Scott Fillmer » jesus

Did Jesus Descend into Hell After He Died on the Cross?

Scott Fillmer — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:23:06 +0000

This question is usually asked once a year after people remember what actually happened on Good Friday. I ask the question myself each year and go back and re-read the pertinent scripture information to refresh my understanding because the question is asked by believers, but it’s also asked by those with a secular worldview, atheists, and skeptics alike. When the secularist asks this question they are actually calling scripture into question itself by saying scripture says Jesus descended into Hell and Jesus said to the criminal on the cross “today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), and both can’t be true. That worldview understanding comes from a populist misunderstanding of scripture and what we think of as pointing to this, the facts about Hell, or Apostle’s Creed, not actually what scripture teaches us about the subject.

Of course I am certainly no scholar on the subject what-so-ever, but the short answer to the question “Did Jesus Descend into Hell After He Died on the Cross on Good Friday?” is no, He did not, at least not according to scripture. His suffering ended on the cross when Jesus said “It is finished”.

As you might guess, scholars aren’t in complete agreement on this theological issue but if you dig deep into scripture specifically trying to prove one or the other you will probably succeed. If you follow scripture, in context, attempting to understand beyond just our postmodern view of life, the text points to the suffering of Christ taking place on the cross, and ending on the cross. This is what Jesus was in such agony about in the garden of Gethsemane.

Much of the confusion today comes from the Apostle’s Creed where our modern-day translation says “and he descended into hell”. We forget the Apostle’s Creed came from the early church fathers and really needs its own translation into our modern-day language. The translation of the word “Hell” from the Apostle’s Creed is more likely to be translated Sheol or Hades, which is not the same thing as Hell even though our modern understand places the terms Sheol, Hades, and Hell all as being the same locale. Often we see in scripture Sheol being depicted where the Saints went prior to the resurrection, one side being a heaven-like side of paradise prior to the ascension into Heaven, the other being a place of torment. This is depicted in scripture in the story of Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 but scripture tells us “Sheol/Hades is a realm with two divisions (Matthew 11:23, 16:18; Luke 10:15, 16:23; Acts 2:27-31), the abodes of the saved and the lost”, and Christ’s suffering, completed on the cross then descended to Hades or Sheol, scripture never says Jesus was sent to a place of torment for 3 days, and in fact we have scripture, from Jesus’ own words saying he was in “Paradise”.

The best summation of the question comes from GotQuestions.org where the writer says:

When Jesus cried upon the cross, “Oh, Father, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46), it was then that He was separated from the Father because of the sin poured out upon Him. As He gave up His spirit, He said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46). His suffering in our place was completed. His soul/spirit went to the paradise side of hades. Jesus did not go to hell. Jesus’ suffering ended the moment He died. The payment for sin was paid. He then awaited the resurrection of His body and His return to glory in His ascension. Did Jesus go to hell? No. Did Jesus go to Sheol/hades? Yes.

There are some who might say we aren’t to question our faith in this manner, many who say the question I pose is irrelevant, and others in the Christian faith who just don’t care. I have always grown in my understanding of the Christian faith by asking questions and then searching for the answers.

Other Scriptural Resources to Understand Jesus’ Death on the Cross

This is not an exhaustive look at scripture on the subject by any means. There are some great resources online that deal with the question about Jesus and Hell so if you are so inclined, below I have listed some further reading on the subject. At the bottom I have included two scholarly papers, which debate the issue from both sides. They are both very interesting arguments for and against the wording in the Apostle’s Creed.

Whether Christ spent time in actual Hell or not after His crucifixion, one thing is certain, Christ was raised from the dead and after appearing to more than 500 people here on our own physical earth, he ascended into Heaven and the new covenant was established.

Posts Related to This Topic:

What is Maundy Thursday Other Than Communion and Feet Washing?

Scott Fillmer — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:37:36 +0000

We hear this all the time, come to worship, or come to God being expectant or with an expectant heart, but what should we be expecting, and what exactly is Maundy Thursday? For several years now this week has been a time of the year I look forward to all throughout the year. Holy Week, and Maundy Thursday in particular, is observed in many different ways around the world, but it’s a unique night for our Cornerstone family. Personally, I do prepare for the night in advance. I bring at least one Moleskine and a pen or pencil, expecting God to be there with me as I go through the night. The last few years I have written names of people I pray for while I’m in the room along with areas of my life I want to give back to the Lord.

I just love dedicated times of Christian meditation (or reflection) since they are so few and far between for our world today. Christian meditation is the counter opposite of what we do in our culture today, so it almost makes us uncomfortable at this point. Both Joshua 1:8 and Psalm 1:2 among many others, tells us to meditate on the scriptures day and night, so one night out of the year on Maundy Thursday is a great launching point for the rest of the year.

What is Maundy Thursday?

Maundy Thursday is of course the day before Good Friday, which is the day Jesus was crucified on the cross. It is also called “Holy Thursday”, which is part of the greater week called “Holy Week” or Passion Week. The date changes according to the schedule of Easter, which changes each year. Maundy Thursday is the date that Jesus celebrated the passover, which became known as the last supper, and instituted what we know as communion. The two main events if you will that occur on Maundy Thursday are washing of feet and communion. The washing of feet was done by Jesus after supper was over (John 13:3-17) to give his disciples an example of humility and to show them a great act of love, providing all of us with an example of how we should treat others.

Scholars agree that the English word Maundy comes from mandé, from the Latin mandatum, or “command”. The first word of the phrase “Mandatum novum do vobis ut diligatis invicem sicut dilexi vos” (“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you”), the statement by Jesus in the John 13:34 where Jesus explained to the Apostles the significance of his action of washing their feet.

How Will We Observe Maundy Thursday

In our church specifically, Maundy Thursday is a time period from 8pm to 8am set aside as a time of meditation and reflection. Much in the same way Jesus prayed in Gethsemane on that Thursday night as described in Matthew 26:36-46 before Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion. Matthew 26:36-46 is part of a larger story of course, but a few sections earlier we see that Jesus celebrates the passover with his disciples and then institutes The Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:17-25 and Matthew 26:26-29 respectively).

Because the bible doesn’t mandate or command (or deny) the observation of Maundy Thursday specifically, observing this night is something that some churches do and some don’t. Before we came to Auburn I don’t really remember being in a church that observed Maundy Thursday night into Good Friday quite like this, but it is an experience I would hope everyone could go through.

In a world increasingly busy and full of distractions how can we ever stand still long enough to just be an awe of God and his brilliance. Maundy Thursday is that night, at least for our church. Each year I hope to pull a little more momentum from that night into the remainder of the year, trying to remember God also finds us in our silent meditation of his word.

Posts Related to This Topic:

The End of the World is Not Coming May 21 2011

Scott Fillmer — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 04:11:20 +0000

I couldn’t believe CNN actually did a full length article on the end of the world from a group called Family Radio (see Road Trip to the End of the World) who are using “biblical prophecy” to show the end of the world, or the Tribulation and second coming of Christ, is coming to a city near us on May 21st, 2011. Just last week I thought CNN was turning the corner when they actually “allowed” an article called “The Bible Really Does Condemn Homosexuality“, but maybe I jumped the gun. At the time of this writing “Road Trip” had over 30,000 “likes” on Facebook and on the opposite side, secular hate mongers who see anything religious as wrong, controlled the comments. Where are the people out there who know, have, and teach sound biblical doctrine about the end times?

What bothers me about this is not a teaching about the end times, which is certainly covered in scripture, but how the news covers it with the most radical groups they can find and then likens all people of faith to the Branch Davidians or Heavens Gate (see screenshots of both below). I understand I’m talking about a secular news organization, but if they wanted to do a serious journalistic article could they not have found someone, anyone, who would represent sound biblical principles? How about Charles H. Spurgeon and Eschatology: Did He Have a Discernible Millennial Position?, Spurgeon seemed to study a lot, but they probably couldn’t have interviewed him.

Even a surface reading of scripture shows that we are (1) not to become obsessed with the dates of the end times, and (2) we, not being God the Father, do NOT know the exact date of the Second Coming of Christ and all that goes along with the end times. Only God the Father does (Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32 and many more). If Jesus Himself tells us that he doesn’t even know the timing, only the Father, why in the world would “Family Radio” know the exact date. Of course they address that themselves in a 6 page explanation, explaining away those verses (full pdf download here). Unfortunately after reading some of their literature they remind me of another group in the news lately, the idiots over at Westboro Baptist Church (though I understand they are two totally different groups).

Mark 13:32-33 But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come.

Everyone knows that the only person who really knows the actual timing of the end of the world is Tim Lahaye (and possibly Thomas Ice), and CNN never asked about their book “Charting the End Times” (which is actually very well laid out and useful, though it doesn’t always following a good reformed theological argument). Looking at the chart below you can see that the Family Radio people do drop May 21st 2011 right at the beginning of that orange square, at the Rapture and the beginning of the Tribulation, Lahaye just forgot to put in the actual date of May 21, 2011 (I’ll have to ask him why). Of course one of them did think the end was September 6, 1994, and offers infallible proof of the end of the world date here (see also full pdf download in case you want to put it on your iPad).

Not sure if I have a point here other than to show the absurdity of conclusions and predictions made without a deep long knowledgeable study of scripture. Sound doctrine and understanding comes from prayerful study and contemplation and we run the risk of becoming false prophets and teachers, actually working against the Holy Spirit. When we try to make scripture fit into pre-made conclusions it never seems to work in God’s favor, but does work for the praise of man in the way of attention from the news.

Posts Related to This Topic:

Why Moses and Elijah in the Transfiguration

Scott Fillmer — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:05:35 +0000

I am not sure how many times I have read the end of Matthew 16 and tried to understand the theology behind…

Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:28)

…especially when we know the apostles are no longer on our side of eternity, and the new kingdom has not arrived yet. Apparently I didn’t try hard enough because this morning it just clicked and I got it. Just keep reading into chapter 17 and you get your answer, the Transfiguration.

This event (one of my favorites in scripture) is one of those unique times in the New Testament text when Jesus did something so extraordinary that He had to tell those with Him not to say anything until the time was appropriate. Peter seemed to sense it’s importance, but why Moses and Elijah? Some commentaries suggest that the transfiguration was a preview to Jesus’ kingdom to come. As described, Jesus’ kingdom to come will have three different “people forms” present, and they are all laid out for us right here in Matthew 17, and key to understanding the kingdom to come is Moses and Elijah.

First, in the new kingdom, there are those in their present physical body, represented by the inner circle of disciples who were present at the transfiguration. Next, those people who have died or will die, represented at the transfiguration by Moses, and third, those saved individuals who will be called up to heaven alive and will not experience death (1 Thes. 4:17), represented by Elijah.

At that time Jesus will also be in His full glory, just as He was during the transfiguration… and seeing these things, the disciples were able to see the coming kingdom of Heaven before they died as described Matthew 16:28.

To me, these combined set of verses gives us the greatest hope for the promises of life after death. Jesus first revealed it to his inner circle of disciples and after His resurrection the disciples revealed this to all of us. This is overly simplified, but sometimes God’s word is revealed to us a little at a time, and sometimes it’s given to you in that ah ha moment. That’s why it’s the “living” word and not just marks on a page.

Posts Related to This Topic:

The Duke Bobble Head in Timeout

Tumble — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 05:41:57 +0000

Photo of the day today is the Duke bobble head in timeout for not winning their basketball game the other night but you know the man on the right is always in charge. I always love an office that has a Jesus bobble head on the shelf.

Posts Related to This Topic:

A Look at the Correspondence Theory of Truth

Scott Fillmer — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:51:32 +0000

After recent comments on my blog lately I once again was reminded how so many people in this world are actually seeking a reality of their own making, not the real truths that are actually real. This post-modern time we live in lends itself more and more to an absolute void of real objective truth and more to the relative nature of truth, which means truth is really just what you make it out to be. So below is part of how we studied “truth” in seminary, with something called the Correspondence Theory of Truth, which is almost better illustrated by the graphic above. If this doesn’t interest you then please head over to The Fillmer Photo Daily blog where I post mostly pictures (and few words), there is always something new to see there as well.

The Correspondence Theory of Truth is actually a tiny little worldly example at the bottom of this post so we have something to compare to what really is the way we get to Biblical truth, but you get the idea.

How Do We Arrive at What is True

This isn’t something new to us, even though we love to think it is with all our modern computer equipment and knowledge. Ling before we appeared, Pilate asked Jesus the rhetorical question, “What is Truth?”

Truth appears to be a property, that is an aspect of certain statements. 2+2=4 is obviously true. 7×5=15 is obviously not. Giraffes have long necks is obviously true. Hippos have red spots is not. The question though for the Correspondence Theory of Truth is, what is truth a property? In this case, there are three candidates: Truth is a property of sentences. Truth is a property of statements. Truth is a property of propositions.

What’s the difference between these?
A sentence is a group of written words, that contain a subject and a verb.
A statement is the occasion of the use of a sentence by someone.
A proposition is what is asserted when a statement is made, the content of the statement.

One may assert the same proposition with two different statements:

George is a fine fellow who can be trusted.
Mr. Shannon is a man of integrity who can be relied upon.

Both statements are about George Shannon, and both are true because they assert the same proposition.

One may use the same sentence to assert two different propositions:

This is really cool!
This is really cool!

In this instance the same sentence refers once to a dish of ice cream and then to a new car.

We also speak of beliefs as being true or false. Beliefs are basically propositions. They may be stated in sentences. Again the same belief may be stated in different sentences stating the same proposition:

Christ died for our sins.

Jesus Saves.
We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Every truth may be represented as a proposition. Don’t be misled by those (postmodernists) who speak of “non-propositional truth.” If it is a truth it may be stated in a proposition—that is as a sentence which expresses the truth. Some thinkers see truth as a property of representations, linguistic representations or mental ones. They are mistaken. Others see truth as a property of propositions which are represented or expressed in thought or speech.

The best known theory of truth is the Correspondence theory of truth goes something like this: Whether what is said about the world is true or not depends on how the world is. In other words, a proposition is true if it corresponds to the way things really are.

Let’s label a proposition with the letter P. P may stand for any proposition you want. Under the correspondence theory of truth, P is true if two conditions are met:

It is a fact that P
The proposition corresponds to that fact.

For each true proposition, there must be a fact.

The association of truth with fact entails the association of words with world. In other words, it is possible to use words in ways that accurately describe the way the world is, even if some this this is impossible. This is absolutely essential if the proposition “The Bible is the Word of God” is to have any meaning at all. Conservative, Bible-believing Christians assert that the Bible gives, in words, an accurate, inerrant, description of the way the world is, of what has happened, and of what will happen. The sentences in the Bible, understood in context, accurately portray reality. That is, the propositions expressed in the Bible correspond to the way the world really is.

The Correspondence theory of Truth

This is the “scientific” definition, which serves less of a purpose here but it does have an important place.

The coherence theory of truth states the following: A statement is true if it coheres with other statements. The test of truth is internal. The system of statements one makes must cohere, must be consistent. If one proposition in a group is not consistent with the others, we know that the whole system is not true.

Propositions are truth-bearers. Those who hold to the coherence theory say that truth cannot consist in the relationship between truth-bearers and that which is not a truth bearer (such as a fact). Here is a problem with the theory already. It divorces truth from facts. Truth, these theorists say, consists in the relationship which truth-bearers have to one another. This may be a relation of mutual support among a set of beliefs or non-contradiction between them, or they may together support an overall concept..

We should point out that this theory leads to a relativism, since contradictory systems may be internally consistent. Moral relativists say that there is no external morality, nothing for moral statements to correspond to. If a moral standard makes sense to you that is all that we need.

Religious pluralists—those who believe that all religions are equally valid, that all of them lead to God, depend on the coherence theory of truth. Since all the different religions make sense in terms of their own system, then all are equally true. (It may be argued, however, that not all religions are even coherent within their own system, but this is another matter.

The important thing for us to remember is that the coherence theory separates “truth” from “facts” and seeks only internal consistency. Postmodernists like this theory.

Is the coherence theory of truth useless then for Christians? Not at all. God is consistent and rational. He has created a consistent world for us to live in. Coherence is helpful to us as a negative test—no set of propositions can be true if there is a contradiction within them. The truth will always be internally consistent. By itself, however, that is not enough. True propositions must be consistent with other true propositions, and together, all true propositions must correspond to the way the world is.

Some who defend the Christian faith do so on the basis that the Bible offers a coherent view of reality, and that it corresponds to the world as we actually live in it. No other religion or philosophy offers the same kind of benefit. Even coherent philosophies break down when we try to actually live by them. They just don’t correspond to the way the world really is. Francis Schaefer (The God Who is There) defends the truth of Christianity on this basis.

In conclusion the graph at the top really says it all. There actually are truths in this world, but they are surrounded by false propositions and we only gain knowledge when our beliefs overlap the truth.

Posts Related to This Topic:

Jesus, I need Your Love, Hawkmoon

Scott Fillmer — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:54:37 +0000

Do we recognize how much we need God’s love in our life, or put a different way, how much do we desire that love that only God can fulfill? Our lives are so busy, we tend to just push away this desire or we may not even think about it at all. But even when we do contemplate God’s love, we can only express it in terms that a limited human mind can do (like below), in terms of things that are familiar, but it’s so much more than that.

I came across a familiar poem today that expressed, in worldly terms, how much one can desire the love of another, and it reminded me more of whether we desire God at least like this, or is it only this powerfully expressed for the things of this world? If we can express worldly love “like the hot needs the sun, like honey on her tongue, like oxygen, I need your love”, how much greater is the love God has for us? Without the desire for God’s love, and for His Glory, we are just about in the same shape as my widow pictured above, broken.

I have gone over the words below about twenty times now, it’s pretty powerful (even more when put to music), but how much more should we desire God’s love… probably more than we need to take our next breath.

I Need Your Love

Like a desert needs rain
Like a town needs a name
I need your love
Like a drifter needs a room
Hawkmoon
I need your love

Like a rhythm unbroken
Like drums in the night
Like sweet soul music
Like sunlight
I need your love

Like coming home
And you don’t know where you’ve been
Like black coffee
Like nicotine
I need your love (I need your love)

When the night has no end
And the day yet to begin
As the room spins around
I need your love

Like a Phoenix rising needs a holy tree
Like the sweet revenge of a bitter enemy
I need your love

Like the hot needs the sun
Like honey on her tongue
Like the muzzle of a gun
Like oxygen
I need your love (I need your love)

When the night has no end
And the day yet to begin
As the room spins around
I need your love

Like thunder needs rain
Like a preacher needs pain
Like tongues of flame
Like a sheet stained
I need your love

Like a needle needs a vein
Like someone to blame
Like a thought unchained
Like a runaway train
I need your love

Like faith needs a doubt
Like a freeway out
I need your love

Like powder needs a spark
Like lies need the dark
I need your love

I need all the love in your heart… and I need all the love in your heart…

~ Hawkmoon 269, U2

Posts Related to This Topic:

The High Priestly Prayer of Jesus in John 17:1-26

Scott Fillmer — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:19:03 +0000

John 17:1-26 is often referred to as “The High Priestly Prayer of Jesus”, found only in the book of John, and is the longest prayer given by Jesus presented to us in the New Testament. In a three-part series, teacher and preacher Bob Deffinbaugh from Community Bible Chapel in Richardson, Texas, walks through this “Priestly Prayer” for us. Deffinbaugh breaks up this long prayer into three different sections, which became three separate sermons, Part 1 (John 17:1-5), Part 2 (John 17:6-19), and Part 3 (John 17:20-26). These three sections of course also find natural separations within the scriptures; Part 1 being “Jesus’ Requests for Himself” (17:1-5), Part 2 is “Jesus’ Intercession for the Apostles” (17:6-19), and finally Part 3, “Jesus’ Intercession for Future Believers” (17:20-26).[1]

As with everything that was recorded from Jesus by the Apostles, the Priestly Prayer gives us great insight into a life of prayer, how Jesus used prayer himself, and how prayer was also used to immediately benefit those who were standing nearby and heard Him pray. One of the more fascinating points, at least to me personally, is the last, in which Jesus said some prayers so others would hear him praying for them. This can have a very healing effect on those we are praying for, and as seen in scripture here, sometimes praying for those who are present in the room with us is important. Jesus of course did not say all his prayers specifically so others would hear (and this should certainly not be confused with a heretical or pharisaical type praying), like His prayer in Gethsemane, but this is clearly what Jesus did in some cases as seen in John 11:42.

Jesus’ Request for Himself (17:1-5)

In Part 1 of the Priestly Prayer, Deffinbaugh describes the way Jesus speaks to the Father as a “conversational prayer”, a term that was somewhat of a catch phrase in the later half of the 20^th century church. The term used here for “Father” in the Greek is pater, which Jesus uses three other times in this particular prayer. In this case, pater is defined more as the relationship of paternity, the nearest ancestor, or the natural father, than a general male figure. As many others have pointed out in addressing this prayer, pater is an indication that Jesus was in direct conversation with his own Father.

Almost as a side note, Deffinbaugh leaps into a complex conversation that compares the Priestly Prayer with the Prayer in Gethsemane, and briefly examines how the Synoptics handle the Prayer in Gethsemane, while John only records the Priestly Prayer. His conclusion basically comes down to the uniqueness of John’s gospel, but the comparison is well worth the time that more extensive research requires.

Jesus’ Intercession for the Apostles (17:6-19)

Part 2 of the Priestly Prayer reveals how much Jesus cared for his disciples, and to what extent he had gone to make sure they were properly trained by their “master.” As Deffinbaugh explains, Jesus’ method of discipleship was effective and at this point, coming to an end.

In the days of our Lord, there were no printing presses, no Bible concordance programs on CD-ROM, no Internet web sites from which to download good Bible study materials… books were exceedingly rare. Much learning took place by means of discipleship. A disciple followed his chosen “master” around, serving him, listening to him, and learning from him. This is the way our Lord taught, or “discipled” His disciples. They accompanied Him virtually everywhere He went. They listened and asked many questions, and they learned.

Jesus provides us here with yet another example of how we should pray ourselves. This was Jesus’ last known prayer before his arrest, but he took this time between the upper room and Gethsemane to show how we can pray without ceasing. Jesus prayed for his disciples before they even were his disciples (Luke 6:12), while they were being discipled (John 6:15), at the end of his ministry here (John 17:6-19), and then even when he was in heaven (Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25).[2]

Jesus’ Intercession for Future Believers (17:20-26)

In the final section of the Priestly Prayer, Jesus prays for unity between the future Believers who will belong to the one body of Christ, the Church. Jesus points out that the ultimate fellowship with God will increase in eternity, whereas the goal of salvation is the future glorification, which is at least in part, to actually be with Jesus in eternity. The Priestly Prayer as a whole gives us many lessons about prayer, but as Deffinbaugh concludes, “our Lord’s prayer reminds us that our faith should be proclaimed and practiced”, just as Jesus does right before he is arrested and executed.

Deffinbaugh’s discussion on the prayer was certainly extensive, and for such a difficult section of scripture provided some good insight, and if you have the chance I would highly recommend at least a quick read through his sermons linked above. His individual sections were at times slightly scattered, as with the brief discussion on the Synoptic Problem, one that is very complex, and something difficult to examine with such a short discourse. Overall a very detailed explanation of John 17:1-26 and he offers very enlightening conclusions after each section.

[1] John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, , The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, Vol. 2, 2 vols. (Chicago, IL: David C Cook Publishers, 1983), 330-334.

[2] Ibid, 331.

Posts Related to This Topic:

Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament by Christopher Wright :: Review

Scott Fillmer — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:19:20 +0000

This review can also be found in my writing section in a PDF download format. In the text by Christopher J. H. Wright titled Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament, Wright outlines a precise argument for the existence of Jesus of the New Testament, as seen from within the Old Testament. It is evident, from the opening chapter, that Wright’s intention for writing this volume was to take his readers deeper into the life of Jesus while showing the audience a side of Jesus not often studied in the current evangelical culture today.

This review will present an overview and critique of Wright’s Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament through a summarization of the text and a discussion on Wright’s conclusions.

Wright, born to missionary parents serving in Brazil during the Second World War, grew up in Belfast, Northern Ireland, as an Irish Presbyterian and was educated in Cambridge in the 1960’s. Before being ordained in the Anglican Church of England in 1977, Wright served as a high school teacher, and later would go on to serve as an associate pastor before moving his family to India to teach at the seminary level. Wright continues to work as an author and is the International Director for Langham Partnership International (LPI), a ministry that works with other pastors, publishers, and educators.

Wright has authored several books that focused attention towards interacting with the Old Testament, God, and the Holy Spirit. With the depth of Wright’s books, He is sometimes viewed as an author who writes more for those seeking solid food than for the spiritual infant (Hebrews 5:12-14).

Summary of “Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament”

Wright takes on the task of showing Jesus in the Old Testament by examining Jesus in five different dimensions; the story of Jesus, the promises declared and fulfilled, and His identity, mission, and values. Pulling heavily from the book of Matthew, Wright takes time in the first section to examine the importance of the genealogy of Jesus in a way not often addressed by the casual congregant. This in depth look at the foundation of the story of Jesus is tied back to the Genesis stories and the historical context of Abraham to David to Jesus Himself. While the book of Matthew does this as well, Wright goes beyond Matthew to pull from historical information including a look at how Jesus interacts with historical Israel and the inter-testamental period (Wright 1992, 19-24).

In the second section of the book, Wright reviews the promises of Jesus from the time they are declared in the Old Testament text, methodically moving through the various covenants, or guarantees, made leading up to and including the New Covenant promise of the New Testament. Wright equates the covenants of the Old Testament to that of tributaries, which all feed into a main large stream, and that the life of Jesus must be viewed in light of all the previous covenants. According to Wright, the New Testament writers based their knowledge of Jesus and His ministry upon already known Hebrew scriptures, showing that the Old Testament “declared the promise which Jesus fulfilled.” (102)

Section three focuses on identifying Jesus as son. In this section Wight looks at the relationship the New Testament has with Jesus and compares that to the family relationship that Israel has to God (118). Expressed in the father-son relationship, the comparison made is shown through the attitude of God, and the expectations of God, towards the Israelites, and broken down from a national level to a personal level. (122)

As Wright moves through the main portions of his text into section four, the discussion turns to the mission of Jesus, the expectations of the Jews at the time of His ministry, and how His mission is related to the Old Testament. Relying heavily on the book of Isaiah here, Wright identifies Jesus, the Servant, with the Israelites and with the coming restoration of Israel from captivity (158, 161). The argument continues by pointing out the promise and message of God was to first go to the Jews, then to the Gentiles as Paul stated in Romans. Wright concludes this section with a look at the mission of the church as servant, highlighting the historical abuse of servant-hood by the church that it must now overcome (180).

The fifth and final section examines, in depth, the scriptures and values that Jesus pulled from during His earthly ministry. Wright shows how much Jesus relied on the Old Testament, and the Law, from everything to being tested in the wilderness by Satan to His many parables while teaching others. As Wright systematically walks through the teachings of Jesus he again points out the universal message of salvation is to go out in obedience to God, first to the Jewish nation, and then to the Gentiles, while correlating Jesus’ words in the New Testament to that of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. As Wright concludes, he takes a look at Jesus and his use of the book of Psalms and the reign of God. Examples are taken from various Psalms that show reference to Yahweh as king, sitting on the thrown of God, and how God’s rule aligns with human life on earth, even in it’s current form (243).

Interacting with “Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament”

Wright has taken a complex topic, one that is rarely discussed in the evangelical “New Testament” Church of today, and presented a historical and possibly more complete biblical view of Jesus. As is often the case in the 21^st century Church, many fail where Wright has succeeded in conceptualizing a true picture of Jesus portrayed in the Old Testament. Although at times Wright uses large blocks of Old Testament text tied together to describe seemingly less complex conclusions (see 107-116 to conclude Jesus is the Son of God), he provides a valuable resource for the Christian able to consume “solid food” (Hebrews 5:12).[1]

The initial section largely pertaining to the genealogy of Jesus started an important basis for interweaving the life of Christ and the stories of the Old Testament. Something seen as perhaps not stimulating enough for the modern reader, the genealogy is of the utmost importance and provides that direct connection of Jesus to the Old Testament. Wright properly compares and contrasts the less interested Christian, and other concepts he has discovered in areas throughout the Old Testament, as the ‘Caroling Christians’ (8). This premise used to describe our modern day luke-warm Sunday going Christians of our culture today is not only something that Wright brings to light, but he also indirectly charges those current teachers and pastors with the responsibility of connecting Jesus with the Old Testament, and therefore bringing discipleship to the ‘Caroling Christians’, and the Church body.

As Wright moves forward, he often pulls from history and what it offers in teaching and reproof. His look at the inter-testamental period showed how much the Jew of that time depended and relied on scripture (23), later showing that Jesus also relied on the Old Testament text as well, even going as far to point out the obvious, that Jesus didn’t even read the New Testament (ix). The author makes the point to show how utterly deficient the modern, or post-modern, Church is in understanding the importance of the Old Testament text in regards to their own faith. While this is most certainly the case today as countless scholars and pastors have pointed out, Wright could have examined this even closer going beyond the preface of the text, although the completed work is a conclusion to this premise. Jesus did not have the New Testament to use and evaluate His own life, as Wright points out, Jesus answered the questions of His own life by using the text of the Old Testament.[2]

As Wright continues into the heavier sections of the book he does not stop challenging his reader to a higher understanding of the complex issues at hand like the differences between a guaranteed promise and it’s corresponding fulfillment with the predictions made (68). The extended discussion on the covenants, or international treaties as he properly describes them, is so vital to understanding the Old Testament and how it relates to Jesus, that Wright does well in almost placing a mandate on pastors and teachers to examine these topics in greater detail for the benefit of their own students (78-80). Many full-length scholarly reviews have been completed on Wright’s work, most complimenting the ability of Wright to explain a more proper understanding of the relationship between Israel, God, and His Son Jesus, while taking an approach using biblical scholarship rather than systematic theology.[3] Paul Alexander notes that Wright’s work can “help us avoid becoming practical Marcionites” by only preaching the Old Testament as an introduction to the New Testament.[4]

Conclusion

Wright presents the Church with an opportunity to bring the Old Testament back into the fold of Sunday morning worship. Jesus Himself relied on the Old Testament as the authoritative Word of God, which is often put aside in the more modern form of evangelism. Although possibly repetitive at times, Wright’s arguments are presented in a clear and rationale manner and provide a concise correlation between the Jesus of the New Testament and the God of the Old Testament. A thorough examination of this book, and perhaps Wright’s other two books as well, would not only benefit the reader but those people the reader currently leads in faith.

Works Cited

Alexander, Paul. “Book Review: Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament.” IX Marks. September 2008. http://www.9marks.org/books/book-review-knowing-jesus-through-old-testament (accessed June 25, 2010).

Murray, David P. “Jesus never read the New Testament.” The Gospel Coalition. April 21, 2010. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2010/04/21/jesus-never-read-the-new-testament/ (accessed June 25, 2010).

Wright, Christopher J. H. Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

[1] Brian Tubbs, “Jesus and the Old Testament: A Review of Christopher J.H. Wright‟s Book on Jesus in the OT.” Suite101, May 11 2007, http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/jesus_and_the_old_testament (accessed June 25, 2010).

[2] David P. Murray, “Jesus never read the New Testament,” The Gospel Coalition, April 21, 2010, http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2010/04/21/jesus-never-read-the-new-testament/ (accessed June 25, 2010).

[3] Tubbs, 2007.

[4] Paul Alexander, “Book Review: Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament,” IX Marks, September 2008, http://www.9marks.org/books/book-review-knowing-jesus-through-old-testament (accessed June 25, 2010).

Posts Related to This Topic:

The Position and Argument for the Inerrancy of the Bible

Scott Fillmer — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:00:04 +0000

I had to give a working definition of Inerrancy today so I thought I would post an excerpt of the results here as well. If you are just interested in the conclusions just jump to the bottom, if you want the full text there is a pdf download at the bottom as well (or from my writing section). This post is by no means meant to be exhaustive.

Biblical inerrancy is an important part of Christianity, and any theology. Because the Christian faith has firmly rooted its authority in that of the Holy Scriptures, the inerrancy (or infallibility as some refer to it, though the terms are not totally synonymous) of the Bible plays a central role in the authenticity of Christianity and its message. The issue of infallibility has come to be used as an alternate definition from that stated below, meaning more that the Bible was not always factually accurate but that the purpose, meaning, and overall divine nature was accomplished.

Concluding Definition of Biblical Inerrancy

There have been countless theses and dissertations written on the subject of the inerrancy of scripture, so this working post can only serve as the most basic introduction into the material of inerrancy. Erickson in Christian Theology explains inerrancy as…

The Bible, when correctly interpreted in the light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms (see full text Position and Argument on the Inerrancy of the Bible for qualifications).

Why is Biblical Inerrancy Important Today?

There are many reasons why inerrancy is important, especially today, when we live in a pluralistic society that is intent on defining truth as whatever you make it out to be. From a scholarly viewpoint, there are theological, historical, and epistemological reasons for inerrancy.

From a theological point of view, Paul, the disciples, and Jesus among other people, all called on the authority of scripture. Jesus quoted scripture throughout his ministry and took the view that scripture was the inspired work of God. If God inspires the work, and God is all-powerful, all knowing, and completely Holy, He certainly could influence the final canon to be completed accurately. If the Bible was not accurate, our own view of inspiration, among many other theologies that come from the Bible, would not be accurate either. In other words, without inerrancy, much of what we believe in scripture could not be held out as truth either.

Historically, the early church long held to the inerrancy, dependability, and authority of Scripture. History has a way of being testing by time, and to disregard the history of the church would itself be in error. The early church had far fewer questions about the inerrancy of scripture. It was known to them to be true, and fully trustworthy. If we depart from inerrancy, we also must depart from many other doctrines formed by the early church.

An epistemological view would state that some assertions in the Bible are at least potentially independently verifiable. Viewed as a type of domino theory, if one falls, they all fall, if we hold certain propositions taught by the Bible to be true that are not, we cannot continue to hold any of the propositions taught by the Bible to be true.

How Do We View Inerrancy Today

As stated above, this topic is so far reaching, so broad in scope that any of the information above can only be taken as the most basic and brief overview. In our own personal walk in Christianity the inerrancy of the scriptures has to play an important role in what we believe as Christians. If the Bible is the inspired word of God, given to us by divine revelation, we must conclude it is inerrant. If we don’t, all we can do is proceed down a slippery slop of discerning which parts are and which parts are not accurate.

We hold to almost no absolute truths in our culture today. Society no longer allows for absolute truths, they are far too exclusive, far too judgmental. Truths have to be open for debate, flexible, changeable, and able to be managed and manipulated into our own culture and times in a way that benefits our desires and sinful nature.

If the Bible is inspired, and also found to be errant, then we can not conclude that the God of the universe, the God of creation, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Father of Jesus, is inerrant either. That is a simplistic way to make a conclusion, but if we as Christians do not hold the Scriptures as the ultimate inerrant authority, then how can we hold that Christianity is the only way, the truth, and the light.

[For a full version of this essay in pdf please download Position and Argument on the Inerrancy of the Bible]