Introduction

Both the Gospel Beyond Belief and the standard evangelical story base themselves on scripture.  The differences of course are due to how scripture is interpreted.  The issue is as I see it the difference between two overall story lines (the forest as opposed to the trees).  It is like the picture that can be seen either as a young woman or as an old hag—the picture itself does not change, it is how we look at it.  Likewise, both stories use the same Bible but come up with totally different ‘pictures’.  It is my hope that if you are currently seeing the “old hag” your reading with be transformed to see the young woman.  But on second thought, since my reading is the older and wiser one, perhaps it is better to see the old, wise woman as opposed to the superficial and vain young woman! 

The differences between the two stories can be seen graphically as follows:

In a nut-shell the basic difference between the two stories involves how Jesus atones for our sins; what is the mechanism for atonement?  One story claims that the mechanism is Jesus’ obedience, the other story says it is Jesus’ animal-like sacrifice.  Ultimately, the difference between the two stories involves the bedrock metaphor used to interpret and make sense of God and his dealings with humanity.  One story sees a give-and-take relationship between God and humanity in which humanity is to have a godly dominion over a renewed earth, the other story sees a Law court where God is judge and humans are vindicated, which means they get into heaven, because of what Jesus does on the cross.      

The Standard Evangelical Story and its Problems

The standard evangelical story I wish to counter can be briefly stated:  Adam and Eve sinned thereby dooming all individuals to a state of guilt before God.  The Old Testament showed that the path out of guilt could not be found in good works (obeying the law) because no one can keep the law perfectly, nor could it be found in the imperfect sacrificial system.  However, the perfect Jesus came to die for our sins in much the same way as animals were sacrificed for sins in the Old Testament.  The only way to be acquitted before God the judge and therefore get into Heaven is to believe in Jesus, and by ‘believe’ we are meant to discount works—it is Jesus’ righteousness that is imputed to the believer as a legal fiction.

It is my contention that once one accepts this basic story line, one is doomed to get Christianity wrong.  This in turn has led to the moral bankruptcy of large portions of the evangelical church.  The emphasis of the standard story is individualistic (how can I get into Heaven) and ignores the wider purposes that God has for humanity.  Here are some of the problems with the standard evangelical story:

1)      We are left with little reason for why Jesus had to rise from the dead, for sacrificial animals did not rise from the dead.  However, Paul says that without the resurrection our faith is futile and we are still in our sins (1 Cor. 15:17).  Perhaps the marginalization of the need of resurrection for salvation in evangelical thought is due to the simple reason that resurrection itself is largely superfluous to the after-life beliefs of many evangelicals.  My guess is that many evangelicals simply believe that when a person dies the soul “goes to heaven,” with bodily resurrection playing no essential role.  I believe this common misconception goes against the witness of scripture, and further hampers the standard evangelical story.  I would also point out that the misguided belief in the rapture as commonly envisioned by many evangelicals is the result of not only misinterpreting 1 Thessalonians 4:17, but is based on the belief that eternity is spent up in heaven as opposed to, what I claim is the Biblical view, a resurrected body on a renewed earth (see the appendix:  A Refutation of “Rapture”).

2)      Sins seem to be forgivable without animal sacrifice.

(a)    John the Baptist preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mk. 1:4) with no mention of animal sacrifice.

(b)   Jesus forgives the sins of a paralytic (Mk. 2:1-12) with no mention of an accompanying  sacrifice.

(c)    Sins on the Day of Atonement are transferred to a scapegoat which is released into the wilderness with no mention of death let alone of bloodshed (Lev. 16:10).  Paul may have this ritual in mind when he describes Jesus as being made sin (2 Cor. 5:21) and becoming a curse (Gal. 3:13).

3)      Animal sacrifice seems not to be a sufficient condition for forgiveness.

(a)    Faith is necessary: Mt. 9:2-6

(b)   Repentance is necessary: Mk. 4:12; Lk. 17:3-4; Acts 8:22; Jas. 5:13-16

(c)    Forgiveness of others is necessary: Mt 6:14-15; 18:23-35

4)      Some Old Testament texts, one of which (Hos. 6:6) Jesus explicitly quotes (Mt. 9:13, 12:7), another of which (Ps. 40:6-8) is attributed to Jesus’ teaching (Heb. 10:5-7), point to the relative importance of obedience over against animal sacrifice.  (See also Ps. 50; Isa. 1:10-13; Jer. 7:21-24; 1 Sam. 15:22.)  It would therefore be odd if the mechanism of salvation in Christianity was a rite of which the prophets and Jesus downgraded in relation to obedience.

5)      Issues concerning Old Testament sacrifice which do not match well with Jesus’ death seen as an animal-like sacrifice:

(a)    Some have disputed the term “sin offering” (tafj) and prefer “purification offering” which was not for sin in general but for unintentional sin, that is, those not committed with a “high hand” (Num. 15:30-31).  The distinction between unintentional and intentional sins is followed in Hebrews 10:26.  When Paul does view Jesus’ death as a sacrifice for sins in Romans 8:3—and even here there may be an element of the scapegoat ritual—he probably has in mind the unintentional sins of Romans 7:13-20, which I will argue concerns a Jew under the law.  However, the standard evangelical story views Jesus’ death as covering all sins and not just the unintentional.

(b)   The sacrificial animal remains holy.  The “sin offering” and the guilt/reparation offering (.va) are both holy (Lev. 6:25; 7:1) and are to be eaten in a holy place (Lev. 6:26; 7:6).  However, as noted above, Paul says Jesus was made sin and became a curse.

(c)    In the New Testament—and in Isaiah for that matter—Jesus’ death is said to be accompanied by suffering, but there is no mention of sacrificial animals suffering.

6)      If Jesus’ blood on the cross dealt with all sin, then we are left wondering why faith/belief in needed to accomplish salvation.  In other words, why is not everyone saved since the lack of faith is a sin that Jesus’ blood ought to cover?  Why is confidence in our faith any less an act of hubris than our confidence in our work?  Consider the following equation:

Jesus’ blood on the cross + human belief = Salvation

But evangelicals are almost forced to accept the following equation:

Jesus’ blood on the cross = Salvation

Evangelicals simply cannot justify why the addition of human belief adds to Jesus’ blood.

7)      Once salvation is seen to be accomplished totally by the blood of Jesus, then there is little rationale for the New Testament to say that we ought to take up our cross and follow Jesus, since our “deaths” do not have any atoning significance.  Furthermore, the standard story produces a passive Christianity and this is seen by the standard story’s usual insistence that Jesus’ righteousness in imputed as a legal fiction. 

8)      It is not often noticed that “to die for” something does not necessarily mean animal-like sacrifice.  Rather, a death can also be seen as an act of martyrdom.  When a soldier dies for his/her country, there is no reason to assume that his/her sacrifice is an animal-like sacrifice. Likewise,  Jesus can die for sins without assuming that his death is an animal-like sacrifice.  I claim that when the New Testament does liken Jesus’ death to an animal-like sacrifice, it is only doing so by analogy or metaphorically.  Jesus’ death on the cross involved blood and is related to sin; an animal sacrifice involved blood and was related to sins, but this does not mean that Jesus’ death was an animal-like sacrifice.  Likewise, scripture talks about the “eyes of the Lord”, but it would be wrong to go on to wonder about the color of the eyes.  Scripture can liken Jesus to an animal-like sacrifice, but it would be wrong to go on and talk about the (magical) influence of that blood.  For example, I am unaware that anyone literally gathered Jesus’ blood to sprinkle it. 

9)      The standard evangelical story cannot make sense of Jesus’ life and teachings.  If Jesus only came to die for sins as an animal-like sacrifice, then why did he heal, teach about the kingdom of God, exorcize demons, etc.?

10)   The standard evangelical story, with its emphasis on the sacrifice of Jesus, ends up with a defective model for the relationship between God and humanity, which bleeds over to affect the model of human-human relationships.  Self-sacrifice becomes the root model of relationship, whereas the Biblical model is that of covenant, with its emphasis on mutual give-and-take.  This is why the mantra of the standard evangelical story is “grace”, and why it discounts human achievement.  I challenge the reader to perform a small experiment:  Google “Ephesians 2:8-9” and then “Ephesians 2:8-10” and compare the numbers.  It’s all in how the story is told!

11)   The Holy Spirit drops out of the picture.  Since sanctification is not necessary for salvation, the Holy Spirit plays almost no role in the Standard Evangelical Story.    

The Gospel Beyond Belief and its Advantages

The story of Christianity I wish to defend can be summarized as follows.  God’s relationship with humanity is usually within the terms of a covenant or covenant-like understanding—hence the term “testament” (= covenant) to sum up the Bible (God’s dealings with humanity).  The problem is that humans fail to fulfill their part of the covenant.  God’s plan for humanity is to have dominion (Gen. 1:26)—hence the English word “kingdom,” which is so important to our story.  However, both Adam and later Israel failed to be the agent for a godly dominion due to disobedience.  Jesus, and the new Israel incorporated with him (the church), is the new Adam/Israel who is the agent of a godly dominion due to obedience.  The key to the gospel is Jesus’ obedience which culminated in death on a cross and his resurrection. Talk of Jesus’ blood is really by way of metonymy talk of Jesus’ obedience unto death.  Jesus died for our sins in the sense that he took on the punishment for our sins and by resurrecting defeated the consequences of sin, the curse of death.  One becomes a disciple of Jesus, that is, one becomes saved, by following his example of obedience to God’s will.  You either enter into a give-and-take relationship with God or you do not (relationship wins over religion).  You either have co-dominion with Jesus or you do not.  You either follow Jesus’ example of service to God and others or you do not.  You either partake in the fruit of the Spirit, which is the promised New Covenant gift, or you do not.  (One could even say that the Spirit is given precisely to foster obedience.)  Here are some of the advantages of the Gospel Beyond Belief:

1)      We can better make sense of Jesus’ aims and mission in terms of obedience as an agent of dominion.  Major New Testament Christological concepts such as Son of God, Messiah, King of Israel, and Son of Man fit nicely into the model that underlies the Gospel Beyond Belief.

2)      Once obedience is the mechanism of salvation, then we can underwrite the obedience of disciples.  We can ‘take up our cross’, which we are commanded to do, because the cross represents obedience and not animal-like sacrifice.  Once the bedrock of Christianity is relationship with God, there is no danger to have recourse to the doctrine of imputation in which there is no real change (sanctification).  If you are in a true relationship with God, you will do what he says, there is no legal fiction to get around that—it is what “being in relationship” is about.

3)      The writings of Paul make better sense and cohere better with the teachings of Jesus.  Paul is not the founder of Christianity as it has become fashionable to allege even if his misinterpretation has led to a pseudo-Christianity.  I once asked a noted New Testament scholar, Dr. Robert H. Stein, what he thought was the biggest weakness of evangelical theology.  He pointed to the faith/works dichotomy and how that was misunderstood.  I agree, it is not surprising that a scholar so steeped in the teachings of Jesus would say this, and the problem is due I claim to a misinterpretation of Paul.

4)      Paul uses sacrificial language to describe the obedience of Christians (see Rom. 6:19, 20; 12:1-2; 15:15-16, 18-19), which is very strong evidence that he can refer to Jesus’ obedience in terms of cultic language.

5)      The Gospel Beyond Belief is perhaps less prone to fostering anti-Semitism by not treating Judaism as a religion of works.  It may be an historical fact that the Gospel Beyond Belief has grown in the soil watered by the re-evaluation of Judaism that has come about in light of the Holocaust.

6)      We end up with a better model of relationship, based on a covenantal give-and-take and not solely on a one-sided self-sacrifice.  If Jesus did it all, then we are left with nothing; and ‘nothing’ includes faith.

7)      With its emphasis on the Resurrection, the Gospel Beyond Belief has the apologetic advantage of pinpointing a deep human need and that is to live forever.  Everyone dies and everyone knows it.  However, many people are not persuaded that they need forgiveness, so Christianity often speaks past people where they are at.  I would personally go even further and claim that the one great Christian advantage is minimized by Christians who are not annihilationists because I think many take comfort in life after death even if it is lived in (their version of) hell.  I believe the Biblical witness for annihilation is very strong on other grounds than apologetics (see Appendix Annihilation).

8)      We offer a more Biblical eschatology.  Since redemption involves a new earth, salvation goes beyond the human predicament.  Humanity is to have dominion over earth and not to be destined to an up-there “Heaven”.   

The differences between this story and the standard evangelical story can be nicely witnessed in how a particular genitive phrase is interpreted.  The genitive in question appears seven times in various forms in Paul’s writings, all in Galatians, Philippians and Romans, not coincidentally the ones on which I offer commentaries:

                pistiV Ihsou Cristou (Rom. 3:22; Gal. 3:22)

                pistiV Ihsou (Rom. 3:26)

                 pistiV Cristou Ihsou (Gal. 2:16)

                pistiV Cristou (Gal. 2:16, Phil. 3:9)

                pistiV tou uiou tou Qeou (Gal. 2:20)

The standard evangelical story interprets this phrase as an objective genitive, namely, it is referring to our faith in Jesus.  The Gospel Beyond Belief interprets this phrase as a subjective genitive, it is about the faithfulness of Jesus.  It is not about our belief, but about Jesus’ obedience.

The story I am about to tell is not only assumed in the Bible, but historical arguments can also be given.  Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho (c. 120 AD) states the “Christ became a man by a virgin to overcome the disobedience caused by the serpent… in the same way it had originated.”  Irenaeus too tells the same story (see his Against Heresies).  It would be odd if the early church writers told a different story from the one I claim is embedded in the Bible.

I should say right now that the Gospel Beyond Belief has been articulated by many others.  Krister Stendahl, E.P. Sanders, N.T. Wright, James D.G. Dunn, Morna Hooker, Richard N. Longenecker, Richard B. Hays, Stanley Stowers, Scot McKnight, and many others have helped us better interpret the sacred writings of Christianity.

Old Testament Primer: the Roots of the Gospel Beyond Belief

First of all it is worth pointing out that the whole primary history of Israel (Genesis through 2 Kings, minus Ruth, which was not originally part of the sequence) can be seen as a progression to exile due to disobedience.  The exile theme is already evident in Genesis when Adam is cursed with exile from the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:24) and Cain is cursed with exile from the soil (Gen. 4:14), both on account of disobedience.  At the end of 2 Kings Israel is of course exiled due to her disobedience.  The beginning of Genesis and the end of 2 Kings form an inclusion which highlights the theme of disobedience.

That the concept of a new Adam exists in the Old Testament is very clear in the character of Noah.  The story of Noah is replete with echoes from the story of creation.  In Genesis 9:6, we are reminded that man (adam = .da) is made in the image of God.  In Genesis 8:17 and 9:1, the phrase “be fruitful and multiply” echoes the creation account.  Some versions of the Septuagint (LXX—the Greek translation of the Old Testament) have “hold sway” instead of “multiply”, which would echo the concept of dominion.  The anti-creation of Genesis 7:11 also echoes the creation account.  Some have even seen in the three divisions of the ark (Gen. 6:16), the three divisions of creation: heavens, seas and earth.  What should be emphasized here is that the destruction follows disobedience, especially the story of the Nephilim (Gen. 6:1-4).  It should also be noted that the genealogy in Genesis 5 (note the language of 5:1-2) links Adam to Noah, and separates the creation story from the flood story.  In the same way, the genealogy of chapter 11 separates the flood story from Abraham (the father of the new Adam).  Both genealogies end with a man who begets a triad (Noah → Shem, Ham, Japheth; Terah → Abram, Nahor, Haran).  Importantly, it is emphasized throughout that Noah is righteous (Gen. 6:9) and that he obeyed God’s commands (Gen. 6:22; 7:5, 9, 16).  The lesson is that salvation follows obedience.

Israel herself is to be the new Adam, God’s true humanity, God’s son (Hos. 11:1) who would offer the obedience Adam did not.  This can be seen from the structure of Genesis itself.  The ‘curse’ theme which dominates Genesis 1-11 is replaced with blessings with the advent of Abraham in chapter 12.  It can also be seen in the promises given to Abraham (see 12:2f; 17:2, 6, 8, note the emphasis on obedience in verses 1 and 9; 22:16ff, note the emphasis on obedience in verse 18), Isaac (see 26:3ff, note reference to Abraham’s obedience in verse 5; 26:24), and Jacob (see 28:3; 35:11f; 48:3f; see also 47:27), which mirror the command given to Adam in Genesis 1:28.  See also the parallel between Sarah, who took Hagar and gave her to Abraham (Gen. 16:3) and Eve, who took the fruit and gave it to Adam (Gen. 3:6).  See also the parallel between Genesis 3:13 and 12:18.  The land of Canaan is the new Eden and Israel’s obedience will mean blessing for the entire world (see also Romans 11).

David is also considered a new Adam.  In two of the passages that I claimed showed the patriarchs to be a new Adam, also hint that David is a new Adam.  In both Genesis 17 and 35, besides the promise of fruitfulness it is promised that kings will spring from Abraham and Jacob respectively.  These kings are no doubt David and his lineage.  Add to this that both Israel and David are called “Sons of God” (see Ex. 4:22; Hos. 11:1; 2 Sam. 7:14 and Ps. 2:7).

Another key link between Adam and David is Psalm 8 (a psalm of David).  There we read (verse 5):

                What is man (vwna), that you are mindful of him,

                The son of man (.da ,b = ben adam), that you take note of him.

In the next verse (6), we read that the son of adam is given dominion over God’s works.  A strong case could be made that the Psalm here is referring to David.

Another set of links are found in 1 Samuel.  Before David is anointed and filled with the Spirit of the Lord (1 Sam. 16:13, compare Adam being filled with the Spirit in Gen. 2:7), he is designated as ‘ruddy’ which in Hebrew is ynwmda (adamoni), a word sharing the root as ‘Adam’ (1 Sam. 17:43).

A fainter echo involves David and Goliath.  David tells Saul that when he was a shepherd he would strike down lions and bears to protect the sheep.  This echoes the dominion of Adam over the animals (Gen. 1:26).  In addition, Goliath ironically says to David, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks” (1 Sam. 17:43).  This theme of Israel ruling over the Gentiles personified as animals will be repeated in Daniel and echoes Adam’s dominion.  The importance of the Daniel passage will be discussed below.

It is also interesting to note that the Temple/Zion/Jerusalem, of which is intimately tied to David and his line, is often described using the language of primordial creation (see for example Rev. 22).  One of the four rivers which flow from Eden shares that name of the spring of the City of David where Solomon was anointed king (Gihon:  see Gen. 2:13 and 1 Kgs. 1:33).

What is significant about David is that God replaces Saul, who lost his position due to disobedience, with David, a man after his own heart (1 Sam. 13:13-14).  The Psalms are replete with examples of David’s righteousness (see for example Ps. 18:20-27).

Another important reference to Israel as the new Adam occurs in Daniel 7.  The one like a son of man in Daniel 7:13 represents Israel (“the holy ones of the Most High”, verse 18).  A very strong case can be made that  this ‘son of man’ is the new Adam.  Two factors lead us to this conclusion.

1)      The term ‘son of man’ itself in Daniel 7:13 is Aramaic.  However, the Hebrew equivalent is ben adam and this equivalent (or just adam) is used elsewhere in Daniel (8:16, 17; 10:16, 18).

2)      The context of Daniel 7 echoes Genesis 1.  The son of man is given dominion (7:14) and is among the beasts which echo the animals in Genesis 1:28.  The book of Daniel is harkening back to paradise to describe the new creation where Israel as the new Adam will have dominion over the world.  It is no accident that both Psalm 8 and Daniel 7 will play such an important role in the New Testament.  Jesus is the new Adam/Israel and it is this fact that most likely informed Jesus in his use of the title ‘son of man’.

Finally, because of their special importance to Christianity, it is not surprising that the prophets of exile (Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel) promise new covenant/life after exile using the language that harkens back to the Adamic paradise.  This era will be characterized by obedience (“new heart”).

The story-line of the Old Testament points to a new Adam who will offer God the obedience that is required to pull-off a godly dominion.  Jesus is just such a man.  I should say that when I claim Jesus is the new Israel, I do not mean that Jesus and the Church has replaced the Old Israel.  Jesus is a Jew and God's program with Israel of blessing the world through Israel not only includes Jesus+Church but Jesus+Church+all Israel (See Romans 9-11).

 Gospel Primer:  Further Backing of the Gospel Beyond Belief

Introduction

I will now review the four gospels in order to substantiate the Gospel Beyond Belief story-line.  Therefore, I will concentrate on the theme of Jesus’ obedience.  More specifically, I will concentrate on how the gospels view Jesus as the new Adam/Israel whose obedience is the key to a godly dominion.  It should be said right away that ‘son of God’ itself implies obedience since one the characteristics of a son, at least in this era, is to obey his father.  Jesus echoes this theme in his teachings (see Mt. 5:45, 18:3; Mt. 19:13-15/Mk. 10:13-16/Lk. 18:15-17; Jn. 8:39-47).  Most evangelicals view this title just in terms of its genealogical dimension and totally ignore it functional dimension.

First, I want to briefly state how weak the record in the Gospels is for the standard evangelical story.  It is revealing that there are only two verses in the whole of Mark that could be marshaled as evidence for the standard evangelical story.  Both Mark 10:45 and 14:24 are seen to allude to Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and it is in Isaiah 53:10 where mention is made of a ‘sin-offering’ (this is how the KJV translated this but “guilt offering” is better, so the NIV).  However, there are serious problems with the use of these two verses as support for the standard evangelical story.

The first complication that the standard evangelical story faces is the word for ‘sin-offering’ here (Hebrew = .va) does not necessarily refer to animal sacrifice for the word is used elsewhere in the Old Testament in contexts not involving animal sacrifice (see Gen. 26:10 and 1 Sam. 6:3-4, 8, 17).  Most likely, Isaiah follows this non-animal sacrifice usage.  Anyway, it is not clear that sacrificial language pervades the text in question: (1) it is disputed that Isaiah 52:15 refers to “sprinkle”, for the NRSV has “startle”, and even if it meant sprinkle, the actor in question would be a priest and not the sacrificial animal, (2) if 53:4, 11, 12 refer to sacrifice, they could very well refer to the scapegoat ritual, which did not involve blood and death, (3) the lamb led to the slaughter in 53:7 serves only to illustrate the silence of the servant, as does the description of a sheep before the shearers, which is not about sacrifice.

The second complication is that it is not entirely clear that the servant in Isaiah 53 has to be a single individual, for it could refer to both Israel (or some subset thereof) and Jesus.  This would of course be one more argument that Jesus represents the new Israel.  No one would want to claim that a collective is an animal-like sacrifice, so if the servant could be a collective (even if it could also refer to Jesus) we would have evidence that the word for ‘sin offering’ does not mean animal sacrifice in any non-metaphorical sense.  The case that the servant is a collective hinges on the fact that the surrounding references to the servant in Isaiah are explicitly or implicitly identified with Israel (41:8; 42:1 [LXX]; 44:1-2; 44:21; 45:4; 48:20).  This is not a knock-down because there are passages which seem to distinguish the servant from Israel (49:5-6, 8; 42:3, 6) and one in the section under discussion (53:8).  However, Daniel 11:33-35 and 12:3 may allude to Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and in Daniel the analogue to the servant is a collective (Isa. 53:11 = Dan. 12:3).

With that said, it should not be forgotten that the word used in Mark 10:45 is “ransom” and not “sin offering.”  A ransom is not the same thing as an animal(-like) sacrifice; a ransom usually involves a payment to buy back slaves.  This would indicate that if there was a reference back to Isaiah 53:10 and if that referred to animal sacrifice (but again, there may be an element of the scapegoat ritual here as well), then there is only a metaphorical use of “sin offering,” otherwise we would have expected “sin offering” and not “ransom.” 

The other Markan verse (14:24) which mentions Jesus' blood has more to do with either the establishment of a covenant (see Ex. 24:1-8; Jer. 31:31; Zech. 9:11) or the passover Lamb whose blood protects from God's wrath (Ex. 12) than with the forgiveness of sins.  Mark 14:24 is said at the Last Supper and if that was a Passover meal, then the allusion to blood could naturally pertain to the Passover sacrifice which was not seen as a sacrifice of atonement.  On the other hand, if the blood/wine pertains to the new covenant, then it is not clear from Exodus 24:8, for example, that the covenant sacrifice had to do with the forgiveness of sins, since forgiveness is not mentioned.  In fact, the ceremony is immediately preceded by a promise of obedience (Ex. 24:7)!  Furthermore, that sacrifice is in terms of the burnt and peace offerings (Ex. 24:5), which are not as tied to forgiveness as the sin/purification offering or the guilt/reparations offering. 

Only Matthew reports that Jesus added “for the forgiveness of sins” (not reported in Lk. 22:20 or by Paul in 1 Cor. 11:25), but this need only mean that the covenant itself involves forgiveness of sins not that that the forgiveness is brought about by an animal-like sacrifice used to inaugurate the covenant.  The same reasoning can apply to Hebrews 9:20-22.  The covenant is established by the death of an animal (Heb. 9:17, note that blood is only the by-product).  The covenant itself involves forgiveness of sins and via verbal analogy the author of Hebrews invokes other sacrifices to show the link between blood and forgiveness (Day of Atonement ritual in Lev. 16 and/or the red heifer ceremony of Num. 19).

Matthew

Matthew definitely sees Jesus as the new and true Israel.  He begins his gospel with a genealogy (the phrase bibloV genesewV in Mt. 1:1 echoes Gen. 2:4 and 5:1) that begins with Abraham, the patriarch of Israel.  The whole of the genealogy points to Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish salvation history.  Matthew divides the genealogy into segments (Abraham—David; David—exile; exile—Jesus).  I do not think it is a coincidence that both Abraham and David were prime examples in my catalogue of new Adams in the Old Testament.  Also, exile is a very important reminder of Israel’s overall disobedience of which Jesus is the counterpoint (see Mt. 1:21, the salvation from exile entails ‘forgiveness of sins’).  Matthew’s views concerning Israel’s overall disobedience can be seen in the programmatic statements of John the Baptist and Jesus to repent (Mt. 3:2 and 4:17 respectively).  Simply being Abraham’s ancestor is no guarantee of escape from the consequences of disobedience (Mt. 3:7-10, this is very similar to Paul’s message).  Jesus later chastises ‘this generation’ for not repenting (Mt. 12:41).

Jesus re-enacts key moments in Israel’s history.  He is taken to Egypt and returns after his exodus (Mt. 2:14-15, Hos. 11:1 is quoted which refers to Israel as God’s son).  He passes through water (Mt. 3:13-17), is tested in the wilderness (Mt. 4:1-17), forms a new Israel (Mt. 4:18-22, see also 10:6 and 15:24), gives a law from a mountain (chapters 5-7) etc. 

The obedience of Jesus is highlighted in the temptation account.  This account is immediately preceded by the baptism/theophany.  The baptism itself is prefaced with a dialogue between John the Baptist and Jesus.  Jesus rebuffs John’s protest by claiming that he and John must fulfill all righteousness (dikaiosunhn, Mt. 3:15).  I take this to mean that Jesus is identifying with Israel in her disobedience by getting baptized in order to fulfill God’s plan.

Jesus’ obedience to God’s righteousness for Israel is confirmed in the theophany, where the voice from heaven indentifies Jesus (3:17):

                “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.”

This verse echoes scripture (Ps. 2:7 and Isa. 42:1).  Sonship and servanthood, which is the context of Isaiah 42:1, both have to do with obedience and with Israel and it is this obedience which will be tested in the wilderness.

The testing in the wilderness is meant to show that Jesus was obedient where Israel was disobedient.  The devil tempts Jesus to use his position for personal gain (Mt. 4:3).  Jesus replies that one lives by obeying God (Mt. 4:4, quoting Deut. 8:3).  Satan then tempts Jesus reliance on trust in God (Mt. 4:5-6).  Jesus replies that trusting God is obedient trusting, one does not place claims on God (Mt. 4:7, quoting Deut. 6:16).  Finally, Jesus is tempted to abandon’s God’s hard way with an easy way to dominion at the cost of worshipping Satan (Mt. 4:8-9).  Jesus replies that one is only obedient to God (Mt. 4:10, quoting Deut. 6:13).  Jesus will also be similarly tempted while on the cross (27:39-43). 

The importance of obedience to God is also prominent in Jesus’ teaching.  For example, he defines relationship to him in terms of obedience to God (Mt. 12:50).  Also, that Jesus can expect his disciples to follow his obedient course is crucial evidence for the claim that his mission is primarily understood in terms of obedience.  When I discuss Mark, I will point out that Jesus predicts his suffering, death and resurrection three times and that each time these predictions are tied to the obedience of the disciples.  Matthew ties two of his three predictions to the disciples’ obedience.  This would be odd if Jesus’ mission was seen primarily in terms of animal-like sacrifice.

The first prediction of Jesus (Mt. 16:21) is followed by a call to discipleship that involves taking up the cross (Mt. 16:24, see also 10:38).  The third prediction (Mt. 20:17-19) is followed by James and John seeking honor only to be challenged by Jesus to drink the cup that he is to drink (Mt. 20:20-23).  Jesus goes on to talk of servanthood (obedience) and provides himself as an example (Mt. 20:24-28).  It is in this context that Jesus says that he came to give his life a ransom for many (Mt. 20:28, see the discussion on Mark for the importance of this).

Another scene that highlights Jesus’ obedience is the account at Gethsemane (Mt. 26:36-56).  The scene shows that Jesus is willing to obey God (compare 26:42 with 6:10).  Jesus’ obedience is contrasted with the disciples’ disobedience, including Peter’s, whose threefold denial matches Jesus’ threefold prayer.  This is especially poignant given that Peter claimed to be willing to die with Jesus (26:35).  Jesus alludes to the temptation event not only by mentioning “temptation” (Mt. 26:41, which he applies to the disciples!), but by reviewing one of his temptations when he reminds those who came to arrest him that he has the power to call on angels but does not because of his willingness to obey God (Mt. 26:54).

Mark

The death of Jesus is prominent in Mark.  Mark is even clearer than Matthew in tying together the suffering/death of Jesus to those before (John the Baptist) and those after (disciples).  This would indicate that for Mark, the primary significance of Jesus’ death is related to obedience.

Mark gives us clues that Jesus will suffer the same fate as John the Baptist.  When Jesus is arrested, Mark uses the word paradoqhna (Mk. 1:14), which is used in two of Mark’s three prediction of Jesus’ suffering/death/resurrection.  Mark usually focuses on Jesus, but he does tell us about the death of John the Baptist in much detail (Mk. 6:17-29).  The reason is that John the Baptist is a forerunner of Jesus in more ways than one.  Significantly, Mark tells us that John the Baptist was a righteous and holy man (Mk. 6:20).  It is not a stretch to assume that John the Baptist died being obedient to God.  Mark hints that the reason for John the Baptist’s death had to do with his standing up for the law (Mk. 6:18).  Likewise, unmasking disobedience was a contributing factor in Jesus’ death (see Mk. 11:18 and 12:12).

Mark follows each of his three predictions of Jesus’ suffering/death/resurrection with talk of the cost of discipleship:

1.       Mark 8:31 → Mark 8:34-38 “take up cross and follow”

2.       Mark 9:31 → Mark 9:35 servanthood

3.       Mark 10:33-34 → Mark 10:38 drink cup; baptized with Jesus’ baptism

As with Matthew, it is in this context that Mark writes: “the son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45, see my earlier discussion of this verse).  The context makes it extremely likely that Jesus is here speaking of his obedience.

Mark’s depiction of the temptation is considerably shorter than Matthew’s, but a good case can be made that it means to echo Adam in Genesis.  There is an intrinsic likelihood in that it was Adam (and Eve) who was famously tempted by Satan.  The heart of the account is (Mk. 1:13):

                And he was in the wilderness forty days,

                                being tempted by Satan,

                And he was among the wild beasts,

                                and the angels were ministering to him.

One issue is whether the line about the wild beasts echoes paradise in Genesis (2:19-20), where there is no enmity between humanity and animals (see also Isa. 11:6-9 and Hos. 2:18).  This would depend on whether the animals are hostile (on par with the temptation by Satan) or not (on par with ministering angels).  Mark may have been influenced in how he tells this story by some non-Biblical writings (Life of Adam and Eve and b.Sanh.59b) which share similarities with Mark’s temptation account in the midst of their account of Adam.  However, an Adam allusion would make perfect sense given the theme of new creation as it appears in Isaiah in Mark’s first chapter:

                1:3 → Isa. 40:3 (quoted)

                1:4 → Isa. 43:25; 44:22 (forgiveness)

                1:4, 12 → Isa. 40:3; 43:19; 48:20-21 (wilderness)

                1:4 (proclaiming…forgiveness) → Isa. 61:1 (proclaiming…liberty/release)

                1:10-11 → Isa. 63:11-64:1; 11:1-2; 42:1 (spirit, heavens open)

                1:14-15 → Isa. 40:9-10; 52:7; 61:1-15 (good news)

Now, it would make perfect sense to add:

                1:13 → Isa. 11:6-9; 65:25 (animals at peace).

Also, elsewhere in Mark the language of verse 13 (hn meta twn qhriwn = he was among wild beasts) is used for non-hostile relations (3:14; 5:18; 14:67).  Be that as it may, the reader/hearer is meant to come away believing that Jesus was obedient.

Mark’s account of Gethsemane and the “temptations” at the cross are basically the same as Matthew’s, so see discussions there.

Luke

Luke’s account of Jesus’ temptation is probably meant to allude to Adam.  It is often remarked that Luke inserts his genealogy immediately before his account of the temptation for a reason.  Luke traces Jesus back not just to Abraham, as does Matthew, but to Adam, “the son of God”.  Luke begins with Jesus and ends with Adam, probably for emphasis—to tie Jesus, the true son of God, to Adam.  The truth of his sonship is proven by his obedience of which the temptations are to test.

Luke, as with Matthew and Mark, has three predictions of Jesus’ suffering/death/resurrection.  He also ties Jesus’ fate with those of his disciples.  He even reports Jesus saying the disciples must take up their cross daily to follow (Lk. 9:23, see also 14:27).

In Luke, Jesus sandwiches the events in Gethsemane with a recommendation to the disciples to pray that they may not come into the time of trial/temptation/testing (Lk. 22:40, 46).  Luke here alludes to Jesus’ temptation but it is also applied to the disciples.  The ministering angels which appear in Matthew’s (Mt. 4:11) and Mark’s (Mk. 1:13) temptation account also appear here (Lk. 22:43-44), which adds to the temptation flavor of the scene.  The whole scene shows that Jesus is obedient and wants his disciples to be obedient.

We could also add the curious similarities between Jesus in Luke and Paul in Acts.  Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem, which marks a turning point in Luke’s gospel (Lk. 9:51, notice the goal is Jesus ascension and not his crucifixion), mirrors Paul’s journey to Jerusalem (Acts 20:22-23).  They both enter the temple (Lk. 19:45-48, Acts 21:26).  They both are captured (Lk. 22:54, Acts 21:30).  They both have trials where they are declared innocent and are both vindicated (Lk. 24, Acts 27:1-28:10).  Of special interest is the implication of Paul’s righteous obedience.  This is evidence that Luke wanted to highlight the providence that paired the missions of Jesus and Paul.  If this is so, then Jesus’ mission cannot be seen to be entirely different from that of Paul’s.  I claim that what unites their missions is obedience and their vindications.

Another Lukan emphasis is how he summarizes Jesus’ mission:

1.       Luke 24:26 “…was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?”

2.       Luke 24:46 “It has been written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day.”

3.       Luke 26:23 “…that the Messiah must suffer, and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light back to our people and to the gentiles.

4.       Acts 4:33 “With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.” [Note that this verse summarizes much of the preaching in Acts, which definitely highlights the resurrection—see also 2:24; 3:26; 4:1; 17:31; 23:6; 24:21; 25:19 etc.] 

As with the prominent passion prediction—which are in Luke too (Lk. 9:22; 9:44, 18:31-33), the focus of the summaries are on the sufferings of Jesus and his resurrection, both aspects of which do not fit well the model of animal sacrifice.  This is further developed in the parable of the pounds (Lk. 19:11-27), where the focus appears to be on Jesus’ ascension to get dominion with no mention of sacrifice for sins.  Note too, how the parable of the vineyard (Lk. 20:9-19), which does allude to Jesus’ death, does not mention sacrifice for sins.

John

John is very different from the synoptics, but the theme of Jesus’ obedience is very prominent.  It is not surprising then when in the Johanine book of Revelation we are told that Jesus is faithful (pistoV)—coupled with “witness” in 1:5 and 3:14 and with “true” in 3:14 and 19:11.  This is of some importance when we turn to Paul.

The theme of Jesus as the obedient new Adam can be witnessed in John’s prologue.  John begins his gospel with a clear allusion to Genesis (“in the beginning”).  Also, a strong argument can be made that the Logos is related to Adam.  Philo in his writings equated the Logos with the image of God.  In other words, Philo viewed the Logos as the ideal Archetype of Adam.  John may have chosen “Logos”, as opposed to “image of God,” because the latter may have implied a human being and John wants to say that Jesus became flesh and was not a human being before the incarnation—the same reasoning may apply to Paul’s use of “form” in Philippians 2:6.

Other echoes of Genesis in the prologue concern the light of life (Gen. 1:3-5) overcoming darkness, which could refer to Jesus’ obedience leading to life overcoming the disobedience that led to death and darkness of the fall (Jn. 1:4-5).  Also, some have read into John’s seven-day chronology in the beginning of his gospel as an allusion to the seven days of creation.

Jesus calls his mother Mary “woman”, both in Cana (Jn. 2:4) and at the cross (Jn. 19:26).  Some have read into this as a reference to Mary as the new Eve (see Gen. 3:15 and Rev. 12).  A possible historical argument comes from Irenaeus, who also viewed Mary as the “New Eve” (Against Heresies bk.3, chap.22, par.4), and who may have had connections with the thought of John via Polycarp of Smyrna.

John mentions that Jesus was crucified at a place called in Hebrew “the place of the skull” (kraniou topon), which according to Origen was the spot where Adam’s bones were buried.  Of course, this is highly speculative.

John also parallels Jesus with Israel by noting how Jesus relates to the great feasts of Israel: Sabbath (chap. 5), Passover (chap. 6), Tabernacles (chap. 7-8), and Hanukkah (chap. 10:22-39).  He also is the true/real vine (Jn. 15:1), which is what Israel was to have been (Isa. 27:2-6), and the true/real light (Jn. 1:9), which is also what Israel was to have been (Isa. 42:6).  Jesus is the true/real precisely because he was obedient where Israel was disobedient (see Jer. 5:10; 12:10-11 where the Israel vine is unfaithful = disobedient).

John depicts Jesus’ obedience throughout the gospel.  Here is a sampling:

·         4:34 “…my food is that I may do the will of the one having sent me and to complete his work.”

·         5:30 “…I do not seek my will but the will of the one having sent me.”

·         8:29 “…because I always do the things pleasing to him.”

·         8:55 “…I keep his word.”

When Jesus says that he is the way, the truth and the life (Jn. 14:6), he is again alluding to his obedience.  In John 3:21, we read that one can “do the truth”, which is of course about obedience.  In the Johanine book of Revelation, Jesus is described as “faithful and true” (3:14; 19:11), both of which have to do with obedience.  Furthermore, Jesus says that anyone who resolves to do the will of God is “true” (Jn. 7:17-18). 

The coupling of truth with life has to do with the coupling of obedience to God’s commands and the life that will follow (see for example Deut. 8:1, 3).  Of special interest is the coupling of the word “way” (]rd) and the obeying of God’s commandments in Deuteronomy (besides this list, see also Deut. 19:9; 26:17; 28:9):

·         5:33 “You must follow the way that the Lord has commanded you, so that you may live.” [Note the emphasis on life.]

·         8:6 “Keep the commandments of the Lord your God, by walking in his ways…” [Note the mention of life in 8:3.]

·         10:12 “…to walk in all his ways.” [Note the obeying of commandments in 10:13.]

·         11:22 “…observe this entire commandment…walking in all his ways…”

·         30:16 “If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God…walking in his ways…you shall live.” [Note again the coupling of life with obeying the way.]

This theme is also in Genesis:

·         18:19 “…to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice…” [Note that this is Israel’s mission and the reason he chose Abraham—this verse confirms our larger story-line.]

John too has a symmetry between Jesus’ obedience and the disciples: Father → Son → disciples.  A good example of this is John 15:9-10:

                As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you.  If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.

Jesus obeyed the Father’s word and the disciples are to obey Jesus’ words.  It could also be argued that for John, the Eucharist of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood is really the same as obeying his words.  After all, Deuteronomy 8:3 mentions both the manna from heaven and the words of God.  This symmetry between the Father and Jesus and between Jesus and the disciples make best sense if the relationship has to do with obedience.

One final axe-grind is in order.  The gospel of John’s emphasis on belief in (eiV) Jesus and especially John 3:16 has been a key player in the standard evangelical story.  What is interesting about John 3:16 is that it is followed by John 3:36 which reads as follows:

                The one believing in the Son has life eternal;

but the one disobeying the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him/her.

The parallel of belief and obedience is certainly not highlighted in the standard evangelical story but is a parallel that I will argue is in Paul too, which provides a nice segue to my commentaries to which I now turn.