Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI

Every so often a book comes along that deeply moves and inspires me as a person, and as a Christian. I can never know when this will happen. Many books disappoint, and many surprise.

I am right in the middle of one of those amazing books. It is “Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration” by Joseph Ratzinger, otherwise known as Pope Benedict XVI.

OK, I am an evangelical Protestant pastor. How can I speak such of a book by the Roman Catholic Pope of all people?

I remember hearing Johnny Cash commenting on the Nine Inch Nails’ song “Hurt.” His words: “Well, a good song is a good song.”

And a good book is a good book.

A few words about it...

First, this is not a book which carries in the mind of its distinguished writer, the head of the Roman church, what we might refer to as "papal authority." It is not, using Catholic language, and Benedict's own words, a “Magisterium,” which means that it does not carry the teaching authority of the Church or of the Pope as pope. It is a very personal work. In it Pope Benedict is seeking the face of Jesus. The book reflects his own personal journey over time to understand the Jesus of the Gospels. He even invites critique of all things!

Second, whatever your image may be of Joseph Ratzinger, this book will change it. In it you see deeply into his own heart, and what is there is a humble and gentle spirit, and a deep godliness. He deals gently with those who object to the traditional view of Jesus, and his interaction with the arguments in Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner’s “A Rabbi Talks with Jesus” is worth the price of the book. It should be archetypal for how Christians should interact with their Jewish neighbors, and their Jewish critics. I can’t wait to read Neusner’s book, because, from what I can glean from the sections in “Jesus of Nazareth" that relate to Neusner, Neusner understands the message and person of Jesus better than many Christians; he just does not buy it.

Third, the Pope is a superb scholar, in the very best sense of that word. He is a man who has obviously devoted much of his long life to biblical and theological and historical studies. He is well read, current, respectful, and knows what he is talking about.

Fourth, this is not “Jesus for Dummies.” Because Benedict does interact with prevailing trends, some knowledge of theological and biblical lingo would be helpful. But this is most true in the long and excellently written introduction, subtitled “An Initial Reflection on the Mystery of Jesus.” In that introduction Pope Benedict shows why even appropriate scientific historical critical approaches to the Bible cannot be the only approaches, given that the subject of the study is not only an historical figure written about in a writing subject to historical and scientific analysis, but is also the object of our faith. Even if you are not a Christian, if you know enough of the lingo to follow his argument in the opening chapter, you may well end up with a deeper respect for the manner in which Christian folks approach the Bible and its message. The rest of the book is more accessible to the average reader I would say.

Fifth, Pope Benedict is a very good writer. He is clear, and he is gentle. He also writes in a way that speaks to the heart. For me personally as a Christian, the manner in which he speaks and makes his points really speaks to me in a personal manner. He draws me into the kind of relationship with God that I desire to have.

I have always been struck by this observation – that where we as historically orthodox Catholics and Protestants agree (and that is in a very large number of the most essential matters), the Catholic writers just put it differently. I have found their way of putting things, drawn from their long history, culture, and spiritual temperament, to be refreshing. I even love the Catholic Catechism. Where I disagree with it, say about Mary, or papal authority, or justification, or the Eucharist, or veneration of the saints, or purgatory, I can read respectfully, or just skip over. Where I agree with it, I find I am blessed by the way it puts things.

Sixth, I think because of the more serious nature of much Catholic spiritual writing, as compared to so much of the mass-market driven Protestant drivel out there, I think this book provides an opportunity for people to see Jesus, the historic and living Jesus, in a new and deeper way. Benedict really is gifted at cutting to the core of the matter.

I have so far only gotten through the chapters on Jesus’ baptism, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Lord’s Prayer. I plan to read the whole book, and then read it again. I cannot know for sure if at the end of the book that I am not going to be sucker punched by a Catholic apologetic, but nothing so far suggests that I will. Yes, there are references to Catholic teachings or practices, but mainly those are areas in which much of the historic Protestant Church agrees.

Seventh, Pope Benedict does a superb job connecting the old and the new testaments, or covenants. He shows how it is that Christians see Jesus as the fulfillment of what Christians call the Old Testament, and how the Old Covenant anticipated Jesus of Nazareth. Even if, say, a Jewish reader, did not in the end accept the Christian view, I think that this book would help him to respect it.

Eighth, every chapter so far has turned up for me fresh ways of seeing and understanding Jesus, his person and his mission. I by no means think that I am even close to understanding these matters in fullness, but it has been getting hard lately to find writers who open up new vistas. Benedict does that for me. Maybe down the road I will summarize some of those new vistas.

In conclusion, if you want to see into the heart of Jesus of Nazareth, and would like to understand better who he was (and is), or shall I say, who historic orthodox (as compared to liberal) Christians understand Him to be, I strongly recommend this book. But be careful! You may not find the same stereotypical historic orthodox Christianity and Jesus that you have loved to hate, well, if you do I mean.

Check it out. You’ll see what I mean.

Joel

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I loved it too (I'm Catholic). But it is not my favorite book by Joseph Ratzinger. Number one on my list is his "Introduction to Christianity," which is one of the most profound 20th Century books that I have ever read. His book "Truth and Tolerance" is also outstanding if you are interested in a highly sophisticated analysis of moral relativism.

Catharina said...

I'm not Catholic but I loved this book in its entirety. And you have put your finger on WHY it is a book everyone should read. If you haven't done so already, please also read his "Introduction to Christianity" (a marvelous exposition of the Christian Credo, the best I've read) as our Catholic friend suggested. This book brought me back to the Christian faith. A great Pope, and one of the most inspiring Christians alive.

Joel said...

Catharina and Anonymous,

I ordered Ratzinger's "Introduction to Christianity" today. Thanks for the suggestion.

Joel

Timothy said...

Good thoughts and a well written post.

Anonymous said...

Great Review. I tried to find a email for you on your site but couldn't find it. Ususally it is right under my nose.

Ratzinger's(now Benedict's) writings are usually very good for the reason you describe. John Paul the II works were great. But I don't think I am the only one admit that some were not exactly easy reading. In fact I often wondered after reading some of JOhn Paul's works if my typical education was very inadequate lol. Seems like he was often throwing our terms and concepts that I think he assumed everyone knew about and could grapple with.

Anyway , I think you are correct that is there is clearness as to his writing. By the way, there are two reasons why I am posting. First as to Benedict the communicator. HE is very good in some ways but in others ways has some problems as this insightful article froma Vatican reporter points out.
http://ncrcafe.org/node/1116

Second, I do hope if you have finished the book if you would give an another review about things you thought significant or perhaps do it in the comment section. I am particully interested in his Chapter on "What does the Kingdom of God " mean. I have heard tons of different interpretation within amny different faith tradition themselves. I am currently working through his book byt that chapter as well as the Chapter where he interacts with the bood by the Jewish Rabbi.

Thanks
JH
Louisiana

prof said...

hello
vous pouvez inscrire votre blog sur jewisheritage.fr
shalom

Christine said...

I am in the middle of this book and I agree that it is an incredible book (I'm Catholic). I just finished the chapter that discusses Neusner and his book. Yes, Neusner's perspective and observations are very enlightening. I'm just having trouble with one thing. Neusner admits that only God could have made the demands that Jesus made. Indeed, Pope Benedict points out that Jesus "spoke with authority"....he SPOKE ONLY AS GOD COULD SPEAK. How the heck can Neusner admire a man who talked like God but who he (Neusner) believes was NOT God? Am I missing something? This calls to mind the famous CS Lewis quote from "Mere Christianity" where Lewis says one must choose to accept Jesus as God, or write him off as a lunatic ( or something like that...). Your thoughts?

Joel said...

I think Lewis's famous quote is applicable here. Ultimately Neusner rejects Jesus because of the claims Jesus' makes - yet Neusner speaks of Jesus with admiration. Since Neusner is not rejecting the texts, it cannot be said that he is, in his own mind, rejecting a phantom. But seriously, how could one possibly admire Jesus if his claims, including his claims about himself, are false. If Jesus actually said what Neusner seems (rightly) to believe that he said, and if it is not true, then Jesus would have to be considered a megalomaniac and a kook, and a blasphemer.

warm beer said...

"How the heck can Neusner admire a man who talked like God but who he (Neusner) believes was NOT God? Am I missing something? This calls to mind the famous CS Lewis quote from "Mere Christianity" where Lewis says one must choose to accept Jesus as God, or write him off as a lunatic ( or something like that...). Your thoughts?"

## I've not read it (I'm RC) so maybe shouldn't comment it :)

The problem with the Lewisian trilemma is that it does not contain all the possibilities.

As I've not read the book, I can't imagine where the Pope sees the Deity of Christ in the gospels or the NT generally - there are passages that can be taken as evidence of His Deity, but what proof is this that they are meant to mean that ? We Gentiles have grown up with almost 2,000 years of exegesis that "proves" He is God Incarnate - but that's only because we've lost touch with Jewish Christianity & Hebrew thought for almost all of that time :( .

Geza Vermes is a Jew, who became Catholic, & reverted to Judaism - yet he does not have Neusner's problem. The texts no more require Jesus to be Messiah (never mind God) than the book of Habakkuk requires the Qumran Sect to be right in its ideas about itself.

The QS is a test case, as it were; if they were wrong, they were able to be wrong - & so could the early Christians to be. (we can't say, "Oh, but the Bible tells us that we are not mistaken" - for that amounts to appealing to nothing more than our tradition as to Who Jesus is: & tradition is as reliable as Chinese Whispers. It's been sifted, therefore changed: "orthodox" Christology is what's left after the sifting. How do we *know* that it is what the Apostles really did hold ? Faith.

But faith is no proof of rightness either, because it does not rest on earthly guarantees: it can't be "put to the test".

People see an Incarnate God in the gospels only because they are used to doing so - the gospels don't *require* this idea; Jesus can perfectly well be a crucified apocalyptic prophet who was "written up" after his death - Bar Kochba had his followers, & came to an equally sticky end.

Jesus may be a great man, but He need not be thought to be God - Neusner's position seems defensible enough. Historical evidence may be able to show he was thought to be God - it can't show He was; only faith reveals that. The texts as such no more prove the identity of Jesus for an uncommitted reader than the "Life of Apollonius" proves his - both are partisan texts, nothing more. Historical problems about Jesus or anyone else can't be solved by religious faith. To try that, is to debase faith & make Christian faith into a dead rationalism

Joel said...

warm beer,

I think Lewis was basically correct with his three options. There is really only one other option, and that is the Bart Ehrman option that it is all legend, that we have no real reliable record that tells us who or what the real Jesus was or said.

I have been withholding a critique of Neusner's approach, but I have read his book now and need to publish my thoughts.

I will try to respond later, but the old familiar arguments for the divinity of Jesus are not as compelling as a long list of less familiar arguments. The question isn't really "Is Jesus God?" The question is "Who is God, and does the definition of God include Jesus?" The view of the writers of the Gospels and Epistles is a resounding "yes."

I believe that Nuesner's decision to reject Jesus' claims about himself (claims Neusner believed Jesus was making) ultimately means that he thought Jesus was wrong, flat our wrong, and for real, if Jesus was wrong he should have suffered the consequences of blasphemy. I wish people who reject Jesus' obvious claims as regards himself would quit heaping praise upon him and saying stupid things like "I just believe in the sermon on the mount" or similar nonsense, because you can't believe in the Sermon on the Mount unless you accept Jesus' claims about himself.

More later.