Tag Archives: Phillip Powers
On Deborah, Barak, and the “Failure of Men” Hypothesis
I was recently reading through the Book of Judges as part of my Bible reading plan, and I had the opportunity to revisit the story of Deborah and Barak (Judges 4–5). It is a remarkable account of how God delivered his people from Canaanite oppression and remained faithful to his covenant promises even when Israel was not faithful to him. At the same time, this passage often becomes a flashpoint in debates concerning gender roles in the home and in the church, particularly regarding the role of women. On the one hand, egalitarians point to Deborah as a paradigm for female leadership that should be emulated in the church today. On the other hand, complementarians often explain her leadership as the result of male failure, i.e. that God raised Deborah because no man was willing to step forward. It is this latter claim that I would like to examine in this post. While the “failure of men” hypothesis may resonate with certain instincts and seems to account for Barak’s initial hesitation, it ultimately goes beyond what the text itself supports. Deborah’s role is not presented as a corrective to male absence, nor as a structural shift in leadership patterns. Rather, Judges 4–5 presents a more complex picture of divine deliverance, prophetic authority, and covenant faithfulness.
Textually, the “failure of men” hypothesis is built on Barak’s apparent hesitation. In Judges 4.8, when Deborah instructs Barak to gather the tribes in preparation for battle, he responds, “If you will go with me, I will go. But if you will not go with me, I will not go.” Deborah agrees to accompany him, but she also declares that the honor of the victory will not go to Barak. From this, the argument is often made that Barak’s hesitation reveals a lack of courage or leadership, and that Deborah steps in to fill the resulting gap. The conclusion, then, is that God raises up women to lead when men fail. While it is certainly true that Barak hesitates and that Deborah plays a central leadership role, this conclusion goes beyond what the text itself actually supports. It does not arise from the narrative so much as it is imposed upon it. The issue is not whether Deborah leads—the text clearly affirms that she does—but whether her leadership is presented as a response to male absence or failure.
A close and careful reading of the text reveals that Deborah is introduced first, and she is already functioning in a leadership role before Barak even appears in the narrative. In Judges 4:4–5, we are told that “Deborah, a prophetess and the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time,” and that the people of Israel came to her for judgment. This indicates that Deborah was already established as both a prophetess and a judge. She is not raised up in response to Barak; she is already exercising leadership within Israel. Moreover, it is Deborah who summons Barak and speaks with divine authority as she relays the Lord’s command (4:6–7). In other words, the initiative in the narrative belongs to God through Deborah, not to a vacuum created by men. As for Barak, as noted above, he does appear to hesitate in response to the Lord’s command. However, this is not an outright refusal to lead, but a form of conditional obedience. He expresses a desire for the Lord’s prophet to accompany him in the task. Importantly, Deborah does not rebuke or condemn him for this response. Instead, she simply declares that the honor of the victory will go to a woman. This is a prophetic statement of outcome, not a moral indictment. Deborah supports Barak in his role; she does not portray him as a failed leader.
The key to understanding this narrative comes in chapter 5. Judges 5 is a poetic retelling of the events of chapter 4, and as such, it functions as the inspired interpretation of those events. In the song, Deborah is praised as “a mother in Israel” (5:7), but just as importantly, Barak is also commended. He is included among the military leaders who participated in the Lord’s deliverance, and nowhere in the song is he criticized or portrayed as a failed or reluctant figure. The narrative simply does not frame Barak as a man who failed to lead. In fact, the only explicit condemnation in the song appears in verse 23, which reads “Curse Meroz,” says the angel of the Lord, “bitterly curse her inhabitants, for they did not come to help the Lord, to help the Lord with the warriors.” Meroz, likely a nearby town expected to join the battle, is condemned precisely because it failed to respond. This is significant. If the narrator intended to highlight male failure in Barak, he had the language and categories to do so—and he uses them elsewhere in the text. But Barak is never cursed, rebuked, or condemned. Instead, he is remembered as one who participated in the Lord’s victory. The silence of the text where we might expect condemnation is itself interpretively significant.
Stepping back from the story of Deborah and Barak, the broader pattern of the Book of Judges is that Israel’s history follows a predictable cycle. The people fall into sin, God punishes them with oppression, they cry out for deliverance, and the Lord raises up a judge to rescue them. Yet this cycle does not simply repeat—it spirals downward. As the narrative progresses, the judges themselves become increasingly flawed, and the moral and spiritual condition of Israel deteriorates. We need only consider figures like Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson to see that the author of Judges knows how to highlight the failures of male leadership when he intends to do so. Their weaknesses are not subtle; they are central to their stories. But Deborah’s narrative does not function in this way. She is presented as a faithful and effective leader, and Barak is not portrayed as a cautionary figure. In other words, the text does not present Deborah as a divine workaround for male incompetence, but as a legitimate agent of God’s deliverance within a broader pattern of imperfect yet usable leaders.
So, what do we do with Deborah? The fact of the matter is that Deborah does lead. She is a prophetess and a judge, and she is used powerfully by God in the deliverance of his people. However, her role must be understood within its narrative and redemptive context, not abstracted into a universal principle. On the one hand, we should not use Deborah to overturn broader biblical patterns of leadership and authority. This is the well-known distinction between what is descriptive and what is prescriptive. In this narrative, Deborah is described as a faithful and effective leader through whom God works; she is not explicitly presented as a paradigm for leadership structures in the home or the church. On the other hand, we must also resist the impulse to minimize or dismiss her role. Deborah is not an anomaly to be explained away. She is a genuine agent of God’s deliverance, and her story is preserved in Scripture as part of God’s inspired revelation. Her leadership is real, authoritative, and significant. Yet the text itself does not frame her role as establishing a normative pattern for ecclesial or domestic leadership. Rather, it highlights the sovereignty of God, who works through whom he wills to accomplish his purposes.
The point of all this is to say that the story of Deborah and Barak is not about gender polemics. This is a concern that is external to the text and often imposed upon it by modern debates. This does not mean that those debates are unimportant; they are all the more pressing in this current cultural moment. But, the question is not what Deborah means for our debates, but what this text reveals about how God works in the history of his people. The narrative of Deborah and Barak directs our attention elsewhere. This story is about God’s faithfulness to his promises, his sovereignty over his people and their circumstances, and his willingness to use unexpected agents to accomplish his purposes in the world. Throughout the Book of Judges, Israel repeatedly proves unfaithful, yet God remains steadfast. He raises up deliverers, not because of their inherent greatness, but because of his covenant commitment. Deborah and Barak are no exception. Their story highlights the fact that God is not limited by human expectations, conventions, or categories. He works through whom he wills and accomplishes his purposes in ways that often surprise us. The emphasis of Judges 4–5 is not that men failed, but that God delivers his people often in ways that subvert human expectations and call us to trust in his sovereign power rather than our own assumptions.
In the end, this discussion brings us back to a matter of method. We must let the text speak for itself rather than imposing our own categories and concerns upon it. The “failure of men” hypothesis ultimately reads more into the narrative than it draws out of it, importing assumptions that the text itself does not explicitly support. Deborah is neither an anomaly to be explained away nor a weapon to be deployed in broader ideological debates. She is a faithful servant of the Lord, raised up within a particular moment in Israel’s history to accomplish God’s purposes for his people. Her story reminds us that God is both sovereign and free in the instruments he chooses to use. At the same time, it calls us to read Scripture carefully, attentively, and humbly. Faithful interpretation requires that we resist the urge to make the text serve our frameworks, and instead allow it to shape them, even when it refuses to fit neatly into our categories.
Share this:
On the Value and Wisdom of Seminary Training for Pastors
When I surrendered my life to God’s calling for vocational ministry at the age of 15, I always knew that that path would eventually take me to seminary, and now, as I am more than halfway through my PhD in Biblical Studies (New Testament) at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY (pictured above), I can’t help but reflect on the value and benefits it has brought to my life and to my ministry. However, down here in the good ole’ “Bible Belt”, formal theological education is often viewed with a measure of skepticism and distrust. On the one hand, many people know faithful pastors who have influenced their lives who have never gone to seminary. On other hand, there is a lingering suspicion of academia that is left over from the historical influence of the Fundamentalist movement. So, it is understandable that in many churches, formal theological education can feel unnecessary at best and spiritually dangerous at worst. However, the real question is not simply whether theological education is necessary, but what kind of formation is required to faithfully know, teach, and live the truth of Scripture. Therefore, it is the thesis of this post that while formal theological education is not strictly necessary for faithful ministry, it is profoundly valuable because it cultivates the habits of careful thinking, deep reading, and disciplined reflection on the things of God.
Those who are leery of formal theological education point to several reasons why seminary is sometimes less than helpful. Some suggest that going to seminary kills spiritual passion, that academic theological knowledge can choke out personal devotion and piety. Seminary becomes a cemetery. And let’s be honest, this can happen. There is a real temptation in academia that one’s experience of faith can become utterly cerebral and lacking in spiritual pathos. However, I would suggest that this temptation is not unique to the seminary setting, and that it has more to do with the student than with the institution. Another objection that is sometimes heard is that “all we need is the Bible and the Spirit,” that the Scriptures are sufficient, and that the Spirit leads us into all truth. I have addressed this question in another post, but suffice it to say here that we do not download biblical understanding from the Spirit. His work has more to do with confirming and applying the truths of Scripture in our lives than with the transmission of content. Interpretation still requires care and study. Some also object that education can lead to pride and liberalism, and here again, these are legitimate concerns. And while discernment must be exercised in selecting an institution, it is up to the student to maintain their own humility and faithfulness. Lastly, as mentioned above, scores of pastors throughout the history of the church have served faithfully without formal theological training, and I praise God for those individuals. Let me say it clearly: seminary is not necessary for pastoral faithfulness. It is not a matter of necessity, but a matter of wisdom. The concerns I’ve listed here are not imaginary; they reflect real temptations and dangers. But they are dangers of misuse, not arguments against the value of theological training itself.
So, in the interest of clarity, it is important at this point to distinguish what theological education is and what it is not. First, theological education is not mere information transfer; it is not primarily about the mastery of content, though that is certainly a component of it. The fact is that we live in an information age, and theological content is available at the click of a button. Of course, not all of it is of the same quality, but it is true that taking in theological content is easier today than it has ever been. There are literally tons of resources both digital and in print that are available to the pastor who wants to grow in theological knowledge. And pastors should be taking it in; they should read and read widely and deeply, but seminary is not just about the transfer of information. Secondly, it is not a substitute for a person’s spiritual or devotional life. This I think is the misconception that undergirds a lot of the objections mentioned above, namely that seminary cannot replace personal piety and devotion. It is not a substitute for prayer, for holiness, for obedience, or for involvement in the local church. These are vital for spiritual life, and seminaries are not primarily focused on training these personal disciplines. Seminary is focused training in how to read carefully, how to think clearly, and how to serve faithfully throughout the course of one’s life. It is not about knowing more things; it is about learning how to think rightly about God and his Word.
This is exactly the point, namely that the Scriptures require careful and attentive reading. We must be taught the importance of historical and literary context, of genre and authorial intent, of words and sentences and paragraphs and how they communicate textual meaning. Ideally, these hermeneutical principles are modeled in the pulpit and Sunday school classroom. However, mastery requires focused and intensive didactic formation, because it is this kind of training that guards us from interpretive error. We must be taught how to rightly divide the Word of truth, so that we do not misuse Scripture for our own aims and ends or read our assumptions back into the text. Understanding the literary and historical intricacies and complexities of the Bible keeps us from falling into the arrogance of overconfidence, where familiarity is mistaken for understanding. It forces us to slow down, to wrestle with difficult passages, and to recognize that Scripture does not always yield its meaning at a glance. And in this way, it teaches us the discipline of slowness, how to let the text speak on its own terms and to listen carefully rather than forcing quick conclusions. What I am saying is that formal theological training teaches us not just what the Bible says, but how to listen to it well—and that is a skill that serves both the church and the individual believer for a lifetime.
In addition to learning to read carefully, formal theological training also helps us to develop theological depth in our understanding of the Word. It helps us to see the whole Bible, to understand the metanarrative of Scripture, and to locate particular books and passages within that unfolding storyline. We learn to follow themes and their development through the canon, and we come to appreciate both the continuity and the discontinuity between the Testaments. In doing so, we begin to see that the Bible is not a loose collection of disconnected texts, but a unified and coherent witness to God’s redemptive work in history. We also develop a certain measure of doctrinal coherence, in that we begin to understand how themes and concepts relate to one another, and we avoid fragmented theological reflections that isolate passages from the larger framework of Scripture. Questions of Christology, salvation, covenant, and kingdom are no longer treated in isolation, but are understood in relation to the whole counsel of God. Formal theological training also helps us to learn from the history of the church; it teaches us to see tradition as a resource rather than as a threat. (On the Use and Benefit of Tradition, see here.) To put it rather bluntly, we are not the first to read the Bible, and we won’t be the last. thankfully, this is a gift, not a limitation. It is an invitation to listen, to learn, and to be shaped by the wisdom of those who have gone before us.
Lastly, formal theological education helps us to develop intellectual humility. It exposes us to the difficult questions of the faith that have been asked throughout church history, and it forces us to wrestle with issues that do not admit of easy or immediate answers. It requires us to read and engage hard texts, both biblical and extrabiblical, and it immerses us in the real debates that continue to shape theological reflection even today. In doing so, it helps us develop a rightly calibrated confidence, one that is rooted in strong convictions, yet carried with a softer ego. We come to see that clarity is often hard-won, and that many of the questions we face have been carefully considered by thoughtful believers long before us. And as a result, we learn not only how to argue well, but how to disagree well. This is perhaps one of the greatest challenges in our present moment, and formal theological training can teach us to treat our interlocutors with patience, precision, and grace, even when we disagree deeply. In other words, theological education does not simply make you smarter; it makes you more aware of your limits. It reveals our strengths, exposes our weaknesses, and teaches us to value the insights of others, even when they do not fully align with our own.
However, even with all these benefits, formal theological education has its limits and dangers, and it is important that we are clear on what they are. For one, seminary training cannot produce spiritual life. And while many schools are now attempting to incorporate more spiritual life components into their curricula, it will always be true that knowledge simply does not equal transformation. True transformation is a work of the Spirit in us, and it is up to each individual to work with the Spirit through the classic spiritual disciplines in order to experience transformation. (On the Spiritual Disciplines, see here.) Second, seminary education can foster pride. This is a real danger. As the Scriptures remind us, “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” (1 Corinthians 8.1) This is an ever-present temptation for those who are well informed in the study of the Scriptures. And lastly, seminary education can drift from the primary importance of the local church. At present, there is an ever-growing movement to reconnect seminary education with the local church, and this is to be celebrated. But seminaries must always orient their purpose and mission toward the service of the church, because it is the church that is Christ’s bride. However, in all three of these, the problem is not theological education itself, but theological education disconnected from the life of the church and the work of the Spirit.
This is why it is so important that head, heart, and ministry remain inherently intertwined. Pastors must always make sure that their thinking about God and their love for God remain together. There should be no head/heart divisions, as though theological precision and spiritual devotion were somehow in competition with one another. Rather, careful thinking about God should deepen our love for him, and our love for him should drive us to think more carefully about his Word. Further, pastors must remember that we do theology for the sake of the church, not for publications, not for CV development, not for accolades or recognition. All theology must be oriented toward the teaching, preaching, and discipleship ministries of the local church. “For the Church” must be more than an institutional mantra or a tagline; it must be the driving motivation in all of our theological efforts. Theology that does not serve the church ultimately fails in its purpose. And finally, we must remember that theological education is primarily about formation and faithfulness. We are seeking to develop the knowledge, skills, and habits that will sustain long-term ministry stability, presentational clarity, and faithful endurance. The goal is not to produce scholars detached from the church, but servants equipped to build it up, men who can think clearly, love deeply, and labor faithfully for the good of God’s people.
In the end, we must say this carefully: formal theological education is not necessary, but it is wise. God has used, and will continue to use, many faithful pastors and teachers who have never set foot in a seminary classroom. Again, thank God for his grace in this! The power of ministry has never rested in credentials, but in the faithful proclamation of the Word and the work of the Spirit. And yet, when pursued rightly, theological education is a gift. It strengthens the church by equipping its leaders to handle Scripture with greater care, to think with greater clarity, and to teach with greater depth and precision. It forms habits that serve a lifetime of ministry, not just a moment of preparation. To study theology carefully is not to move away from God, but to learn how to think about him rightly. That is a task worthy of our best effort.
Share this:
On the Unfinished Finished Work of Christ
In light of this being the week of our Lord’s passion, it is interesting to note that one of the last things that he said before he gave up his Spirit on the cross was, “It is finished.” (τετέλεσται, John 19.30). With this powerful word, Jesus declared that his work on the cross in making full atonement for sin was completed, and “bowing his head, he gave up his spirit.” It must have been a powerful scene, and no more pregnant words have perhaps ever been spoken. However, the problem is that even though Christ finished his work, sin still seems to run rampant in this world. If it is finished, why, we might ask, is the world still broken, still full of pain and suffering and sin and death? Because of this, we might be tempted to suggest that his work is unfinished. Many Christians struggle to hold together what has already been accomplished and what still remains. However, what we must realize is that Christ’s work is finished; it is fully accomplished in its foundation, but not yet fully realized in its effects. In this post, I would like to consider this tension by offering just a few thoughts on what Christ accomplished in his first coming and what waits to be realized at his second coming.
In one sense, then, it is completely accurate to say that the work of Christ has been fully accomplished, and there are at least three aspects of his work that are completely finished. First, atonement has been accomplished. When Christ died on the cross, he made the full and final payment for our sin. In systematic theology, this is called penal substitutionary atonement. In other words, this means that Christ paid the penalty (penal) that we deserve (substitutionary) for our sin. (On the fact that this was Christ’s view of his death, see here.) He died the death that we deserve by dying in our place. But he did not stay dead; he rose again on the third day. This is the second aspect of Christ’s finished work, namely that victory over death has been secured. When Jesus walked out of the grave on the third day, he defeated death and disarmed Satan of his power. Death no longer has hold over those who are in Christ. We need not fear, we can have hope, even in the face of death. (On hope in the face of death, see here.) And lastly, by dying on the cross, Christ finished his work of establishing righteousness. In other words, his finished work on the cross is now the ground upon which God grants our justification, when we place our faith in Jesus. He lived a perfect life, he died an innocent death. And his righteousness is imputed to us by faith. We are made right, declared innocent, because of Christ’s finished work. This is the gospel. Nothing needs to be added to what Christ accomplished; his work is complete, sufficient, and final. It is not partial, not provisional. It is finished!
Moreover, his finished work on the cross inaugurated several important realities in which we now live. For one, the Kingdom of God has been inaugurated. Forty days after his resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven to be seated at the right hand of the Father, and he is now reigning with all authority on earth as it is in heaven. (Matt. 28.18) He is not waiting to become King; he is already reigning as King. And he does this by his Spirit. This is the second reality in which we now live, namely that Christ has sent his Spirit to indwell his people. The Spirit mediates Christ’s real presence in and among his people. He is the down payment, the seal, and the guarantee of our faith. And he is actively working in us to make us more like Jesus. And lastly, but certainly not leastly, new life has begun. When we place our faith in Christ, the Spirit regenerates us. He brings to life what was once spiritually dead, and we are born again. In this way we are new creatures in Christ. The old has passed away, and behold the new has come. (2 Cor. 5.17) New creation realities are already at work in us through the Spirit. In these ways, the future has already broken into the present through the risen Christ, and we live in these future realities even now.
And yet, in spite of all of this, several aspects of Christ’s work remain unfinished. Perhaps most clearly, sin still remains in the world. We have been saved from the penalty of sin, but we have not yet been saved from the presence of sin. Our world is saturated and polluted with sin at every turn. People are burdened down with sin and its consequences. Our relationships suffer, bodies are diseased, conflict and turmoil abound at every level of our society. Sin continues its reign of terror nearly unchecked. In addition to this, death still operates in this world. This world reeks with the stench of death; it fills our nostrils everywhere we turn. Our loved ones get sick and die. Accidents and tragedy take lives too soon. Christ has been raised, and death has been defeated. But death still reigns in our mortal bodies, and we ache and groan for that day when death will be no more. Thirdly, the created order groans under the weight of humanity’s sin. When our first parents fell, the creation itself was subjected to futility and decay. The idyllic paradise of Eden was lost to the corruption of sin. And lastly, justice and restoration are yet to be realized. Injustice abounds in our society. From all appearances, the weak get weaker and the strong get stronger. There is no real justice; there is no real peace. Wickedness and evil seem to grow day by day. What is wrong is celebrated as right, and what is right is condemned as wrong. The world is turned upside down, and we long for the day when justice will flow like rivers and when peace will rest upon the earth. And we cry out with the Scriptures, “How long, O Lord? How long?”
In theological parlance, this tension between the finished and the unfinished work of Christ is often referred to by the shorthand phrase “already/not yet”. It simply means that God’s plan of redemption for the world has already begun, has already been inaugurated, but has not yet been fully consummated. The work of Christ’s first coming is finished. He died on the cross, he rose again the third day, he sent his life-giving Spirit. But we are still waiting for the work of his second coming, namely the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and the new creation. This is the tension in which we now live, and in this tension, we must avoid two extremes. First, we must avoid living as if nothing has been finished. We must learn to rest in the finished work of Christ. We have been forgiven; we have been indwelled by His Spirit. We can have peace. On the other hand, however, we must not live as if everything is already complete. We do live under the burdens of sin and death; we do long for justice and peace. And we can have hope. The work of Christ is finished in its accomplishment, but it is unfinished in its application to the whole of creation. And so, we wait faithfully as Christ has instructed us.
And this is the point, namely that this tension is not ultimately about stages of fulfillment, though that is certainly the best framework for understanding it. Ultimately, this tension is about Christ. His work is unfinished because his story is not over. (On my argument for the centrality of Christ in our eschatological reflection, see here.) In other words, the same Jesus who said, “It is finished” is the same Jesus who is coming again to make all things new. The same Jesus who died on the cross is the same Jesus who is coming again in glory. Or to put it another way, the second coming of Jesus is not a different work; no, it is the completion of the same work that he began 2000 years ago. The second coming completes what the first coming began, because Christ himself is the fulfillment of all our hopes. Our hope is not just about what Christ has done and will do; it is about Christ himself. It is about his presence. In John 14.3, Jesus promised that he would come again and receive us unto himself, that where he is there we may be also. And so, the unfinished nature of Christ’s work is not a failure of the first coming, but the promise of the second. He is our blessed hope.
And so, yes, we live in the middle of this tension; we live in between the already and the not yet. We are already forgiven, but we are still struggling. We are already alive, yet we are still dying. We are already redeemed, yet we are still waiting. We are waiting to be set free from the presence and the corruption of sin once and for all. This is the lived reality of the Christian life—caught between what has been accomplished and what has not yet been revealed. And I suggest that we must embrace this tension with open arms, because it is only when we embrace this tension that we will be able to hope without denying the pain of our sufferings, that we can be confident without giving into naive triumphalism, and that we can have patience without being paralyzed by despair. If we collapse this tension in either direction, we lose something essential. Either we deny the reality of our present struggle, or we forget the certainty of our future hope. This is the ground that we must stand on, the already and the not yet. We do not live as those waiting for Christ to begin his work, but as those waiting for him to complete it.
When Jesus said, “It is finished.”, he surely meant it. Christ’s work is finished, and yet, it is not yet finished completely. It is finished in its foundation, but it is unfinished in its consummation. We are waiting for the full glory of Christ and his work to be finally revealed on earth. And even in acknowledging the unfinished aspects of Christ work, we must affirm that the work of the cross is not undone; it is unfolding. The resurrection is not isolated; it is expanding. And one day, we will all be raised to meet him in the air, and from that point on, we will always be with the Lord. This is our hope, namely that the Christ who finished his work on the cross is coming again to bring it to final completion. Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus! Maranatha!
Share this:
On Christological Eschatology
If you have followed my blog for any amount of time or if you have perused through the topics and tags, then you have probably noticed that eschatology is a primary interest of mine, both academically and pastorally. However, this area of theological reflection often evokes a mixed bag of responses and reactions. Some are quick to debate the various questions and details related to timelines, rapture debates, and millennium questions, while others are prone to avoid the questions altogether. I would suggest that neither one of these responses to the doctrines of the last things is healthy. Moreover, when we are so focused on identifying our particular eschatological system, whether dispensational, premillennial, amillennial, or postmillennial, we run the risk of displacing Jesus from the center of the question. This is not to say that these systems are wrong per se, but it is to say that we are often in danger of missing the forest for the trees as it were. Our eschatology is only as sound as our Christology. Every question about the end ultimately reduces to the question: Who is Jesus, and what is he doing? In other words, our eschatological views must be inherently Christological before they are anything else.
Christological eschatology is the conviction that the person and work of Jesus Christ are not merely part of the end times—they are the interpretive center of all eschatology. Of course, this does not mean that it is unconcerned with the unfolding of future events like the final judgment or the general resurrection. Eschatological reflection will always entail some understanding of the events that are yet to unfold, as Scripture itself directs our attention to these realities. However, Christological eschatology asserts that these events derive their meaning and significance from Christ and his work. They are not self-interpreting realities, nor are they ultimate in themselves; rather, they are the outworking of what God has already accomplished in and through Jesus. In this way, Christological eschatology is not event-centered nor system-centered, but Christ-centered. It refuses to treat the end as a sequence to be mapped or a system to be mastered and instead understands it as the fulfillment of the redemptive work of Christ. It is simply the view that every eschatological question ultimately revolves around the person and work of Christ in bringing redemption to the world.
In many ways, viewing our eschatology as centered on the person and work of Christ is simply a way of embracing the interpretive horizon of the New Testament. The New Testament authors consistently orient their eschatological claims back to the person and work of Jesus. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15, when Paul is addressing the question of the resurrection, he grounds his argument in the fact that Christ has already been resurrected from the dead. He is the first fruits of our resurrection; because Christ has already been raised, we will be raised. (On the logic of the resurrection, see here.) Or again, when the Gospel authors talk about the nearness or the presence of the Kingdom, they speak of it in relation to the presence of Christ. Because Christ is King, his coming to earth marks the beginning of the Kingdom age. This is why we regularly speak of the already and the not yet. The Kingdom has already been inaugurated at Christ’s first coming, and it will be finally consummated at his second coming. In other words, the already/not yet framework is grounded in Jesus himself. Jesus is not just a participant in the end; he is the turning point of history. The end does not merely arrive with Jesus. In a real sense, it begins with him.
We miss this emphasis when we become too focused on other eschatological questions. Both at the popular and at the academic level, we are quick to obsess about timelines, to speculate about sequences, and to read Scripture backward through our preferred eschatological systems. Entire interpretive frameworks are often constructed around the ordering of events, the identification of signs, or the alignment of prophetic texts with contemporary developments. None of these questions are unimportant in themselves, but they can easily assume a controlling role that they were never meant to have. When this happens, the center of gravity in our eschatology subtly shifts. When eschatology becomes primarily about events, charts, and sequences, Christ becomes secondary. Jesus becomes just another piece in the system rather than the center of the system. He is treated as a necessary component within a larger structure, rather than the one in whom that structure finds its meaning and coherence. And when a system can be mapped without reference to the living Christ, then it has already gone off track. At that point, eschatology risks becoming an exercise in speculative reconstruction rather than a theological reflection on the redemptive work of Christ. The question is not whether we have constructed a coherent system, but whether our understanding of the end is actually centered on the person and work of Jesus.
Now, there are several aspects of Christ’s person and work that ground our eschatological reflections. First, as I’ve already noted, Jesus is the Risen Lord. In other words, if eschatology begins with resurrection (and it does), then because Jesus has already been raised from the dead, the future has already broken into the present. We have been spiritually raised with Christ to walk in newness of life, and one day, we will be raised physically to walk hand in hand with him in glory. Second, and this has already been noted as well, but Jesus is the Reigning King. After his resurrection, he ascended into heaven to be seated at the right hand of the Father where he is currently reigning in glory. In this sense, the Kingdom is not merely a future reality; it is present now as he reigns over his people by his Spirit through his Word. He is coming again to reign on earth, but his present enthronement should shape our expectations. Third, Jesus is the Coming Judge. In other words, the final judgment is not some abstract threat. No, it is a personal reality that is tied to Christ authority. As the ancient creeds confess, he is coming to judge the living and the dead. The judge is the crucified and risen Christ. And finally, Jesus is the Center of Restoration. Or to put it another way, the new creation is not a system reset, it is the union that we now have with Christ being finally fulfilled on earth as it is in heaven. My point is that every eschatological hope—resurrection, judgment, kingdom, restoration—finds its coherence in the person of Jesus.
So, rather than asking “when is the rapture?” or “what is the millennium?”, we should be asking questions like, “What does Jesus’s resurrection mean for the future?”, “What does his kingship imply about the present?”, and “What does his return reveal about judgment and restoration?” These are not different questions so much as they are better-ordered questions. They move us away from speculative sequencing and toward theological reflection on the person and work of Christ. In other words, the question is not first what happens next, but what does Jesus’ work mean for what happens next? This shift in emphasis reorients the entire task of eschatology. It forces us to begin not with a timeline but with an event—the death and resurrection of Jesus—and to interpret the future in light of that reality. It reminds us that the resurrection is not merely a past miracle, but the decisive intrusion of the future into the present, the beginning of the end itself. Likewise, the present reign of Christ is not an abstract theological claim, but the governing reality that shapes how we understand the present age. And his return is not simply the final item on a prophetic chart, but the personal culmination of God’s redemptive purposes in the world. When we ask our eschatological questions in this way, Christ is no longer assumed in the background—he stands at the center.
This is not just some theological word game; this change has direct pastoral and theological payoff. Most importantly, it grounds our hopes for the future in a person and not in a system. This is our “blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2.13) We don’t have to have all the details figured out down to a T, so to speak; we simply have to trust in the one who has promised to make all things new. More than this, though, it produces stability in the midst of disagreement. The disagreements among eschatological systems are myriad, but in theory, we can all agree that Christ stands at the center of the eschatological program. I would go as far as to say that we must agree on this, as a matter of Christian orthodoxy. Our common hope in Christ should unify believers across all our eschatological differences. Our eschatology should bring us together not drive us apart. And finally, this reorientation in our eschatological reflection centers us on questions of discipleship rather than speculation. By focusing on Christ and his work, we are better able to wait patiently and faithfully as he has commanded us, instead of worrying about the details. The point is that the doctrines of eschatology are not meant to produce anxiety about the future, but confidence in the One who holds it.
Ultimately, the end times are all about Jesus. This may sound cliché, but it is the biblical emphasis. The New Testament does not give space to unnecessary speculations about the end times or invite us to lose ourselves in the details of timelines and sequences. Rather, every eschatological vision must revolve around the person and work of Jesus Christ. He is the one who is coming back to make all things new. He is the one who is coming back to receive us unto himself, that where he is there we may be also. He is the one who is coming back to set us free from the presence of sin once and for all and to bring God’s redemptive purposes to their final fulfillment. And so, the end of all things is not a timeline to decode, but a person to behold—the crucified, risen, and reigning Christ.
Share this:
On the Narrative Logic of John 21
The twentieth chapter of John’s Gospel is full of climactic moments. Not only does it record the resurrection of Jesus and his interaction with Mary in the garden, but it also tells the story of Jesus’s appearance to his disciples in the upper room (On the Johannine Pentecost) and the climactic confession of Thomas a week later. The chapter ends with a clear purpose statement when John writes, “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (20.30-31) To many, these verses sound like an appropriate conclusion to John’s Gospel; for this reason, many scholars (and some readers) treat John 21 as a kind of appendix or addendum or afterthought. Although there is no manuscript evidence to support this claim, it is often argued that if chapter 20 brings the Gospel to its climactic conclusion, then why would John write chapter 21? It seems unnecessary. From a narrative perspective, John 21 is not an awkward appendix but the necessary completion of the Gospel’s story. It resolves tensions left intentionally open in chapter 20 and brings the Gospel’s themes — discipleship, love, witness, and mission — to their proper conclusion.
As I noted above, John 20 is the clear climax of John’s Gospel. Jesus is resurrected, the disciples are commissioned, and Thomas confesses Jesus as “My Lord and my God.” (20.28) This confession serves as a kind of bookend in the book that points the reader back to John’s opening where he affirms that Jesus is the Word that was with God and was God and was made flesh and dwelt among us. (1.1, 14) Following these climactic moments, it only makes sense that John’s purpose statement in verses 30-31 would bring the Gospel to its logical conclusion. This chapter proves that Jesus is the Christ of God, and that faith in Him as the resurrected one results in eternal life. The end. Or so one would think. Not only is there no manuscript evidence that John’s Gospel should end in chapter 20 (as there is with Mark’s ending, on which see here), but if John were to end his gospel with chapter 20, then there would be many narrative threads that would remain unresolved. What becomes of Peter after his denial? What becomes of the beloved disciple? What becomes of the disciples’ mission? Yes, chapter 20 concludes the narrative arc of Jesus’s identity, but chapter 21 goes on to explain what that revelation now means for the followers of Jesus.
John 21 returns the reader to the Sea of Tiberias, aka the Sea of Galilee. Narratively, this is a return to where it all began. Not only did Jesus begin his public ministry in Galilee, but he also called the first four disciples after a night of fishing on the Sea of Galilee. The scene intentionally echoes the earlier calling narrative familiar from Luke 5. After a night of fruitless labor, Jesus shows up and tells them to cast their nets on the other side of the boat. They haul in a catch that is nearly too large, and Jesus commissions them to discipleship and mission. Many interpret this scene as a regression for the disciples, a return to the life and vocation before Christ. However, in light of this parallel, this scene should be understood not as a regression, but as narrative symmetry. John intentionally returns his readers to the beginning to show that the resurrection does not erase vocation — it redefines it. Vocation that is engaged apart from radical dependence on the risen Christ is utterly futile, but when vocation is entered into from a position of dependence and obedience to the risen Christ, then it is abundantly fruitful. When we submit our vocation to the mission of Jesus, then we will reap abundant fruit and reward. Even so, the real center of John 21 is not fish, it is Peter.
Of course, all four Gospels record Peter’s three denials of Jesus on the night of Jesus’s arrest, but John is the only one who records Peter’s restoration. (Luke hints at the idea when Jesus tells him that after returning, he will encourage his brothers.) John deliberately connects the scene in John 21 back to the denial scene by noting that Jesus prepared a “charcoal fire” and the threefold repetition of the question “Peter, do you love me?” matching Peter’s three denials. Some tend to make a big deal out of the various words that are used for love in Peter’s answers, but this is overplayed. Not only were the words basically synonymous in the first century, but the idea that Peter’s love did not rise to some divine standard is wholly alien to the logic of the text. This is a threefold public restoration that corresponds to Peter’s threefold public failure. Moreover, it reveals the pastoral tenderness of Jesus. Jesus does not scold Peter; he does not call him out over his failures. He doesn’t berate or condemn him. He graciously restores Peter to ecclesial service. “Feed my lambs. Shepherd my sheep. Feed my sheep.” This commission is not merely personal therapy for Peter; it is an ecclesial necessity. John cannot end his Gospel with Peter in unresolved failure. The shepherd of the disciple group must be restored if the flock is to endure. But Peter is not the only disciple in view here either.
After his restoration, Peter noticed the disciple whom Jesus loved and he asks Jesus, “Lord, what about him?”, and Jesus responds, “What is that to you? As for you, follow me.” (21.20-22) Jesus’s point is that he has different callings for each of his followers, and that following Christ is more important than comparing callings. Peter’s calling was to shepherding and martyrdom; the beloved disciple’s calling was to abiding ministry and public/written testimony. As he writes in 21.24, “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.” Not only is this important for establishing the credibility and reliability of John’s Gospel, but it is also a fundamental component of John’s understanding of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. To put it another way, John 21 grounds the authority of the Gospel in eyewitness testimony while clarifying that discipleship does not look identical for all. We all serve the risen Christ, but we all serve him in different and varied ways. These verses are not just random narrative details added on to the end of the story; they are essential for completing John’s theology of discipleship.
In other words, for John, discipleship is a life that is characterized by following Jesus, loving Jesus, abiding in Jesus, and witnessing to the truth about Jesus. When we confess Christ (chapter 20), he commissions us to a life of embodied mission (chapter 21). If we truly believe that Jesus is the risen Christ (and he is), then we will follow him in whatever calling he has placed on our lives. Put differently, discipleship is the vocation of following Jesus. The risen Christ is not merely to be believed in — he is to be followed. If we say we love Christ, we will commit ourselves to and give ourselves for the care of his people. Moreover, John hints at the fact that discipleship can involve suffering. In 21.18, Jesus tells Peter, “when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will tie you and carry you where you don’t want to go.”, and John explains that “He said this to indicate by what kind of death Peter would glorify God.” (21.19) This is part of the vocation of discipleship, too. We must be willing to follow Jesus wherever he leads; this is the kind of discipleship that Jesus is calling us all too.
However, returning to my thesis, without John 21, Peter’s denial remains unresolved, the beloved disciple’s authority is unexplained, and the future of the community of Jesus followers is unclear. In terms of John’s narrative, John ends his gospel not with spectacle but with discipleship as vocation. Chapter 20 concludes the revelation of Jesus’s identity, and chapter 21 concludes the formation of Jesus’s community. Or to put it another way, John 20 answers the question “Who is Jesus?”, and John 21 answers the question “What now?” Without this pastoral and ecclesial resolution, John’s Gospel would be incomplete. John does not end his Gospel in private mystical belief. He ends it with shepherding, witness, martyrdom, and mission. And he leaves the end of the story open when he writes, “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if every one of them were written down, I suppose not even the world itself could contain the books that would be written.” In other words, the story is ongoing, and all the things that the risen Jesus will do have not yet been completed even two thousand years later. John 21 is not a loose epilogue. It brings the Gospel to its proper end — not merely with a confession of Christ, but with the commissioning of those who will testify to him. The risen Lord restores the fallen, distinguishes callings, anchors testimony, and sends his followers into a future shaped by love and sacrifice. That is not an afterthought. That is narrative completion. And it poses the question to the reader, “Will you follow Jesus?”
Share this:
On the (Un)Importance of the Gospel of Thomas
In my last post, I argued that the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas has little to no value when it comes to the study of the historical Jesus. However, ever since the Jesus Seminar published their book, The Five Gospels, it has become somewhat common among Jesus scholars to include Thomas as another source for Jesus studies. The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of 114 logia, or sayings, that are attributed to Jesus, most of which are enigmatic and/or aphoristic in style. For example, saying 7 reads, “Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man.” Thomas was discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi among some 52 other documents, most of which are from the 4th century CE. While Thomas contains intriguing sayings, its late date, its wholesale dependence on the Synoptic tradition, and its Gnostic coloring render it of very little importance for reconstructing the historical Jesus. Its primary value lies in understanding early Christian Gnostic interpretation and theological creativity, not the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.
As noted above, the Gospel of Thomas, sometimes referred to as the Secret Gospel of Thomas, contains some 114 independent sayings attributed to Jesus without any kind of narrative structure or frame. Although the complete text found at Nag Hammadi in 1945 is in Coptic and dates to the 4th century CE, it also exists in three Greek fragments previously found at Oxyrhynchus around the turn of the twentieth century that date to the mid-second century CE. Some scholars argue that the oral traditions behind these Greek texts may be earlier, but this is speculation that is not supported by any physical textual evidence. The biggest difference between Thomas and the canonical Gospels is that it is completely lacking in narrative details; it contains no geographic markers, no passion narrative, and no account of the resurrection. More often than not, it simply reworks material from the Synoptic tradition. In spite of these differences, its non-narrative, aphoristic style is perhaps part of its appeal, but it is also the reason for its interpretive challenges.
This is perhaps why many, both scholars and popular readers alike, find Thomas so intriguing. It is cryptic, wisdom-oriented, less overtly theological, and resembles Synoptic style. For many, especially those who are skeptical of the canonical accounts of Jesus, Thomas reflects a non-apocalyptic, secretive, purely ethical Jesus, which is more in keeping with modern sensibilities. For example, saying 98 reads, “The kingdom of the father is like a certain man who wanted to kill a powerful man. In his own house he drew his sword and stuck it into the wall in order to find out whether his hand could carry through. Then he slew the powerful man.” Or again, saying 77 reads, “It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.” According to the scholars of the Jesus Seminar, these sayings represent independent (read secret) traditions not found in the canonical Gospels. However, these claims often overlook Thomas‘s dependence on earlier Synoptic material and its interpretive framing.
Estimates vary, but roughly half of Thomas‘s 114 sayings have parallel, often more primitive, versions in the Synoptics. For example, saying 54 reads, “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven.” This is clearly a restatement of the beatitude found in Matthew 5.3 and its parallel in Luke 6.20. Saying 55 reads, “Whoever does not hate his father and his mother cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does not hate his brothers and sisters and take up his cross in my way will not be worthy of me.” This is taken from Matthew 10.37-38 and its parallel in Luke14.26-27. Saying 65 is simply a retelling of the parable of the vineyard owner found in Matthew 21, Mark 12, and Luke 20; saying 57 is simply a retelling of the parable of the wheat and tares found in Matthew 13. Other examples could be cited, but the point is clear, namely that the author(s) of Thomas have simply reworked Synoptic material, typically drawn from the Sermon on the Mount or the Kingdom sayings/parables of Jesus. Moreover, the ordering and grouping of these sayings typically mimics that which is found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This evidence clearly demonstrates the secondary literary dependence of Thomas and mitigates against arguments that it preserves independent oral traditions. To put it another way, if Thomas is so clearly dependent, then it cannot be used as an independent historical source in the study of the historical Jesus.
Beyond its late date and its dependence on the Synoptic traditions, another reason Thomas holds no value for the study of Jesus is its clear Gnostic leanings. Gnosticism is a second century syncretistic heresy that combined elements of Christianity with Jewish mysticism and Greco-Roman philosophy. It is primarily characterized by its dualistic worldview, its emphasis on hidden knowledge (gnosis) and spiritual ascent, and its devaluation of material reality. The Gospel of Thomas, as well as most of the other documents found at Nag Hammadi, clearly fall into this stream of thought. For example, saying 62 reads, “It is to those who are worthy of my mysteries that I tell my mysteries.” Saying 24 reads, “There is light within a man of light, and he lights up the whole world. If he does not shine, he is darkness.” Or again, saying 108 reads, “He who will drink from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him.” Clearly, sayings from the canonical Gospels have been filtered through Thomas’s Gnostic framework. This theological overlay makes Thomas more a reflection of early heretical Christian thoughts than of Jesus’ own teaching. While Gnostic themes are historically interesting for understanding the history of the early church, they further limit Thomas’s usefulness for reconstructing the historical Jesus.
Methodologically speaking, for a source to contribute meaningfully to historical reconstruction, it must be anchored in some kind of narrative frame, some cultural or geographic context, some chronological markers by which its historical veracity can be evaluated. The Gospel of Thomas is clearly lacking in this regard. It does not contain any of the details of Jesus’s life, his public ministry in Galilee, his conflicts with the Jewish authorities, or his passion, death, and resurrection. Without any anchoring in actual historical events like these, a collection of sayings cannot be attributed to Jesus with any real confidence. Therefore, using Thomas as a primary source in the study of the historical Jesus risks reconstructing him as an abstract, decontextualized, disconnected figure. Or to put it another way, a Jesus disconnected from historical realities can become anything and everything, except who he truly was. The Gospel of Thomas is simply too late, too dependent, and too Gnostic to be of any value in the study of the historical Jesus. Of course, this does not mean that Thomas has no value at all. After all, the Gospel of Thomas gives us an open window into early Christian theological creativity within heretical movements. It highlights the role of wisdom and of spiritual and mystical orientations in the beliefs of the early church. And it gives us insight into how the teachings of the historical Jesus were received and interpreted by one particularly Gnostic tradition. However, whereas canonical sources like the Synoptics and Paul ground their theological reflections in the reality of historical events, Thomas abstracts wisdom and secret knowledge from reality. In this regard, then, Thomas illuminates early Christian imagination and hermeneutics rather than the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
In light of the above evidence, I can only conclude that because Thomas is derivative and shaped by Gnostic and Synoptic traditions, it cannot be used as an independent source to reconstruct the historical Jesus. Sound theological reflection must be grounded in the historical realities of the person and work of Jesus. Or to put it another way, history grounds theology, and theology interprets history. The two must remain interconnected in the theological task. To neglect one or the other would necessarily lead us into either hardened skepticism or wild theological speculation. While Thomas is a great source for understanding early Christian diversity, it simply should not be conflated with the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Thomas may open a window onto early Christian imagination, but the historical Jesus stands firmly in the Synoptic Gospels and the apostolic testimony of the New Testament.
Share this:
On Whispers of Revolution: A Book Review
Bird, Michael F. Bird. Whispers of Revolution: Jesus and the Coming of God as King. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2025.
When we confess that Christ is King, we are tapping into a longing that goes back to the very beginning of creation. Adam and Eve were placed in the garden of Eden to serve as God’s vice-regents, to rule and to establish his dominion in the world. Of course, our first parents failed when they succumbed to the deceptions of the serpent, and from that point on, the story of the Bible revolves around God’s plan to reestablish his dominion in the world. In a new book entitled Whispers of Revolution: Jesus and the Coming of God as King, Michael F. Bird applies this lens to the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth. Bird is Deputy Principle and Lecturer in Theology at Ridley College, Melbourne, and he is the author of over 30 books, including the award winning The Gospel of Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus. In this book, Bird argues that Jesus was driven by the conviction that through his words and work, through his mission and message, God was unveiling his kingship in a way that would rescue Israel and eventually restore the whole world.
Bird’s essential thesis is that the life and ministry of Jesus is best understood within the context of Jewish restoration eschatology. Jewish restoration eschatology is simply the hope that one day God would bring an end to Israel’s exile, restore their national and spiritual life as his people, and through them bring the nations into submission under his rule. This hope is grounded in the visions of the canonical prophets, and it serves as the foundation for the theology and worldview of Second Temple Judaism. For Bird, this worldview “provides the key to understanding Jesus’ mission, aims, self-understanding and hope.” (56) With this lens in view, then, Bird goes on to walk through the Gospel accounts to show how the details of the Jesus earthly ministry fit within this framework. Along the way he discusses topics such as, the birth and early life of Jesus, Jesus’ self-understanding of himself as Messiah, his teaching about the Kingdom of God and other topics, his interactions with his contemporaries, his’ last days in Jerusalem, and his death and resurrection. In all of this, God is coming, coming as king. He concludes, “Jesus himself started the whisper of this revolution, one involving a reordering of power, Israel’s regathering, the redemption of the Jews, the defeat of Satan, and the renewal of creation.” (300) However, this good news could not remain a whisper; it had to be shared, repeated, declared, argued, and even shouted afar. And this is exactly what Jesus instructed his followers to do.
In terms of strengths, Bird is particularly helpful when he is discussing the place of historical Jesus studies in relation to New Testament Theology. After all, Jesus did not write any of the books that we have included in the NT canon. Technically, the NT Documents are written about him, but none of them were actually written by him. So, we may rightly speak of the theology of Matthew or Luke or Mark or John, but can we also speak of the theology of Jesus himself? Bird suggests that the study of the historical Jesus is a necessary prolegomena o our study of NT theology. Jesus is the church’s primal theologian, and it is his teaching, his ministry, his life and death that stands at the heart of the New Testament. Therefore, we cannot simply relegate historical Jesus studies to the domain of historians alone; no, the study of historical Jesus is a fundamental component of the theologians toolbox when it comes to understanding the theology of Paul or John or Matthew or Peter or James. Bird writes, “Jesus was the first theologian of the Jesus movement, and his is the creative mind behind so much of the church’s generative tradition.” (15-16) This means that the theology of the NT should find its impetus, not exclusively but at least initially, on the lips of Jesus of Nazareth. He goes on to write that, “the study of the historical Jesus is a reminder that the ‘word became flesh’.” (17). In other words, if we truly believe that our faith in grounded in the historical realities of Jesus life and ministry, death and resurrection, then we must give the study of the historical Jesus its proper place when it comes to understanding the New Testament.
One minor reservation that I have concerns Bird’s relatively frequent appeal to the Gospel of Thomas. Thomas is a mid-to-late second-century sayings collection comprising 114 logia attributed to Jesus, many of which exhibit clear literary and thematic dependence upon Synoptic tradition. While some scholars continue to argue that Thomas may preserve independent and possibly early Jesus traditions, the case for its independence remains highly contested. In numerous instances, the parallels suggest secondary development rather than primitive preservation, and several logia reflect theological trajectories consistent with the emerging Gnostic or proto-Gnostic tendencies. To be clear, Thomas is an important witness to the reception and reinterpretation of Jesus’ sayings in the second century. However, its value for reconstructing the historical Jesus is, in my view, extremely limited. For that reason, Bird’s approximately twenty-two references to Thomas—nearly half the number of his citations of the far more substantial and canonically received Gospel of John—feel somewhat disproportionate. While these references do not materially affect his overall thesis, a more restrained use of Thomas would have strengthened the historiographical clarity of the argument.
Whispers of Revolution is not a fifth gospel but at the same time it is not merely a gospel harmony. It is historically grounded, insightful, and clarifying reconstruction of Jesus within the context of first century Judaism and its hopes for restoration. And insofar as the historical study of Jesus of Nazareth is “indispensable for religious scholarship and the life of Christian faith” (14), Bird’s book is both accessible and academically rigorous. It will be a great benefit both to lay Christians who want to understand Jesus and the gospels better and to scholars who are looking for a clear and coherent understanding of Jesus to which they can correlate their own work. And so, I would gladly recommend this book, and if I were ever to teach a course on the life of Jesus or the Gospels, I would require it for my students. When Jesus was with his disciples at Caesarea Philippi, he asked them, “Who do people say that I am?”, and then, more importantly, he asked them, “Who do you say that I am?” This is the fundamental question we must all be able to answer. Bird has answered it: Jesus was a messianic prophet of Jewish restoration in fulfillment Old Testament hopes. While Jesus was certainly more than this, he was certainly not less, and Whispers of Revolution is a great book for those who want to understand the life and times, the ministry and message of Jesus as he himself might have understood it.
Faith seeking Understanding 