Commonplacing: N.T. Wright on the Parables

I am reading N.T. Wright’s book on Jesus right now and am really enjoying it. I have written about Wright’s work a couple of times in the recent past. While an orthodox believer, Wright takes a more historical approach to the life of Jesus before treating the theology of his message. I have long struggled with how we Christians are to view the life and work of Jesus: he gave some hard teaching and a) is it our job to follow it, or b) did he give it merely to show us how in need of grace we are? I have heard this question answered both ways and usually with some sort of vague harmony of the two. I am reading this book in the hopes of coming to a more settled answer to that question. Before I try to engage with any thoughts of my own, such as they are, I thought it would be good to pass along an excerpt from the book on the parables that I found to be quite beautiful, especially considering the academic nature of the work:

“It should therefore be clear that the parables, by their very form, place Jesus firmly within his Jewish context. The genre itself puts into effect that double-edged message of welcome and warning which is the parables’ regular theme. The parables are not simply information about the kingdom, but are part of the means of bringing it to birth. They are not a second order activity, talking about what is happening at one remove. They are part of the primary activity itself. They do not merely give people something to think about. They invite people into the new world that is being created, and warn of dire consequences if the invitation is refused. Jesus’ telling of these stories is one of the key ways in which the kingdom breaks in upon Israel, redefining itself as it does so. They also function, for the same reason, as explanation and defence of what Jesus is doing. As Meyer argues, the parables are not merely theme, they are also performance. They do not merely talk about the divine offer of mercy; they both make the offer, and defend Jesus’ right to make it.” (176)

I think this is exactly right and calls into question my habits of reading the gospels as mere preparation for the bigger thing—the atoning work of Christ on the cross. Wright is encouraging the reader to think of the life and work of Jesus as both the fulfillment of Israel’s story and the inauguration of the kingdom. Too often when we go straight to the cross we deny that Jesus’ earthly ministry had any purpose whatsoever and Jesus becomes a Jew in name only. It would have been all the same, really, if he had just been a divine carpenter crucified for our sins without having bothered with three years of itinerancy. To do my Savior justice, and to know him as He is, I need to be disabused of that notion.