The Temptation of Jesus

I’ve come across a couple of readings of the temptation of Jesus recently that have intrigued me. I thought I’d share them:

Unmasking the Powers by Walter Wink (I mistakenly called this Engaging the Powers last night. That would be the third part of the powers trilogy)

This book left my head spinning in a good way. It begins with Wink looking at how the understanding of Satan evolved through the history of Scripture and beyond. This being/idea began as part of the heavenly hosts and was a viewed as God’s sifter who presented tests to his humanity to separate the wheat and the chaff.

However, as the Jewish people began to rethink their understanding of God as behind all good and evil, Satan began to take on a more prominent role as adversary. However, it is most likely after the biblical account closes that Satan is finally seen as evil personified.

Wink says Satan, in the gospels, is adversary. Satan, through Jewish tradition, is offering Jesus a quick fix. He can turn stones into bread to feed the masses and start a movement. Satan then uses Scripture to tempt him again to prove he is the Son of God by casting himself off the temple, perhaps alluding to Malachi 3:1-4. Then, Satan tempts him with the leadership of a Jewish empire ruling over all nations having overthrown Rome.

Wink concludes of Satan:

“He is no archfiend seducing Jesus with offers of love, wealth and carnal pleasures. Satan’s task is much more subtle…Satan offers him, in short, not outright evils, but the highest goods known to Israel. That is when the satanic is most difficult to discern- when it offers the good instead of the best.

The question to us becomes, “What traditional ‘goods’ are keeping us from the post-resurrection ‘Best’?”

Then take John Howard Yoder’s Politics of Jesus.

Yoder begins with the announcement at the baptism that Jesus is the Son of God, which he says,” is not the definition or accreditation of a metaphysically defined status of sonship, it is a summons to a task.”

Thus, “The tempter’s hypothetical syllogism ‘If you are the Son of God, then…’ is reasoning not from a concept of metaphysical sonship but from kingship”

Yoder goes on to state the temptation in Luke begins with the economic option, not a concern of Jesus feeding himself. A miraculous banquet supplied by turning stones into bread would yield him great power.

The second temptation is to be an imperial ruler. Bowing the knee before Satan is embracing the “idolatrous character of political power hunger and nationalism.”

Yoder then states that the pinnacle of the temple is about much more than Jesus taking a leap of faith. Two possibilities of meaning exist within the history of Jewish thought in the image of the pinnacle of the temple. One is that being thrown from the tower in the temple into the Kidron valley outside the temple was the punishment for blasphemy. Jesus may have been tempted to seek miraculous deliverance from the penalty for his claims to divine authority and kingship.

The second is the descent of an apparition within the temple which Wink too directed us to in Malachi 3. Jesus may have considered stopping at being an unheralded religious reformer and heavenly messenger and taking the violent path of many a “messiah” before and after him. Even here, the ultimate expectation is that the victory would mean the messiah wouldn’t die for his claims but his enemies would.

The question for Yoder would be, “Would Jesus follow the way of the kings of the world through all history in their thirst for personal and nationalistic power or as king of the world be the “bearer of a new possibility of human, social, and therefore political relationships.”

So are we stuck living in the now or bearing the new possibility of humanity?

It’s a lot to work through, but give some thought and let me know what you think.

Talking and Walking

I thought our discussion about where we're headed was valuable last night. It's a conversation worth continuing. I think there are probably important activities each one on us are undertaking.

Me? I do what I can find to do to help. But I'm mostly an idea guy. I have ideas, like starting a health clinic in The Colony/Little Elm area. Execution is the problem. I hardly know where to start and have tried contacting numerous folks who should be in the know but haven't had calls or emails returned. Truthfully, I've gotten discouraged and haven't done anything on tht front in the past few months.

But I think it is important that we both talk the talk and walk the walk, whether that is by acting together, or equipping one another to build our own networks of action and keeping one another accountable, in a supportive, non-guilt driven approach.

This post on the EV site from this woman from a non-Christian background seemed to say it all.

What we are saying has meaning for a wide spectrum of people. But that meaning will only last if it is accompanied by action. Love of God is non-existent without love of neighbor.

And I suppose this takes us to attractional church vs. missional church debate.

I don't want to turn this into a dualistic idea, but whatever the church model is, it must emphasize mission.

And if we heed the instruction of Walter Wink and N. T. Wright, mission takes the shape not necessarily of eliminating the powers of the nations but in resisting them inasmuch as they fail to reflect the purpose given them by the Creator by exploiting the weak and the poor and ruling through various forms of domination. It also means resisting ourselves inasmuch as we fail to reflect the image of the Creator.

In the words of Bono, it's not about charity. It's about justice. Or we can put it another way. It's not about dependency. It's about dignity.

I think this sort of collective spirit would put us fully in solidarity with the widow, orphan, and stranger and pull us over the walls we build on our paths. I think, also, we would find that the change needed to embrace such solidarity and the challenge it would present our culture's spirituality (by proclaiming and demonstrating that Jesus, the executed Christ, is Lord of the world) would reveal to us that there is opposition to Jesus, even in America.

These are strong words and this cohort blog is meant to be a dialogue, so please respond.

January 29, 2009 Location

We'll meet at ESCAPE, a coffee shop at 600 E. Bethany Dr. in Allen. Hope to see you there at 7:00 PM Thursday 1/29/2009

Location Change

It's a Grind on Springcreek in Plano has closed, so we will be picking a new location. Watch this blog for the new location before our next meeting on the 29th.

N. T. Wright on Paul

Just finished What Saul Paul Really Said. Wright demonstrates that Paul was about this world and its fulfillment, not its end. That his message was not about some new spiritual experience individuals have, but was about heralding the king of the world (no not Leonardi DiCaprio) and calling people to pledge allegience (faith) to Jesus the King (Christ) as opposed to pledging their allegience to Rome or any other political power or ideology of domination.

In addressing the themes of modernity (money, sex, and power) Wright says:

"The gospel creates allegience, not 'experience' per se. When we are truly announcing the lordship of Jesus, we must make it clear that, according to this gospel, the one true God has dealt in Jesus Christ with sin, death, guilt, and shame, and now summons men and women everywhere to abandon the idols which hold them captive to these things and to discover a new life, and a new way of life, in him...The gospel is the royal announcement. No herald in the ancient world would say, 'Tiberius is Caesar has become emperor: accept him if it suits you.'...But first it offers the cross...The only experience guaranteed by Jesus' summons is that of carrying the cross."

Wright makes this statement in making the point that "justification" is not about "how to get into heaven" but "who are the people of God" called to challenge the nations of the world in their idolatry and the parody they have made of life. The risk of this challenge bears the cross.

Strong words. Tell us what you think.