Rediscovering Jesus, reviewed by Martin Mittelstadt

David B. Capes, Rodney Reeves, and E. Randolph Richards, Rediscovering Jesus: An Introduction to Biblical, Religious and Cultural Perspectives on Christ (Downers Grove: IVP, 2015), 272 pages, ISBN 9780830824724.

When Jesus poses the question, “who do you say that I am?” he receives an array of answers from his disciples (Mark 8:27-28). Today, responses to this inquiry remain legion. Enter David Capes, Rodney Reeves, and E. Randolph Richards (CRR). Finally, they have the answer! In roughly 250 pages, they promise “an introduction to Jesus that guides us [their readers] on our pilgrimage toward seeing Jesus truly” (back cover). CRR title the final chapter of their book “Our Jesus,” their synopsis of the Jesus they hope their readers will (re)discover.

In this review, I offer my own questions. Are the tour guides reliable? Did they guide us well? Are they worth the money? Have they led us to the “true Jesus”? In short, I think so. I find much to appreciate in this work. For the most part, “their Jesus” resonates well with “my Jesus.” And since I am also a tour guide of sorts (I teach New Testament Literature, Gospels, New Testament Theology, Luke-Acts), surely I lead people on a journey to the true Jesus. At the same time, though we share much in common concerning our Jesus, I must address a methodological concern and a few alternate paths.

First, these guides bring solid credentials and experience. Capes, Reeves, and Richards serve as New Testament (NT) professors at their respective institutions (Houston Baptist University, Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, MO, and Palm Beach Atlantic University). They have a solid history of scholarly work in their discipline including an earlier shared work titled Rediscovering Paul[1] and various publications as individual authors. Given their credentials, I turn to the current work.

In part one, the authors walk their readers through the NT and pose Jesus’ question to each NT writer. They begin with Mark, who announces that Jesus is a healer, an exorcist, and miracle worker in a hurry to get to the cross. His Jesus is an average teacher, often difficult to understand, and a bull in a china shop, repeatedly under the skin of the religious leaders. Matthew’s Jesus provides answers to Jewish questions about messianic expectation. His Jesus has an impressive pedigree, speaks with confidence and courage, and offers not only aggressive answers to ongoing questions on Mosaic Law, but fills the role of a new and better Moses. Luke’s Jesus takes his disciples on a long journey of discipleship (compare Mark’s Jesus); the Third Gospel’s Jesus turns the world upside down as a first-century social advocate for the poor, the downtrodden, women, and children all the while preparing his disciples for a similar future ministry. Then there is John’s Jesus. His Jesus produces signs and speaks with clear self-awareness and confidence about his relationship to God.

Capes, Reeves, and Richards turn from the Gospels to the Epistles. In his teaching, Paul describes his Jesus not through story, but by way of occasional letters to churches and delegates. Paul encounters the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus (a story more fully described in Acts) and begins immediate proclamation of Jesus. Paul generally produces prescriptive commentary on theological and praxis-oriented implications related to Jesus’ mission, be it salvation (confession of Jesus), the Lord’s Table (the hospitality of Jesus), or ecclesial concerns (the body of Christ). CRR complete the biblical tour with Hebrews’ Jesus, who receives enthronement as the priest-king; the Petrine Jesus, who models endurance for followers in exile; and the Apocalyptic Jesus, who initiates and will consummate God’s rule as the warrior lamb.

In part two, CRR employ Jesus’ question to refute six contemporary portraits of Jesus not aligned with the biblical Jesus. For the sake of clarity, I would have changed the order of presentation into three categories. I will go with my choice for order.

First, CRR address the academy and the quest(s) for the ever-elusive historical Jesus. CRR rehearse the battle from Schweitzer to the current day and lament the reduction of Jesus to a fine moral teacher stripped of his divinity and supernatural abilities. They also dismiss, not surprisingly, the Gnostic Jesus, a recent challenge – indeed a threat – to their orthodox Jesus.

Second, CRR challenge portraits of Jesus painted by competing religious groups. The authors consider the Muslim Jesus identified in the Koran as an inadequate articulation of the biblical Jesus and the dominant competition to the orthodox Jesus (and Christianity) in the current labyrinth of world religions. The Mormon Jesus serves less as a global threat, but as a sectarian example, possibly significant to the authors due to shifting and tenuous understandings of Mormons in the American Christian marketplace. Mormons seem to be in the midst of an identity crisis with some adherents striving to lead them toward greater political engagement and/or increased evangelicalization. CRR argue that the Mormon Jesus does not pass the orthodoxy test.

Third, the authors rehearse the convoluted history of the various roles played by the American Jesus. They examine the Jeffersonian Jesus, the competing National Rifle Association (NRA) vs. pacifistic Jesus, the feminine vs. masculine Jesus, Jesus CEO, and Jesus the superhero. CRR also review what they deem inferior though sometimes noble attempts to produce a reliable Jesus on the silver screen. CRR conclude that the American and Cinematic Jesuses are at best incomplete and at worst heterodox alongside the biblical Jesus.

When it’s all said and done, CRR reveal their Jesus; if asked, “who do you say that I am,” they answer “You are the Evangelical Jesus, an IVP Jesus” (my words). So how does their Jesus stack up against my Jesus? While I share basic impulses of the Evangelical tradition (though I typically resist that label), I find their biblical Jesus incomplete. Since I am a Lukan tour guide (i.e., Luke-Acts), I was disappointed that their analysis of Luke focuses almost exclusively on the Jesus of the Third Gospel and little on the Jesus of Luke’s second volume. Though the authors recognize the importance of resurrection and ascension for Jesus’ rule in Acts, they give minimal import to Luke’s opening words, which in my opinion is the thesis statement. If the Gospel of Luke introduces what “Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1), Jesus’ life continues in the words and deeds of his first followers and the new people of God. Peter, Barnabas, Stephen, Paul, and others extend Luke’s Spirit-filled paradigmatic Jesus. In the words of Gerard Manley Hopkins, “Christ plays [through Spirit-filled followers] in ten thousand places.”[2] Whether via passages such as Luke 4:18-19 and 7:22-23 on social justice or Luke 12:1-12 and21:12-15 on suffering, the people of God described in Acts continue the life of the Lukan Jesus through their ministry to the downtrodden and their boldness in the midst of trial and opposition. It seems that my Baptist friends might not be as familiar with the Charismatic/Pneumatic Jesus proclaimed by Pentecostals. I wonder what my Mennonite, Quaker, Episcopal, Methodist, and Catholic friends might see from their respective pews.

Concerning part two, particularly the chapters on the American Jesus and Cinematic/Hollywood Jesus, I find myself torn concerning the authors’ contemporary posture. I certainly agree with their assessment of the American Jesus, particularly their critique of a Right-Wing, gun-slinging Terminator Jesus (my paraphrase – hence my nervousness about being called an Evangelical). However, is it really possible for a film producer, writer, pastor, or, for that matter, anyone to discover and present the original and true biblical Jesus? And are biases necessarily wrong? Should we not cherish the diverse artistic and cultural portraits of Jesus? Should we not take pleasure in Handel’s Messiah or Rembrandt’s Return of the Prodigal Son as contributions to our learning of Christ? If so, is it also possible – even desirable – to grow in understanding and experience of “our Jesus” through films such as Gibson’s Passion of the Christ? And what about the use of Christ figures as portrayed in films like Babette’s Feast, Dead Man Walking, and Seven Pounds?[3] Finally, what might we say about multiple Asian or African contexts for the Jesus story? From such contexts, what are we to make of the myriad glocal Jesuses? Are we not all filled with biases, conscious or not, that contribute to our respective portraits of Jesus?

I am not calling the authors to condone an à la carte Jesus. However, I would suggest Luke Timothy Johnson’s Living Jesus as a supplemental volume to the work at hand.[4] Interestingly, this work is a follow-up to Johnson’s Real Jesus, a rebuttal to Jesus Seminar proponents and one with which CRR would find much agreement.[5] In the subsequent work, Johnson argues that a Living Jesus makes all the difference in the world; the living Jesus still speaks. In concert with his Catholic worldview, Johnson writes how we learn Jesus not only through Scripture, but through Tradition, the Saints (including Protestant exemplars), and the little ones (Mark 9:36-37). According to Johnson, the living Jesus speaks to us in a manner not that different than he spoke to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and their respective communities. If, in the words of James Dunn, first-century followers of Jesus recognized that “new situations call forth new confessions,”[6] what has changed? Like the Apostle John, I’m inclined to conclude that “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books [and films] that would be written” (John 21:25 NIV). I remain committed to seeking Jesus through the Scriptures, our traditions, and my fellow believers as well as through music, art, and film. I’m optimistic that contemporary communities of Christ will wrestle with our individual and collective contexts and experience the ever-speaking biblical and true Jesus.[7]

Reviewed by Martin W. Mittelstadt

Notes

[1] David Capes, Rodney Reeves, and E. Randolph Richards, Rediscovering Paul: An Introduction to His World, Letters, and Theology (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2007).

[2] Gerard Manley Hopkins, “As Kingfishers Catch Fire” (http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173654).

[3] Lloyd Baugh, Imaging the Divine: Jesus and Christ-Figures in Film (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1997).

[4] Luke Timothy Johnson, Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospel (New York: Harper Collins, 1999).

[5] Johnson, Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (New York: Harper Collins, 1997).

[6] James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (2d ed., Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1977) 58.

[7] I first produced this review for presentation at the Greater Springfield (MO) Bible Conference on Oct 6, 2015. Rodney Reeves was the respondent.

Publisher’s page: http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=2472