A Compelling Portrait of Jesus, Aided by Scholarship

When their daughter returned from studying abroad at the BYU Jerusalem Center, James and Judith McConkie found themselves wanting to learn more about the actual, historical Jesus — the man who lived in first-century Palestine. In response, they turned to something that is often overlooked by Mormons: biblical scholarship. And I don’t just mean books written by BYU professors; I mean works from respected non-LDS scholars like N.T. Wright, John Dominic Crossan, and Marcus Borg, and even secular scholars like Bart Ehrman.

What value did the McConkies see in biblical scholarship? They wanted to understand the historical context of Jesus’s life. They were concerned that, without understanding the historical context, they would run the risk of devising “a self-validating Jesus who just happened to agree with our view of things.” They remind us that

during the Civil War, the Confederate States often justified slavery by quoting the New Testament and the Apostle Paul. Mormons used the same sources to justify priesthood restrictions. If Jesus and his disciples could be commandeered to support such practices, there is no limit to what his name might be used to justify. … 

In the words of [N.T.] Wright, Jesus is “almost universally approved of” but for “very different and indeed often incompatible reasons.” He is “wheeled in” to give support to capitalism on the one hand and socialism on the other. Some groups use him to “undergird strict morality” while others use him to offer freedom from more “constrictive moral constraints.” Yet still others tout him as a pacifist while others make him out to justify violence in some circumstances.

In order to understand the social, cultural, and political context and “reconstruct the first-century Jesus — the Jesus that first-generation Christians would recognize,” the McConkies turned to “the most scholarly books [they] could find that describe his historical setting.” Their goal was “to strip away centuries of layers, lore, and legend that have been superimposed on the Jesus story.”

In their new book, Whom Say Ye That I Am? Lessons from the Jesus of Nazareth, the McConkies describe what they have learned (so far) from their studies. They offer a moving, compelling, and thought-provoking portrait of Jesus — one that differs in some respects from what is typically said about Jesus in LDS discourse. In fact, they say that

[o]ne of the surprising aspects of asking serious questions about Jesus was finding unexpected answers. In many, if not most, cases, those answers have significantly changed our perspectives. We have been forced to reevaluate some of our cherished assumptions.

The McConkies also challenged my own thinking about Jesus in several ways. For example, I am not used to thinking about Jesus in relation to questions about politics or economics. But the McConkies describe Jesus as someone who was passionately concerned about systemic injustice — i.e., political and economic configurations that adversely affect people’s lives.

Jesus did not focus on personal virtues alone but also society’s justice. It was not simply a matter of saying to the rich and powerful of his day and ours, “Be good” and donate more to your favorite charity. … Jesus wanted much more. … His aim was to radically alter the world’s customs and structures that brought about the situation in the first place. The problem was an agreed-upon way of doing things that brought the poor and vulnerable to ruin. …

Jesus and first-generation Christians who followed him realized that permanently solving poverty involved more than changing hearts and asking for donations. A genuine solution “demanded sweeping comprehensive changes in the political, social, and economic structures.” Vast differences in financial resources and the subsequent privileges wealth brought about had to be eliminated. The gulf between rich and poor could not continue.

The McConkies also helped me to better understand the extent to which Jesus was countercultural in his views about women. In first-century Palestine, women had almost no rights, and there was “a wall of separation between priestly duties and women.” Jesus, however, “def[ied] the traditional roles assigned to men and women” and “did not hesitate to recognize, speak with, bless, and include women in public encounters and in his closest and most intimate circles.” “[I]n Jesus’s household, women taught, prophesied, prayed, and held office.” The McConkies believe that “there is enough evidence inside and outside the New Testament to cause a reevaluation of the role women played during Jesus’s ministry and shortly thereafter.” Quoting N.T. Wright, they suggest it is time “to radically change our traditional pictures of what men and women are and of how they relate to one another within the church.”

Mormons place great emphasis on obedience to God’s commandments, so I was surprised to read the McConkies (who are faithful Mormons themselves) argue that Jesus “rejected the list-of-commandments approach to sin.” More specifically, they claim that Jesus

believed that religions that focused on upright conduct based on strict compliance with a list of dos and don’ts are asking us to be self-centered and self-absorbed. … Jesus taught that if our thoughts and behaviors are kindhearted and loving — that is, if they lift, comfort, encourage, forgive, and support others in compassionate and virtuous ways — then God approves. Anything less than this constitutes sin.

I also found the chapter on the family to be surprising (and enlightening). To Mormons living in the twenty-first century, who hold up the nuclear family as the ideal arrangement, some of Jesus’s teachings about the family can seem strange (e.g., “I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother” (Matthew 10:35)). But the McConkies explain that in Jesus’s time, family life centered on households rather than on the nuclear family. These households were patriarchal and hierarchical; many within the household (women, laborers, slaves) had little freedom. In this context, Jesus believed that the idea of a Kingdom led by God rather than by the established hierarchy of the ancient household was the true or ideal family. He wanted to reshape society, merging individual families into the new one called God’s family, or Kingdom. This Kingdom would be characterized by social and economic equality, displacing patriarchy and the other vertical social arrangements in a household.

In discussing Jesus’s comparison of the Kingdom of God to a feast (see Luke 14:15–23), the McConkies say:

Rather than inviting only the wealthy and prominent, everyone who accepted Jesus’s invitation to the Kingdom would be seated regardless of their status — people off the street next to the prominent, female next to male, socially high next to socially low, and ritually pure next to ritually impure. … Eating together in this way eliminated society’s “vertical discriminations and lateral separations.” By inviting everyone, Jesus illustrated the equal privilege that was at the heart of the Kingdom of God. None were to be excluded; all were to be seated at the table equally.

I find this vision for society quite compelling — and daunting. While I believe humanity has made great strides toward achieving this vision since Jesus’s time, we also have a tremendous amount of work still to do. 

The McConkies say that their studies have made them “more fully convinced … that Jesus is the Son of God.” Their book has stirred similar feelings in me. And it has also reinforced to me the importance of “seek[ing] ... out of the best books” (D&C 88:118) as part of my ongoing efforts to know Jesus better.