McKnight is known to many of the readers of this journal from his Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels, A Light Among the Gentiles, his commentaries on Galatians and 1 Peter, and his co-editorship of the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. With an excellent grasp of the secondary literature on modern Jesus’ research he has written a summary of the new understanding of Jesus’ national and political vision for Israel. There are six chapters covering: the vision of Jesus (a summary of his thesis which provides the framework for the following chapters); the God of Jesus (inflexibly holy, remote, and severe and relationally loving, near and kind); the kingdom now present (the restoration of the nation is taking place in Jesus’ ministry and her exile is ending); the kingdom yet to come (Jesus saw no further than AD 70, and the destruction of Jerusalem is both the divine judgement of Israel, her restoration as a nation, and the end event of history); the ethic of Jesus: conversion and cost (Jesus did not call for an admission of personal fallenness but to identify with the national condition); and the ethic of Jesus: morality (which involves relations to God, self, and others).
McKnight’s thesis is that Jesus’ mission was centred on Israel and had a national and political focus. It was concerned with the ‘restoration of the Jewish nation’, ‘an end of Israel’s exile’, ‘expulsion of God’s enemies from the land’, ‘making God king one more time on Mount Zion’, ‘leading the nation out of bondage to Rome and regaining … control of the land’, ‘restoring … the fortunes of Israel and Judah’, etc. ‘Any summary … that neglects this national dimension … fails to give an adequate historical account of his ministry’ (165–66). McKnight believes that Jesus’ vision must be interpreted in the context of ancient Jewish nationalism. According to McKnight, Jesus, like the OT prophets, came to warn the nation of an impending disaster, if they did not respond to his message. Disaster did come and AD 70 is understood as an act of divine judgement upon Israel. Yet AD 70 is also interpreted as the consummation of the kingdom. The destruction of Jerusalem is both an act of judgement and ‘a harbinger of the imminent kingdom of God’ (125). McKnight interprets such passages as Matthew 10:5–6; Mark 9:1; and all of Mark 13 (even vv. 24–27) as fulfilled in AD 70. Following this judgement ‘… the kingdom of God would be made up of Israelites who had survived the ordeal and who would become the restored Israel, constituted around the new tribal leaders, the Twelve’ (155).
Unfortunately crucial terms used in this description of Jesus’ vision are not defined. What exactly does the ‘restoration’ of Israel mean? Does it refer to a restoration in which a descendent of David would rule an independent territory with Jerusalem as its capital? Certainly that is what Jewish nationalism believed. Is the new covenant a ‘restoration’ of Israel or a quantum-leap advance over the old covenant? If the latter is correct, is ‘restoration’ the right term? When McKnight refers to the ‘nation’ of Israel, is he referring to a geographical region or the Jewish people? How would this ‘restoration’ effect the vast majority of Jews who lived in the diaspora? How would a positive response to Jesus’ message have brought about the expulsion of the Romans? All this is unclear, and the realised dimension of the kingdom McKnight gives is quite apolitical and does not refer to liberation from Rome (see 86–95, 103–110). As to AD 70 over 95% of the Jewish people survived the fall of Jerusalem, most of them in the diaspora, and the great majority did not follow Jesus. How is this the consummation of the kingdom?
Numerous generalisations are found throughout the book. McKnight quotes with approval Bruce Chilton’s statement that Jesus’ crucifixion was the ‘result of his occupation of the temple’. Yet the trial accounts never mention Jesus’ activity in the temple. Why must Jesus’ martyrdom be interpreted as due to his having made political statements that were a threat to the nation? Does not the history of Christian martyrs provide innumerable examples of apolitical Christians being put to death because they reproved the world of sin and righteousness? The Gospels portray the enmity against Jesus as being due to his moral reproof of racial and social prejudice, his extension of God’s love to the outcasts of Israel, and especially to his rejection of Pharisaic customs and traditions. If we define these as ‘political’ in nature, this would involve an unusual use of the term ‘political’.
McKnight also argues that the most characteristic activity in Jesus’ ministry was his table-fellowship and that this served as an acted out parable anticipating table-fellowship in the kingdom. Such eating symbolised Jesus’ acceptance of publicans and sinners, including their ‘social status, moral practices, and attitude toward Israel’s covenant with God’ (45). Yet it is surprising how few incidents of eating we find in the Gospels that Jesus, himself, initiated. There are only three: the feeding of the 4000 and 5000 and (the Last Supper. The first two are christological signs and have nothing to do with table-fellowship. The last, of course, is clearly symbolic of the messianic banquet in the Kingdom of God, but this is a meal associated with the disciples, not publicans and sinners! The remaining meals mentioned in the Gospels were initiated by others, and Jesus was clearly the guest. These were initiated by Publicans and sinners or by Pharisees! Did such eating symbolise Jesus’ acceptance of the practices of both these two groups? Jesus’ eating with publicans and sinners were clearly an acted out parable, but what did it teach? It taught that God’s love was not limited by pharisaic or cultural boundaries. Jesus came to seek and to save the lost. Publicans and sinners were not outside the possibility of salvation and the kingdom. Although lost, they could be saved, but sharing in such table-fellowship was not a sacrament that automatically brought salvation to the participants.
McKnight has written a thought-provoking book. One cannot read it without being challenged. He has drunk deeply from the well of modern Jesus research, and he has sought to interpret the gospel materials in light of this new ‘political’ perspective. I believe, however, that if one reverses the process and interprets this modern Jesus research in light of the gospel materials, the results will be quite different. I shall mention one more problem that I have with McKnight’s thesis. I have great difficulty equating the coming of the Son of Man in such passages as Matthew 10:5–6; Mark 9:1 and 13:1–32 with the events of AD 70. Luke’s description of the return of the Son of Man is a major roadblock for such an interpretation. After Jesus’ ascension into heaven, we read, ‘This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven’ (Acts 1:10). For Luke the return of the Son of Man was clearly not identified with the events of AD 70, but an event still future that would involve the visible return of the Son of Man.
