Following is a link for a full interview between Frank Viola and Scot McKnight as they discuss McKnight’s Book The King Jesus Gospel. This interview was originally on Frank Viola’s Blog Beyond Evangelical. Click this link to read the unedited interview: http://frankviola.org/2012/02/
I highly recommend reading this interview as McKnight is touching on some of the same issues I discuss in Viral Jesus about the lordship of Jesus Christ.
Order Today!
I found you through Viola’s promotion. Glad to connect. Blessings.
Jonathan
Hi Jonathan,
Glad to get to know you. Look around I have lots of posts. I hope some draw you closer to Jesus.
Ross
Hey, Ross
I wanted you to know that I’ve been enjoying your book greatly. Also, some of the things you’ve said there have encouraged me to go back and actually begin reading McKnight’s “King Jesus Gospel” (after Frank reminded me of it with his link swap thing).
You see, I’ve been pondering for a long time now just what the gospel IS, and not knowing exactly what I’d say if I were called on to actually give a sermon on it. I mean, we’re promised that we’ll be given the things to say, but all the same it might be good to have SOME idea what’s going to come out of our mouths. I gave up the Four Spiritual Laws gospel long ago as woefully inadequate. So I’m hoping McKnight (and you) get into at least some specifics as I get further into your books. While I do know the OT, I can hardly share the whole thing with an interested friend in one go.
I think part of this is to get the knowledge internalized via the Spirit to the point where it is no longer necessary to intellectually construct an argument or thesis; it just grows out of you as a flower does out of a plant. That’s my goal, anyway. But I did want you to know that thus far, I love your book.
Blessings, Cindy
Hi Cindy,
First let me say how much I’ve enjoyed our internet communication over the last few months. As you read Viral Jesus you will note that I place a high value on two issues, the lordship of Jesus (which needs to be played out in all that we “do” not just “say,” and the new covenant. This new covenant is a living contract/arrangement/lifestyle that we enter into with Jesus. At that point he becomes our God and we become his people.
When I preach the gospel I find that I often (not always) mention the new covenant because at least one way to understand the gospel is that they are entering into this agreement/contract. That brings in the Old Testament. Israel also had a covenant with God call the law or old covenant. At least one thing McKnight is saying is that we can’t understand the new covenant unless we understand the old one.
Now here’s a mind blowing thought. The words for “testament” as in Old Testament and New Testament can be equally or even better be translated “covenant.” The Old Testament revolves around the old covenant, before Israel had it, what it was, and what happened when they obeyed and when they did not. The New Testament is exactly the same thing for the new covenant. Remember Jesus said “In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” (Lk 22:20). Semitic/Hebrew covenants were sealed with blood. That’s what the animal sacrifice was about in the OT. Jesus sealed his part of the covenant with his own blood. He became the “lamb of God” the sacrificial lamb of the new covenant just like the lambs and goats were of the old covenant. Our sealing of the covenant comes with baptism which symbolizes death, burial and resurrection (i.e. we are sealing the covenant just like Jesus did); he did it literally, we do it symbolically. Now does the OT part of salvation make more sense?
Finally, the Holy Spirit really does give us words at the right time. Part of our new covenant agreement is that He will put the law in our hearts and minds (Jer. 31:31 and Heb. 8:10.) That means he can speak to our hearts and minds, it’s part of our covenant arrangement. And, because of this arrangement the Holy Spirit can put words in our heart and mind and just the right time. We have to be attuned to Him and listening but I’ve learned that when I am in a witnessing situation and paying attention just the right analogy or way of being comes up. I’ll mention this more than once in Viral Jesus. Note for example how my friend Vincent listened to Jesus in the Introduction. Note how Jesus told me to worked with Amado later in the book.
Cindy, you are person with a sensitive spirit. That’s a huge advantage. It means that your heart is an excellent receptor to the voice of God. Trust it, or better said, trust Him. The only homework you really need is to learn to discern His voice from others. For the basics on that I’d like to point you to the post Four Voices.
Your Friend,
Ross
Thanks, Ross
That’s very helpful. I never thought of explaining it as two blood covenants. This works very well, imo. I’ll have to give it some more thought. I wonder how well people in a post-Christian culture will be able to understand this. Have you used it often?
And yes, you’re right. I guess I’ve never not had the right words, though I don’t actually interact with a lot of people on a one on one basis during my days. I’m taking steps to improve that. It’s hard for God to give you people to share with if you never meet any people.
Blessings, Cindy
Cindy,
I wouldn’t go into the blood part of the covenant until it was necessary to do so. I’m certainly not ashamed to speak of Jesus’ blood sacrifice for us, but in the postmodern culture it might not be easily understood. Do we avoid it? No. We wait for the Holy Spirit to tell us it’s time to talk about it. Have I talked about it with postmoderns? Yes, many times and as long as they have it in its cultural context it seems to make sense to them. It is when we start throwing around the words and concepts of blood, sacrifice and propitiation without a reason beyond him dying for our sins and is often doesn’t make sense to them. For them it seems like God is a tyrant, not loving.
Yet, when the time is right and I explain it in its historical/cultural context the sacrificial part not only makes sense, it can be viewed for the incredible gift that it is. One last thought. I’ve found that when I explain that a covenant sealed by the taking of a life was a way of showing how serious it was. This also helps to make sense to them. I tell them that someone sacrifices money, or land, or something they can do or make for themselves, it only has replacement value. But no human can make a living thing. They can’t make an inanimate object have life. The creation of life is beyond human control. So to take a life (even a goat’s life) is to sacrifice something that is beyond human control, is beyond any monetary value and is therefore sacred. Then the sacrificial death of Jesus starts to take on real meaning. It isn’t just about a cruel and pity less God who wantonly takes the life of his Son; which is how many postmoderns see it if it is explained the way we often tend to explain it.