picking up the reference to Isaiah’s teaching:
‘But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is poor in spirit and contrite in
spirit, and trembles at my word.’403
Here, the reference is not to material poverty but describes those who are humble and
aware of their need for God’s grace. So the meaning of this beatitude is that those
who are ‘poor in spirit’ (Heb. ‘ānî) in this sense are those who are already part of the
kingdom of God.
The idea of the kingdom of God is a complex one, with which the student is probably
already familiar from other sources, and Bailey deals with it only briefly here:
• It is to do with the ‘rule of God in the lives of individuals and societies’
• It has already come in the person of Jesus
• But it has a future aspect; it is not yet complete and we live in the interim
between its inauguration and its completion.404
Let us look briefly at one further beatitude:
‘Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the land.’405
To understand the significance of this beatitude, Bailey shows that the reader needs
to ‘hear’ what the original hearers would have understood when they heard the word
‘land’. For Israel ‘the land’ was ‘the Promised Land’, their God-given inheritance. Bailey
says this beatitude references Psalm 37 (see verses 9, 11, 29, NRSV). This beatitude
was bringing hope and comfort to those who dwelt in the land; a land currently
occupied by Roman military forces and a land subject to military struggles by the
Zealots to regain control of their land. Jesus, the prophet, preaches a new vision, that
it will not be the powerful military or rebel forces that inherit the land but the ‘meek’.
‘We can assume that Matthew’s readers heard this same text identifying the
whole earth as a precious inheritance for the children of God who will care for
it and live in harmony with it.’406
400 Bailey, 2008, p68

401 Bailey, 2008, p69
402 Matt. 5:3
403 Isa. 66:2 Bailey’s translation
404 Bailey, 2008, p69 for this section
405 Matt. 5:5
406 Bailey, 2008, p73
91
BIB200 Topic 1
This, he argues, would fit with the understanding of ‘the land’ as the whole earth which
is seen in Paul’s letters as the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham.407
The Lord’s Prayer408

One of the key principles we teach about exegesis is the need to set the verse/s being
studied in context. Bailey points out the immediate context for the Lord’s Prayer.
‘When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for
they think they will be heard because of their many words.’409
At one level this is surprising because it is not the Pharisees or other religious leaders
who are the point of comparison here, but the Gentiles. Bailey includes a lengthy
example of how a Roman god – for which read a ‘Caesar’ – would expect to be
addressed.410 The list runs to almost forty titles before any petitions have been made.
By contrast, he says, Jesus ‘invites the reader to step into a world where words are
few and powerful.’411 He then notes briefly the similarities and differences between the
Jewish pattern of prayer and that which we find here in the Lord’s Prayer:
• The Jews had three set times of prayer: sunrise; three in the afternoon; and
sundown. But Jesus nowhere suggests set times for prayer.
• Jewish prayer would begin with the recital of the Shema,412 followed by the
‘Amidah’ (standing – because they were prayed whilst standing); also known
as Tefillah – still in use today.
• Some similarities include: the request for daily bread; the needs of the present;
the coming of the kingdom of God; and some overlap of the doxologies. 413
I will look at two of the key phrases of this prayer: ‘Abba’ and ‘give us this day our daily
bread.’
‘Abba’
The first point to note is that ‘Abba’ is an Aramaic word and the consensus is that the
Lord’s Prayer begins with this Aramaic word.414 It seems reasonable then to assume
that he taught his disciples to pray in Aramaic which was the language of their
everyday speech. This is in contrast to the formal Hebrew which was used for the
regular daily prayers and reading of the sacred texts. Bailey draws the conclusion that
this radical departure signalled that there was ‘no sacred language’ but that God could
be addressed in the ordinary, daily language of each community.
Jesus did not pluck this phrase out of nowhere. The title ‘our father’ (Abba) appears
twice in the Tefillah (Heb. – Abinu) and Bailey asserts that in choosing this title Jesus
407 Rom. 4:13; 8:22

408 Bailey, 2008, p91, Matt. 6:9-13
409 Matt. 6:7
410 Bailey, 2008, p92
411 Bailey, 2008, p94
412 Deut. 6:4-5
413 Bailey, 2008, p94 – for this whole section.
414 Bailey, 2008, p95
92
BIB200 Topic 1
‘affirmed a vision of a family of faith that went beyond the community of those
who claimed a racial tie to Abraham ... every human being has a father ... if God
is ‘Our Father’ all people are able to address him equally.’415
In the Old Testament when the word ‘father’ is used in relation to God, it is always as
a metaphor or simile and not as a direct form of address.416 ‘Abba’ was the word used
to address one’s earthly father and a student might address a teacher in this way, thus
the use of this title shows both ‘a profound personal relationship between the one who
uses it and the one addressed,’417 and respect.
Bailey addresses several issues that are often raised by the use of this male image:
• The way our human experience of fathers can shape our understanding
of God as ‘Father’: He uses the parable of the prodigal son to show that,
Jesus’ teaching about God presents a God who ‘breaks all bounds of human
patriarchy.’418 In this parable the unexpected resolution is that the father acts in
a way that no Middle Eastern father would have been expected to act, ‘whose
love, forgiveness ... compassion have no limits.’419
• Male and female metaphors: he argues – persuasively – that the Bible uses
male and female images to describe God420 and that ‘to substitute neutral terms
for one or the other will ... impoverish the richness of the biblical similes.’421
• The inclusivity of this opening phrase: ‘Our Father’ not ‘my father’. This
phrase reminds us whenever we use it that we are part of a community, united
in the family of God.
‘Give us this day our daily bread’
A similar petition stands at the heart of the Tefillah. Bread is the staple food in the
Middle East and in the Bible it is frequently used as a symbol of all that we need for
sustenance. But the word translated in our English versions as ‘daily’ – Gk. epiousios
– presents a problem as it only occurs once in the Bible and nowhere else in the Greek
language. He summarises the four main ways this word has been interpreted and the
different emphases this gives to the whole phrase. Thus:
• Give us this day ‘the bread of today’
• Give us this day ‘the bread of tomorrow’
• Give us this day ‘just enough bread to keep us alive, and no more’
• Give us this day ‘the bread we need’.422
Bailey believes the key to understanding the real meaning of this phrase lies in an old
Syriac translation which dates back to the second century which reads; ‘Lahmo ameno
415 Bailey, 2008, p96

416 Ps.103:13; Isa. 63:10; 64:8
417 Bailey, 2008, p98
418 Bailey, 2008, p99
419 Henri J. Nouwen, The Return of the Prodigal, New York: Doubleday, 1992, p131, cited in Bailey,
2008, p100
420 1 Jn. 3:9; Deut. 32:18; Isa. 49:15; 66:13
421 Bailey, 2008, p101
422 Bailey, 2008, pp120-1
93
BIB200 Topic 1
diyomo hab lan’ – (lit. ‘Amen bread today give to us’).423 The key word being ‘ameno’
an adjective meaning ‘lasting, never-ceasing, never-ending, or perpetual.’424 Bailey
argues that by teaching his disciples to pray in this way, Jesus was showing them the
way to pray to be delivered from the most basic of fears: of not having enough to eat.
This prayer is not just a prayer for ‘bread for today’ or ‘bread for tomorrow’ but is a
prayer for deliverance from the fear of not having enough. He points out that the
request is ‘for bread, not cake’425: for what is essential for life not for the extras our
consumer lifestyles might regard as essential. We ask for ‘our daily bread’ not ‘mine’
and we are reminded that we are part of a community. The process of asking reminds
us that the bread comes as a gift and not a right.
Dramatic Actions of Jesus426
1. The call of Peter: Luke 5:1-11427

Please refer to Figure 11.1: The call of Peter (Lk 5:1-11) at the start of the reader by
Bailey for this session (p137).
Spend some time reading through the passage and making sure you can
understand the points Bailey is making.
Bailey draws out several key points which I shall summarise in note form:
1. The setting for this passage – the introduction in stanza 0 – places Jesus in the
tradition of the prophets.
2. Jesus reaches out to Peter by asking for help. The need is real – Jesus needs
Peter’s boat and skills to keep the boat steady as he talks – thus affirming
Peter’s worth. (stanza 1)
3. In taking the boat further from the shore after he finishes speaking, Jesus
‘isolates Peter from the peer pressure of his community’ so that Peter can be
free to be challenged to respond to Jesus’ call. (stanza 2)
4. The setting and the catch of the fish makes a connection between nature, man
and God and demonstrates the power of God and provides the climax and
centre of the story. (stanza 4:)
5. Faced with Jesus’ holiness Peter can respond freely and openly. Jesus moves
from being the teacher to be – reluctantly – obeyed to being the ‘Lord’ to be
willingly followed. (stanzas 3 & 5 &7)
6. Jesus makes the link for Peter between his past as a fisherman and his future
as a fisher of men. (stanza 6)428
423 Bailey, 2008, p121

424 Bailey, 2008, p121
425 Bailey, 2008, p122
426 Bailey, 2008, p135
427 Bailey, 2008, p137
428 Bailey, 2008, p145 for an extended version of this summary
94
BIB200 Topic 1
2. The Inauguration of Jesus’ Ministry429

Exercise: Read Luke 4:16-31
As background to this passage Bailey comments that “in all likelihood Jesus had been
a member of the local ‘ḥăbērîm’” – a group of lay people which met to discuss the
Torah and its application430.
What light does throw on this invitation to Jesus to read from the scriptures on his visit
to his home town?
What is the Old Testament source that is behind this passage?
What is the structure of the first part of this passage from verses 16-21? Bear in mind
that the climax of the passage is likely to be in the centre of it. Try to identify the overall
structure and smaller structures within the overall passage.
What are some of the key theological themes that are illustrated by this whole
passage? What is the significance of the illustrations of Elijah and Elisha?
429 Bailey, 2008, p147

430 Bailey, 2008, p147
95
BIB200 Topic 1
Jesus and Women431

In the Old Testament we have some very positive examples of women playing decisive
roles in Israel’s history: Ruth and Rahab432 - both of whom appear in Matthew’s
genealogy433; Deborah434; and Esther. However by the time of the Intertestamental
period the attitude towards women seems to have changed. The apocryphal book of
Ben Sirach is full of references that show women to be held in very low regard. Indeed
‘daughters are a disaster ... a total loss and constant potential source of shame.’435 By
the time of Jesus women were seen as inferior to men, so Bailey poses the question:
did Jesus reinforce these attitudes or did he offer an alternative view of women?
List as many instances you can think of in the gospels that show us Jesus’ attitude to
women.
This should already make several things clear:

Jesus had women among those identified as his disciples436: Matt. 12:48-50 –
(read this carefully); Lk. 8:1-3; 10:38. These last two examples from Luke are very
clearly challenging the accepted norms of the day: women travelling with men to whom
they may not have been related. Bailey comments that even in middle Eastern culture
today, whilst it might be acceptable for women to travel with the men, they would be
expected to stay overnight with relatives – not possible if you are on the move and
arriving in different villages every night as implied in Luke’s account in chapter 8. And
in Luke 10 at the home of Mary and Martha, the phrase ‘sat at the Lord’s feet’ is the
phrase used to indicate that of a disciple sitting at the feet of the rabbi; something
forbidden to women in Jewish society at the time of Jesus.
He shaped his teaching to show the gospel was relevant to women as well as
men437: Bailey lists several examples where Jesus uses stories/parables that reflect
the roles of women often alongside those that reflect the role of men; although the
quotations are from Luke’s gospel many of them are paralleled in Matthew and/or
Mark: Lk. 4:25-27; 5:36-39 – sewing, the task of women; making wine the task of men;
compare Lk. 7:36-50 with 18:9-14; Lk.13:18-21 – the men do the farming; the women
knead the dough. There are many more and he notes that there are twenty-seven
431 Bailey, 2008, p189

432 Josh. 2
433 Matt. 1:5
434 Judges 4
435 Bailey, 2008, p190: Ben Sirach 7:24-29; 22: 3-5; 26:9-12; 42:9-11
436 Bailey, 2008, p192
437 Bailey, 2008, p194
96
BIB200 Topic 1
examples in the gospels where there is a ‘pairing of men and women’438 starting with
Elizabeth and Zechariah439 and ending with the accounts of the men and women in
the passion narratives440.
Read John 4:1-42 – The woman at the well

This is a very well-known story and Bailey draws out many details from this encounter
that show just how radically different Jesus’ attitude to women was within the cultural
context of his time. I will list the key points briefly. He draws out many other significant
theological points but I shall focus on those that relate to his attitude towards women
in this passage:
Jesus, a Jewish man, speaks to a Samaritan woman of ill repute – no respectable
woman would go to the well in the heat of the noontime sun and they would always go
in groups ‘for propriety’s sake’441. It is not even acceptable in village society for a man
to make eye contact with a woman. Jesus was breaking all sorts of cultural, social and
religious taboos by asking this woman for a drink of water because no self-respecting
Jew would drink out of a container that had been touched by someone they regarded
as ‘unclean’. Bailey comments that in forty years of living in the Middle East he has
never ‘crossed this boundary line’442 of speaking to a lone women in public.
He took the woman seriously and engaged in serious discussion of spiritual issues
with her and treated her with dignity even as he challenged her lifestyle.
Bailey also looks in detail at:
The Syro-Phoenician woman – Matthew 15:21-28, which raises issues not just about
how Jesus treated women but how he viewed the Gentiles.
The woman caught in adultery (but no man brought to trial, suggesting a ‘set-up’ to
try and catch Jesus out) – John 7:53-8:11
The woman who anointed Jesus’ feet in the house of Simon the Pharisee – Luke
7:36-50
A consistent picture emerges of a Jesus who treated women with compassion and
respect and who overturned the accepted norms of his culture regarding the treatment
of women.
The Parables of Jesus443

Bailey makes a case for understanding the parables as ‘serious theology’.444 He
argues that Jesus was a ‘metaphorical theologian rather than a conceptual
438 Bailey, 2008, p195

439 Lk.1:5-20
440 For example, Mk.15:40-47 compared with Mk. 16:1-8 – compare these as inverted parallelism or
ring compositions.
441 Bailey, 2008, p203
442 Bailey, 2008, p203
443 Bailey, 2008, p279
444 Bailey, 2008, p280
97
BIB200 Topic 1
theologian.’445 His teaching is not in the form of ideas and logic but uses stories,
metaphors and similes to convey truths. Bailey sees this as a way to communicate
truth that is more powerful than rational arguments. The parable, he argues, should
be seen and understood as more than simply an illustration of an idea: the metaphor
creates meaning. He uses the idea of the parable as a house into which the listener is
invited and ‘encouraged to examine the human predicament through the worldview
created by the parable.’446 This links to the theme we have seen running through this
module: that a narrative approach opens up the way for our understanding and
provides us with a template for communicating the theological message of Jesus’
teaching.
The key to being able to do this effectively is the idea that forms the basis of Bailey’s
book: the need ‘to understand the ... stories from and about Jesus in the light of the
culture of which he was a part.’447 Bailey argues that this is not just some kind of
special pleading for how we approach the Bible but that it is the way we approach all
other kinds of literature. We need to understand the historical context of the Bible, just
as we do any piece of literature, in order to get at the real meaning of Jesus’ parables.
Bailey points out that President Lincoln’s Gettysburg address cannot be understood
without some knowledge of the cultural and historical circumstances in which it was
delivered.
There have been many approaches to understanding and interpreting the parables
and Bailey lays down one condition which for him is a pre-requisite: that we can never
interpret a parable in a way that
‘could not have been imagined by Jesus and his audience. The parables need
to be evaluated in the light of the life and witness of Jesus.’ 448
He links this to N. T. Wright’s critical realist approach.449
Exercise: Read Lk. 14:15-24 and 16:1-8

Try and answer the questions below before you look at the Moodle reader for these
parables and see if your understanding changes after doing the reading. Ch24 and 26
are included in the reader.
Identify the rhetorical structure of each of these parables:
445 Bailey, 2008, p280

446 Bailey, 2008, p280
447 Bailey, 2008, p281
448 Bailey, 2008, p283
449 See session 4 above
98
BIB200 Topic 1
What is the key point of each of these parables?
What are some of the cultural references that help you make sense of these parables?
Discuss your findings in the facilitation.
Reflection
Bailey’s underlying argument is that by understanding the cultural context in which the
gospels were written our understanding of the Jesus story is enriched. Do you agree
with his reasoning? Why or why not?
If you were to describe the culture of your missional setting to an outsider what would
be some of the words you would use? What are its key values?
99
BIB200 Topic 1
PDF Reader:
Gospels, London: SPCK, pp. 309-320 and pp. 332-342
Bibliography
Gospels, London: SPCK
Nouwen, H. J., (1992), The Return of the Prodigal, New York: Doubleday
Video
You may also enjoy this video with Bailey here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpbJs8tafeg&list=PLZk_M4sUVTd_9WEYdR8Kc
gBBtrYZJ83s9&index=13&t=0s
100
BIB200 Topic 1
Session 8: Michael White: Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Re-write
Session 8: Michael White: Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Re-

write450
By Andy Hardy
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this session the successful student will be able to:
1. Analyse some of the strengths and weaknesses of White's narrative theory
2. Evaluate how to use some aspects of his narrative theory to become
contextually relevant to a local context where the gospel story can be retold to
an audience
There is a PDF Reader on Moodle for this session:

White, L. M., (2010), Scripting Jesus the Gospels in Rewrite, New York: Harper One,
pp. 259-289
In preparation for the facilitation, please read the following review of Richard
Bauckham’s work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness
Testimony: https://denverseminary.edu/article/jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses-the-
gospels-as-eyewitness-testimony/
Introduction
At the time of writing Michael White is Professor of classics and Christian Origins at
the University of Texas. He has done much work in the field of narrative theory and
criticism of the New Testament gospels and non-canonical gospels. Like many
narrative critics White does not approach the gospels as factual accounts of what
actually happened in a historical sense in the life and ministry of Jesus, but he rather
calls for us to read the gospels as, in the first place, stories which were performed on
the road in front of audiences. He makes the case that these stories were performed
as stories of faith rather than as actual retellings of eyewitness records of what actually
happened in Jesus' ministry. By analysing the gospels as stories, written by
storytellers, White asserts that each story illuminates the agendas of what each writer
wished to convey about their version of Jesus.451 Indeed each story told by the gospel
writers, according to White, scripts what Jesus did and said to meet the needs of their
own beliefs, practices and the outlooks of the Christian groups these gospels were
crafted for. He comments:
'Thus, the shape of each story - what it contains, what it leaves out, and how it
is arranged - creates a different picture both of what happened and how Jesus
450 White, 2010

451 White, 2010, p3
101
BIB200 Topic 1
is to be imagined. In that sense, all the Gospels, even the earliest, are efforts
at dramatic re-creation. They shape and reshape basic stories or key
episodes in order to make a point about the Jesus who is at the centre of faith
for each author and audience. When the audiences or the circumstances of
writing change, so do the details, and so does the picture of Jesus that
emerges from the finished product. That is the storyteller's art.'452
It is important to note the assumptions White makes:
• That each gospel tells the story of Jesus with the author selecting what material
to include or exclude from his telling of it
• The main concerns of the gospel writers as storytellers was 'dramatic re-
creation', which means that dramatic infilling of even non-factual material to
enhance the dramatic affect for audiences was more important than the facts
of the story per se
• That each writer wants to make his own particular point about Jesus suited to,
and shaped by, the community it was written for so it would be acceptable to
them
• That the details of the Jesus' stories and the picture of what Jesus was actually
like would change if a different audience demanded such a change; even if this
did not agree with an earlier picture of what Jesus was like for the storyteller -
in other words telling a good story that would be received well by the audience
was more important than telling a true story from a factual point of view.
An overall assumption of narrative criticism is that the writers of the gospels did not
write their accounts to convey a historically accurate record of the Jesus of history -
but that they changed key details, sayings and pictures of Jesus' persona, represented
in their gospels, to meet the needs and circumstances of their audiences. He
comments:
'For better or worse, it has long been recognized that the Jesus of history, a
first-century Palestinian Jew who roamed the hills of Galilee and who was
summarily executed by a Roman governor named Pontius Pilate, is not quite
the same as the figure portrayed in the Gospels.'453
What we need to be critically aware of is these kinds of assumptions which in
themselves speak very much about the higher critical assumptions of many New
Testament scholars, who no longer seriously seek to engage in the historical Jesus
debate. Rather many narrative critics are far more interested in how the gospels tell
the stories of Jesus and how these stories were adapted to meet the needs of different
audiences. The assumptions articulated above are a particular point of view not
452 White, 2010, p3

453 White, 2010, p3
102
BIB200 Topic 1
shared by other important New Testament scholars, such as James Dunn, 454 N. T.
Wright,455 Richard Bauckham,456 and Larry Hurtado.457
Indeed N. T. Wright has done much to demonstrate the plausibility of reconstructing
much of the historical story of Jesus.458 Bauckham has demonstrated rather
convincingly that the gospels were based on eyewitness accounts, which in the
earliest tradition had their names assigned to the stories they had shared with gospel
writers like Luke.459 Of course scholars of this ilk, who do not go as far as White in his
loss of belief in the possibility or reconstructing the life of the historical Jesus from the
gospel accounts, do agree that the gospels are stories, as much as they are
theological accounts of what early Christians believed about Jesus.460 These scholars
would largely disagree with White’s assumption that the gospel writers and early
churches, founded by the apostles, did not work hard to maintain the authentic sayings
of Jesus and the basic facts of his life story.461
We need to be mindful in this session that White does not share the conservative
Christian perspective which accepts the gospels as authentic documents that retain
real memories from eyewitnesses of the Jesus of history and faith and that these
writers carefully sought to honour Jesus' memory because they believed him to be the
Son of God, and, or Lord.462 But we must also be careful to learn from writers like
White who have important insights into how the narrative structures of the gospels
were contextually relevant to the cultures and circumstances of the peoples they were
produced for. They were contextual missional stories, in other words, which were used
by people of faith to help reconcile people to Jesus the saviour of the world.
In this session we will seek to learn some important lessons from White's narrative
theory to help us to understand:
1. the way the stories are framed in the gospels using conventions of storytelling
that met with the expectations of the people of the first century CE
2. the way the stories were structured to meet the needs of the gospel writer's
target audiences - specifically the faith community each was written for
3. how each gospel has its own independent way of re-telling the Jesus story, as
each gospel writer started off with the contextual nature of the situation they
were writing for and to, as well as the need to tell the story of Jesus in such a
way that it could incarnate in each new context - to change a community from
the inside out. It is important to note that this is not to claim, as White does, that
the story was changed so much as to lose its authenticity.
454 Dunn, 2006

455 Wright, 1993
456 Bauckham, 2006
457 Hurtado, 2003
458 Wright, 1993: see also Wright, S4 above.
459 Bauckham, 2006
460 This would be true of scholars like Edward Adams: Adams, E., (2011), Parallel Lives of Jesus,
London: SPCK
461 Bauckham, 2006. See also Allison, S6 above
462 Bailey, 2008
103
BIB200 Topic 1
4. the way that the writers of the gospels selected and deselected parts of the
Jesus story to retell it to suit the contextual circumstantial hermeneutics of a
particular local life situation
5. the gospels are missional narrative passion stories performed to bring people
to faith in Jesus the Lord.
We will keep a critical eye on assumptions that deconstruct the possibility of

knowing about the Jesus of the eyewitnesses, but at the same time we will seek
to understand what can be learnt for positive benefit for a gospel theology of
missional storytelling that can help us today.
Contextual Frames of Reference

One of the great contributions White makes to my world as a contextual missional
theologian and practitioner is how he helps us to understand how the gospel writers,
as storytellers, framed their stories to meet the conventions and imagery of storytelling
in the Jewish and Greco-Roman cultural contexts and worldviews of the first century
CE. He comments:
'Titles, traditions, and character types - whether Jewish or Greco-Roman -
convey certain images. Naturally, one begins to wonder how there could be
so many different images and how they came to be woven together in the
Gospel tradition. Why are there such different perceptions of Jesus in that
time? Why does one Gospel seem to come closer to Jewish apocalyptic ideas
and another to Greek notions of the divine man? The answer lies in the
development of the earliest traditions about Jesus, for Jesus did not write
anything himself. Nor are there any written accounts that come from his
lifetime or for a full generation after his death. The Gospels of the New
Testament are all much later; even the earliest is at least forty years or more
after the death of Jesus. This fact is very important to understanding both
how their various portrayals of Jesus came about and how we must proceed
in recovering the historical features of Jesus’ life, teachings, and death.'463
There are a few matters that scholars might and do disagree about with White in the
assumptions he makes. For example, Wenham dates the gospels earlier than many
gospel scholars do.464 Moreover, the assumption that accounts came about more as
human constructs of stories told, re-told and adapted has long been challenged by
writer's like Bauckham, who place high value on the role of the Holy Spirit to maintain
the tradition White speaks of.465 Although each gospel writer seems to have been less
concerned to preserve exact words and stories about Jesus, this is not the same as
saying that they did not seek to remain faithful to the earliest traditions because the
gospel writers were all clearly men of faith who wanted to remain faithful and obedient
to their risen Lord.
463 White, 2010, p 87

464 Wenham, 1991
465 Bauckham, 2006
104
BIB200 Topic 1
Where we need to listen carefully to White is over the way the story-framing
conventions of the Jewish and Greco-Roman world helped shape the ways the gospel
writers sought to represent and interpret faithfully the eyewitness testimonies to these
audiences. Let's consider two examples which White iterates in the quotation above
(see highlighted phrase):
1. In terms of the Jewish apocalyptic tradition
2. In terms of the Greco-Roman divine-man tradition.
To begin with it is important to recognise that White's understanding of the Jewish

theme of the apocalyptic tradition and the Greco-Roman divine man tradition are
nothing new to New Testament or Old Testament scholars.466 There is a huge
repository of academic literature and journal articles on both.467 What White rightly
brings out is that these two traditions were to a large extent separate from each other.
There may be said to be two layers of Christian material in the gospels which exhibit
the early church's attempts to share the gospel with a Jewish audience and with a
Hellenistic Gentile audience.
The Jewish apocalyptic tradition, up until the time of Jesus' ministry, had an
apocalyptic expectation intrinsic to its worldview; although differing groups within the
Jewish community, i.e. Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and Zealots etc. formulated
their beliefs around this in rather nuanced ways.
White comments on one important aspect of this tradition:
'One of the features of some, though by no means all, of the expressions of
Jewish apocalyptic thought was that the "new age" as an eschatological break
in time would be ushered in by some sort of figure who would deliver people
from evil forces of oppression. Most of the earliest apocalyptic literature, such
as 1 Enoch or even Daniel, lacks a notion of this deliverer figure. In other
cases the deliverer is just a temporary agent of change, but has no clear
personality or identity. In these lines of apocalyptic thought, it is really the
divinely appointed destiny of Israel that is the central feature. In some cases
there is no deliverer figure at all other than God.'468
White, as a narrative critic, does not believe that the earliest messianic Jewish
community of Christians thought of Jesus as much more than a potential deliverer
figure, who had a roaming teaching ministry focussed on the theme of the restoration
of Israel's fortunes with the coming of the kingdom of God. He like many scholars does
not think Jesus claimed to be divine but that this was a later addition into the gospel
tradition, coming over from the Greco-Roman divine-man tradition. In other words
when early Jewish followers of Jesus preached to their countrymen they did not
ascribe divinity to Jesus of Nazareth.
White's thesis is that when the Gospel went out to the Hellenised Jewish Diaspora
around the Roman Empire, and to the Gentiles, the Greco-Roman divine-man tradition
466 Bultmann et al. much earlier articulated a similar view

467 Just go onto ATLA database and do a basic search and you will see how true this is
468 White, 2010, p29
105
BIB200 Topic 1
apotheosised Jesus to have a divine status.469 Hence, secondly, in his thinking, in

order for the early church to make Jesus at least as important as divine emperors, like
Augustus Caesar, they needed to import the apotheosisation470 of Jesus into the
gospel narratives. In this way they came to claim he was the divine Son of God and
saviour of all peoples in the world.471
White's thesis has not gone unchallenged. For example, Larry Hurtado has done much
to demonstrate that Jesus was ascribed the title of ‘Lord’ (Greek – ‘Kurios’) in the
earliest gospel tradition.472 This is also the view of the present writer.
Stories structured to meet the needs of the faith community and target audience
Although I do not agree with White's thesis at this point I do think it is important to
understand that the gospels are structured to resonate with the basic literary
structures of Greco-Roman divine man traditions of the day. I believe the early
missional evangelists used this structure when they told the Jesus story in order to
communicate in a way that Greco-Roman Hellenised peoples could relate to.
However, I do not agree with White and other scholars that this structure led to the
apotheosis of Jesus. However, it is an important insight to realise that the early
storytellers of the gospel used common, contextually relevant structures for telling
stories to communicate effectively and incarnationally with the first century peoples.
This discussion is fundamental to our understanding of how we might contextualise
the gospel in our missional contexts.
If we consider the table below we can see how the ancient, assumed structure of the
Greco-Roman divine-man tradition has obvious parallels in our gospels.
Exercise
Take a few minutes to see if you can match Bieler's outline of the Theos Aner tradition
(below) to the structure and concerns of the Gospel of Matthew. Make notes giving
examples from Matthew and textual references to the Theos Aner structure above.
469 White, 2010

470 Apotheosise – to ascribe to someone divine status
471 White, 2010
472 Hurtado, 2003
106
BIB200 Topic 1
The Divine-Man Tradition

“The Characteristics of a “Divine Man”
(Following L. Bieler’s Theos Aner)
I. Birth
A. Special portents, in dreams and divine oracles, announce the
imminent birth of a messenger of the gods.
1. That the mother is pregnant by a divine parent is often announced.
2. In a few cases the divine progenitor speaks directly to the mother
to inform her of the special nature of the child.
B. The actual birth is almost always marked by some unusual
circumstances.
1. It occurs on a special day (e.g., a festival of the gods).
2. It occurs in an unusual place (e.g., a meadow, a forest, or even a
foreign land while the parents are on a journey).
3. Sometimes, especially when the father is kept out of the picture,
the child is discovered as a foundling.
4. It is accompanied by a variety of miracles, including:
• a pregnancy of unusual duration,
• unusual natural phenomena,
• unusual features of the delivery, or
• manifestations of the divine parentage.
II. Early Childhood
A. The child’s special nature begins to manifest itself almost from
birth (and sometimes either at or before the birth), for example,
unusual capacities of movement, speech, strength, etc.
B. The mother, recognizing the unusual nature, determines that the
child should be given special treatment or training (in some cases,
also the father, who arranges for special tutors, etc.)
C. The child is precocious and amazes all who come to observe him,
e.g., teachers, parents, other children, visitors who come to observe
because they have heard of his powers.
D. the child excels in all aspects of growth and learning and
manifests both miraculous power and innate (‘divine’) wisdom.
III. Adult Career
A. Mighty deeds betray a divine providence guiding his life.
B. Wisdom is manifested in teaching and/or decision making.
C. He is able to perform miracles (always for noble reasons).
D. He shows strength of character in the face of trial.
E. His popularity and moral behaviour are widespread (often during
long journeys).
F. Unusual phenomena accompany his death or disappearance.”473
I will not go into a lengthy analysis of Bieler's ‘Theos Aner’ (Greek for ‘Divine Man’)
structure presented in the table above. It is enough to recognise, by comparison to
any one of the gospels, – especially Matthew and Luke – that they follow this structural
473 White, 2010, pp. 57 - 58
107
BIB200 Topic 1
tradition, which Bieler and White474 recognise in the narrative structures of the synoptic
gospels especially.
Exercise
The storytelling structure of the Theos Aner was a great approach used by the early
missional evangelists to communicate in contextually relevant ways to the Gentile
people of their time.
Can you think of any dangers in this approach? Anyways in which using the language
and ideas which are so clearly identified with someone else’s founding myths might
be misunderstood?
Take a few minutes to think of a modern way used to tell stories, and its assumed
structures, that might help you to tell the gospel story to a postmodern audience. For
example, what would a Jesus soap opera look like?
The Gospels as independent retellings of the story of Jesus

Important to White's thesis of narrative theory is that the gospels as we have them
were at first orally transmitted and that their framing and contents came out of the local
believing communities they were written for.475 In other words long before the gospels
took on their final framing, as we have them today, they had been performed as
narratives and collections of memorised sayings, which represented the key facets of
a local group of churches in a region who believed and practised the Jesus way
represented in their particular gospel.
Of course anyone even basically familiar with some of the issues of gospel studies will
question much of White's thesis, simply because of the synoptic problem and the
Markan Hypothesis - which has Mark as the earliest gospel and as a key source of the
later gospels of Matthew and Luke.476 However, White has an important point to make,
and which is important to our understanding of the need for us to communicate in a
474 White, 2010, pp. 57 - 58

475 White, 2010
476 Adams, 2011
108
BIB200 Topic 1
relevant contextual language in our own local missional situations. White suggests
that each gospel has its own specific view of Jesus which can at times contradict or
challenge the views of Jesus found in the other gospels.477 Need this concern the
writer or the more conservative Christian? In one sense it would concern us if we
followed White to his conclusion: that the early storytellers and gospel writers,
themselves, reinvented and scripted Jesus to say things which he never said, or never
meant to say.478 However, it is quite another thing if we consider that each gospel was
affirmed by the early church and by at least one or two of Jesus’ apostles who were
still alive at this time to verify the essential correctness of the interpretations that each
of these gospels came to aver. I believe that John Wenham has made a good case
for this.479
I think what we see happening in the gospels is not the writers making up any old
story, just for the sake of telling a good story, without regard to its genuine historical
background and authenticity. Rather I think we are seeing stories which picked up on
selected aspects of the Jesus story and that the aspects that best resonated with the
evangelist's local audience were emphasised to enable them to connect with the
resurrected Lord who was at work among them by his Spirit.
In other words I would argue that we need, as missional people, to re-tell the Jesus
story in ways that do not violate the deeper genuine nature of the received gospel
traditions found in each gospel. Rather we need to re-tell the gospel story in such a
way that we connect selectively with the gospel story in the places that best relate to
the contextual needs of our local audiences. I would argue for this to be a first step
along the way until we can help a new group of believers to also understand other
important facets of the tradition as well.
Missional Narrative Performances of Faith

What White helpfully does in his book 'Scripting Jesus the Gospels in Rewrite',480 is to
demonstrate some of the useful ways that the early Christians of the first centuries
framed the Jesus story to meet the needs of their target audiences. Ancient first
century people loved stories and good story-tellers. They loved mystery and the
mystery religions. Many peoples were in transition due to the Roman Empire’s
expansive military campaigns, and its need to move peoples to new areas in order to
support the infrastructures of the expanding empire. Peoples in transition tend to look
for meaning to their lives, especially as they go through the uncertainty of change and
the shock of meeting new cultures. They naturally seek out ways and means to put
down roots in new locations, as well as seeking to bring ultimate security and meaning
into their lives. The ancient world was like this. People were looking for meaning. They
were looking for ultimate salvation. When the missional narrative evangelists came to
477 White, 2010, pp. 57 - 58

478 White, 2010, pp. 20 - 44
479 Wenham, 1991
480 White, 2010, pp. 20 - 55
109
BIB200 Topic 1
their regions people must have at times eagerly gathered to hear their stories and as
a result some new converts to the faith were made.
How does all of this help us to tell the Story Today?
White helpfully reminds us that narrative and storytelling has to resonate with
contextual and local conventions of storytelling.481 I would say that it has to be address
the key themes and interests of peoples who make up the sub-cultures around us in
our western multicultural and pluralistic environment. In order for us to be able to do
this well we need to think of how we can creatively tell the story of Jesus afresh, using
all sorts of media, including multi-media, TV, the Internet, music, fashion, the games
industry etc., to bring the story into these different communities. The crucial thing for
us to do, which White claims early Christians did not do,482 is to make sure that we
keep true to the central meaning of the Jesus' story as it is found in the various
contextualised versions in our gospels.
Group Exercise
Take 15 minutes to discuss some of the methods and tools you use, or your church or
organisation uses, to retell the story of Jesus in contextually relevant ways. Are the
means used true to the gospel tradition? How far can we go in adapting or retelling
the Jesus' story without distorting it so it is no longer the authentic coin of the kingdom?
After you have done this exercise each group needs to report back and share their
findings to the larger group.
481 White, 2010, pp. 25 - 66

482 White, 2010, pp. 20 - 44
110
BIB200 Topic 1
PDF Reader
White, L. M., (2010), Scripting Jesus the Gospels in Rewrite, New York: Harper One,
pp. 259-289
Online reading:
Please read the following review of Richard Bauckham’s work Jesus and the
Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony:
https://denverseminary.edu/article/jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses-the-gospels-as-
eyewitness-testimony/
Bibliography
Adams, E., (2011), Parallel Lives of Jesus, London: SPCK
Bailey, K. E., (2008), Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, Downers Grove: IVP
Bauckham, R., (2006), Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Dunn, J. D. G., (2006), The Partings of the Ways, Canterbury: SCM Press
Hurtado, L. W., (2003), Lord Jesus Christ, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Wenham, J., (1991), Re-dating Matthew, Mark & Luke, St. Ives: Clays Ltd.
White, L. M., (2010), Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite, New York: Harper
One
Wright, N. T., (1993), The New Testament and the People of God, London: SPCK
Video
You may also enjoy this video of Bauckham explaining his work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=292NTf1cCNw
111

Undergraduate Programmes in Theology and Mission and Ministry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Undergraduate Programmes in Theology and Mission and Ministry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BIB200 Topic 1

Student Study Guide Spring Term 2022-23

BIB200 Intermediate Biblical Studies

ForMission College ©: BIB200 2022-23

BIB200 Reference Books to Help Students Engage with their Assignments

Books Held at Campus

Journals to be consulted for this Module

Brueggemann, W. (2001). Prophetic Imagination: Revised Edition. Minneapolis, MN:

Journal Articles as Readers Referenced for each session: Topic 1

Session 5: Wright, T, (2007), Surprised by Hope, London: SPCK, chapter 6

PDF Readers to be found on Moodle for sessions: Topic 1

Session 1: Narrative Approaches to Reading the Biblical Story

There is PDF Reader on Moodle for this session:

Introduction: What is narrative?

1 Adams, 2011, p25

A Narrative Critical Approach

2 Adams, 2011, p25

5 Adams, 2011, p25

10 Bock, 2002, p206

Make notes on what he says about the shared narrative features:

The Contemporary Emphasis on Narrative

• The Christian Community living the Narrative of God’s love in action

• The living human narrative/document which each of us present as

Moyise comments on the importance of Narrative theology:

2. Biblical stories embody truth in people/characters as we identify with

3. Biblical stories stimulate imagination, we imagine ourselves in the story and

12 Moyise, (2006), pp. 73-74.

So far, we have focused on understanding the significance of a narrative approach to

14 See also session 4, NT Wright on a critical-realist approach to knowledge.

session with a very brief look at a contemporary understanding of the idea of

The word metanarrative and its meaning

16 Smith, K.A., (2006), 63.

PDF Reader on Moodle:

Session 2: C.J.H. Wright: People who Represent God to the World17

17 Wright, 2010, chapter 7

Wright looks at this passage under three headings:

22 Wright, 2010, p116

28 Brueggemann, 1978, p17

This dual perspective is what defines the people of Israel:

44 Wright, 2010, p121

48 Wright, 2010, p125

52 N.T. Wright, 1996, p556

Application for today

63 Wright, 2010, p119

66 Exodus 19:6 and 1 Peter 2:9

Session 3: Walter Brueggemann: Prophetic Voices in Exile

For this session, there is a PDF Reader on Moodle:

71 Brueggemann, 1978, chap.2

76 Brueggemann, 1986, section heading for chapter on Jeremiah.

‘Oh, my anguish, my anguish! I writhe in pain. Oh the agony of my heart! ... I

Only grief permits newness89

12 “This is what the LORD says:

“‘Your wound is incurable,

no remedy for your sore,

they care nothing for you.

your pain that has no cure?

and heal your wounds’

93 Brueggemann, 1986, p38-9

94 Brueggemann, 1986, p41.

100 Brueggemann, 1986, p52; Ezek. 1:2

109 Brueggemann, 1986, p57

Hope at the break point116

115 Brueggemann, 1986, p65