Ever since New Testament theology developed as a branch of the broader discipline of biblical theology, scholars have debated how such a theology should be constructed.^[1] Are we to use the categories of systematic theology and then see what each NT author had to say about these areas?^[2] Or should we study the post-Easter preaching of the early church to see how Christians developed the theology of the NT?^[3] Some have sought to organize NT theology using significant themes found therein.^[4] Still others have traced the theological themes of the individual writers of the NT with the goal of showing the unity of these themes.^[5]

But regardless of the approach taken, one important question persists: What role should the words and works of Jesus have in forming a NT theology? Undeniably, the things Jesus said and did should play a central part in the drama of this pursuit. In fact Jesus’s words and deeds ought to be the starting point in any formulation of a NT theology. Before we ask what any of the Gospel writers or Paul or Peter believed about Jesus, we ought to consider what Jesus believed as revealed in his words and works. Discovering and articulating this theology of Jesus, as I argue in this essay, should be seen as a key component in designing a NT theology.

I will proceed by dealing with four issues that provide the structure in which to delineate the various aspects of Jesus’s theology. First, I will establish the warrant for the study of Jesus’s theology as a legitimate pursuit. Second, I will provide a survey of previous attempts to answer this question in order to show the need for such an enterprise today. Third, I will address the challenges that face those who attempt a study of Jesus’s theology. And fourth, I will delineate a methodology for the study of the theology of Jesus.

1. The Warrant for the Study

The assertion that Jesus’s theology should be the starting point in articulating a NT theology may seem quite impossible or at best naïve, but I propose five reasons why such an enterprise should be pursued, not just as a possibility, but even more as a necessity. I will classify these reasons under two broad categories: theological and historical.

1.1 Theological Warrants

There are at least two theological reasons that warrant a study of Jesus’s theology. First, the reality of who Jesus is demands that we study his theology. The author of Hebrews refers to Jesus as the founder of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). Paul calls Jesus the head (Eph 5:23; Col 1:18) and cornerstone (Eph 2:20) of the church. Furthermore, Jesus’s words and works are significant because he is the second person of the Godhead (John 1:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:8).^[6] God revealed himself by many different avenues throughout biblical history (Heb 1:1), but in Jesus he has provided revelation about himself directly. Jesus’s words ought to be investigated because he is the head of the church and because he is God.

The efforts made by the followers of Jesus to preserve his words in writing establishes the basis for the second reason we should study his theology. As the canon took shape, the church came to recognize the four Gospels as authoritative books inspired by God.^[7] The Gospel writers chose to focus their attention on the Son of God’s words and works because they did not want to lose any of the truth about Jesus due to the failure of people’s memories.^[8] Indeed, guarding this tradition about Jesus was of supreme importance to the NT writers (2 Thess 2:15; 1 Tim 6:20; Jude 3).^[9] This is evident in the amount of canonical space dedicated to the preservation of what he said and did.^[10] It is also evident in the application of Jesus’s teaching to the church shown in Acts, the epistles, and Revelation. Since Jesus is the focus of the NT revelation, his words preserved therein deserve pride of place in any articulation of a NT theology.

1.2 Historical Warrants

There are three historical reasons Jesus’s words and works ought to be the starting point in constructing NT theology. First, before James or Mark or Paul, Jesus spoke. His words and works formed the basis for what these men and all the other NT writers thought and theologized.^[11] Jesus taught his disciples, interacted with his opponents, performed miracles, comforted his followers, and prophesied about his death and the life to come. He did all of this before any of the apostles preserved it in writing or sought to develop theological dogma based upon what he had said and done.

Second, this simple chronological priority should be taken a step further. Peter Stuhlmacher argues that there are three possible starting points one could take when developing a NT theology: Jesus’s preaching, the Easter message (i.e., the preaching about the death and resurrection of Christ), and the theology of Paul.^[12] It is possible to argue for the legitimacy of any one of the three depending on one’s goal. If one seeks to use the oldest NT writings as the starting point, then the letters of Paul would be the choice.^[13] If one relies on the construction of the NT tradition, indebted as it is to the death and resurrection of Christ, then the Easter message would be a natural starting point. But if the goal is “to trace the path which God took when he, in and through Jesus Christ, came to humanity,”^[14] then one ought to start NT theology with Jesus because God chose to reveal himself in him. Jesus’s preaching and teaching, then, should be the starting point of a NT theology since God chose to reveal his truth in and through Jesus prior to the theological conclusions his followers would make following Jesus’s resurrection.^[15] Furthermore, Jesus’s preaching forms the basis of the later kerygma of the church.^[16]

The third historical reason we ought to engage in the study of Jesus’s theology relates to the significance of Jesus’s words and works in the inspired writings of his followers. Besides the Gospels, which intend to preserve the words and works of Jesus,^[17] Acts, the epistles, and Revelation base many of their arguments on the words of Jesus himself.

There are a few direct quotations of Jesus in Acts and the epistles. Twice in Acts Peter (Acts 11:16) and Paul (Acts 20:35) use Jesus’s words to validate a point they were making to their audiences. In 1 Cor 11:24–25, Paul quotes Jesus’s words at the Last Supper as a template to be used for the church’s communion celebration, and in 1 Tim 5:18, he quotes Jesus’s words from Luke 10:7 to support the idea of caring for elders. And, though not directly quoting Jesus, Paul refers to his teaching on marriage in 1 Cor 7:10–11.

The allusions to Jesus’s words in Acts, the epistles, and Revelation are too numerous to delineate exhaustively here, but a few examples will suffice to show the authority of his words in the NT tradition. In Acts, Philip (8:12) and Paul (20:25; 28:31) preach the same message (the gospel of the kingdom) that Jesus did (Mark 1:15). Paul alludes to the words of Jesus in 2 Thess 3:3 (cf. Matt 6:13); 2 Tim 2:12 (cf. Matt 10:33); and Phil 3:7–8 (cf. Mark 8:36). We find many allusions to Jesus’s teaching in James (2:5 [cf. Luke 6:20]; 5:1–6 [cf. Luke 6:24]), the Johannine epistles (1 John 3:11 and 2 John 5 [cf. John 13:34]; 1 John 3:8 [cf. John 8:44]), and Revelation (2:10 [cf. Matt 10:28]; 16:15 [cf. Matt 24:43; Mark 13:37]) as well.

Besides quotations and allusions, Jesus’s use of the OT prompted his followers to employ the same texts in their preaching and teaching.^[18] Jesus cited Gen 2:24 in his teaching on marriage, as did Paul (Eph 5:31). The writer of Hebrews quoted or alluded to Ps 110 at least twenty times,^[19] and was most likely pointed there by Jesus’s words (Matt 22:44 and par.; Mark 14:62 and par.). Likewise, Peter (Acts 2:34–35; 1 Pet 3:22) and Paul (Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1) used the Psalm with reference to Jesus’s exalted status. When speaking about his rejection by unbelieving Jews, Jesus cited Ps 118:22 (Luke 20:17 and par.). Peter referred back to this usage in Acts 4:11 and 1 Pet 2:7. Paul quoted Isa 6:9–10 in Acts 28:26–27, using the prophet’s words exactly the way Jesus did when using this text to explain his hearers’ failure to grasp his message (Matt 13:14–15 and par.). Finally, Jesus referred to Dan 7:13 during his eschatological discourse (Matt 24:30 and par.) and at his trial (Mark 14:62 and par.). Both Stephen (Acts 7:56) and the writer of Hebrews (1:3) likely made this same connection because of Jesus’s prior usage.

I have shown that there is a fivefold warrant for delineating Jesus’s theology. Two theological reasons include (1) a Christological argument: Jesus is head of the church and is divine; and (2) a scriptural argument: more than half of the canonical NT books preserve the words and works of Jesus. Three historical points include the chronological reality that (1) Jesus spoke and acted prior to any written revelation; (2) the preaching and teaching of Jesus preceded and formed the basis for the later preaching of the church; and (3) the significance of Jesus’s words and works seen in the abundance of quotations and allusions in Acts, the epistles, and Revelation show the value and significance of Jesus’s words in the canonical record.

2. The Need for the Study

Despite legitimate reasons to prioritize Jesus’s theology, many remain unconvinced. On the other hand, some have embraced the notion as foundational for NT theology. With few exceptions,^[20] most of the nineteenth and early twentieth century theologies of Jesus followed the Heilsgeschichte approach championed by F. C. Baur and the Tübingen school.^[21] This trend ran headlong into a formidable wall built in part by two of the greatest conservative biblical theologians of the early twentieth century—Adolf von Schlatter in Germany and Gerhardus Vos in the United States.^[22] Both considered the historical Jesus and his teaching foundational for NT theology.^[23] Thus, at the beginning of the twentieth century there were two basic approaches to Jesus’s theology. On the one hand were those who rejected the historical nature of the words and works of Jesus. For them a consideration of Jesus’s actual teaching was impossible because the NT bears testimony only to the thoughts and opinions of the early church about Jesus. On the other hand, those who accepted the sayings of Jesus as being authentically preserved in the Gospels, believed that NT theology ought to begin with a presentation of Jesus’s theology.

Throughout the rest of the twentieth century and up to the present, NT scholars handled the teaching/theology of Jesus in three basic ways. First, some rejected it outright as a hopelessly impossible enterprise since the Jesus of history is impossible to extricate from the Christ of faith. Rudolf Bultmann, for example, proclaimed, “The message of Jesus is a presupposition for the theology of the New Testament rather than a part of that theology itself.”^[24] For Bultmann, “[t]he theology of the New Testament begins with the kerygma of the earliest church and not before.”^[25]

In contrast, following the work of Schlatter and Vos, several conservative scholars have included Jesus’s theology as a part of their explication of NT theology,^[26] including Peter Stuhlmacher (1992), G. B. Caird (1994), N. T. Wright (1996), Larry Helyer (2008), and Ben Witherington (2016).^[27] Of these, Caird, Helyer, and Witherington spend one or two chapters explaining Jesus’s theology. Stuhlmacher dedicates half of his work (about 200 pages in the German edition) to Jesus’s teaching (in many respects his work is patterned after the approach of Schlatter). Wright deals with many categories of Jesus’s thought, but he does so deductively with an ulterior goal in mind.^[28] An important subset of works exist whose authors did not necessarily intend to make a specific contribution to the discipline of NT theology but which do, nonetheless, provide an explanation of Jesus’s theology.^[29]

Alongside these conservative scholars are several others who, though not necessarily accepting the historical Jesus, still believe that the writing of a NT theology ought to begin with the preaching of Jesus. Thomas W. Manson (1935), Joachim Jeremias (1971), and Leonhard Goppelt (1981) all present book length treatments of Jesus’s theology.^[30] Werner Kümmel (1973) deals with the theology of Jesus, Paul, and John in separate sections and then finishes with a synthesis of the three in his concluding chapter.^[31] Ferdinand Hahn (2005) devotes Part 1 of his NT theology to defending the use of Jesus’s preaching for the foundation of NT theology.^[32] Finally, Udo Schnelle (2009) dedicates one chapter to the proclamation of Jesus.^[33]

The third approach to the teachings of Jesus is not really an approach at all but is rather an omission. Several NT theologies have been produced in the past forty years by evangelical scholars who appear to assume the foundational nature of Jesus’s teaching. Though all would strongly affirm the historicity of Jesus and the authoritative nature of his words, none have dedicated even a chapter of their books to a treatment of Jesus’s theology.^[34]

Beginning with George Ladd and Chester Lehman in 1974 and moving forward to the works of Donald Guthrie (1981), Leon Morris (1986), Roy Zuck and Darrell Bock (1994), I. Howard Marshall (2004), Frank Thielman (2005), Thomas Schreiner (2008), and Julius Scott (2008), evangelical Christians have enjoyed an abundance of NT theological studies.^[35] However, each of these books gives no space to Jesus’s theological instruction.

This absence of attention to the theology of Jesus is also evident in seven monograph series dedicated to biblical theology. From 1952–1975, SCM Press/Alec R. Allenson published eighty-two volumes in two series entitled, Studies in Biblical Theology. Only two of these monographs deals with Jesus’s theology.^[36] Cambridge University Press published sixteen volumes in a series entitled New Testament Theology from 1991–2003, none of which explicated a theology of Jesus. At present, four publishers are producing multi-volume series on biblical theology: New Studies in Biblical Theology (Inter-Varsity Press), NAC Studies in Bible and Theology (B&H Publishing Group), Explorations in Biblical Theology (P&R Publishing), and Library of Biblical Theology (Abingdon Press).^[37] None of the seventy-one volumes in these four series includes a study of Jesus’s theology. Lastly, Zondervan’s Biblical Theology of the New Testament series will eventually consist of eight volumes, none dealing with the theology of Jesus.^[38]

Despite the proliferation of monographs in biblical theology, there are surprisingly few presentations focused on Jesus’s theology. Though there remain many evangelical scholars who are ably writing in defense of the historical Jesus and who are making significant contributions to the discipline of NT theology, very few have seen fit to articulate Jesus’s theology let alone make it the starting point of NT theology. In fact, since 1900 only Adolf Schlatter (1920) has presented a conservative, book-length treatment of the subject.^[39] Even when we add non-conservatives to the mix, only Jeremias (1971) and Goppelt (1981) come into view. Moving onward to shorter treatments of Jesus’s theology within larger NT theological works, we find that since 1950 only N. T. Wright (1996), Peter Stuhlmacher (1992), and Ferdinand Hahn (2005) have provided more than a couple of chapters discussing Jesus’s theology.

3. The Challenges of the Study

If the effort of articulating a theology of Jesus and placing it at the head of the enterprise of NT theology is both warranted and necessary, several hurdles face those who would undertake this task. These include the question of the historical Jesus, the identification of Jesus’s words, and the time when he spoke them.

3.1 The Historical Jesus

For conservative theologians the historical Jesus and the theological Christ are the same individual. Anyone wishing to know who Jesus was and what he said can readily discover this information in the Gospels. There is no need to peel back the layers of tradition formed over decades by well-meaning Christians bent on developing a positive theological picture of Jesus. They affirm that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John accurately reported the teachings of Jesus without erring and according to the intended meaning of Jesus himself. Such scholars should not have any problem delineating a theology of Jesus since the Gospels convey his teaching accurately and provide the right theological and historical context in which to understand it.

But such a perspective does not find happy acceptance among less conservative scholars. For them the effort to articulate Jesus’s theology is quite improbable, if not impossible, because the Gospels reveal a “remembered Jesus”^[40] rather than a “recited Jesus.”^[41] At best, Jesus’s words recorded in the four Gospels bear some resemblance to what Jesus might have actually said, and at worst they provide only a faint hint. Either way these words, purported to have come from Jesus, cannot serve as fertile ground for the articulation of Jesus’s theology because there is no way to be confident that what the Gospel writers recorded reflects the actual words of Jesus.^[42]

An inordinate amount of time spent on the defense of the historical Jesus in the pursuit of his theology can hopelessly sidetrack us from the goal. Fundamental differences should be acknowledged and accounted for, but they should not detain those who trust Scripture from articulating Jesus’s own theology. Since I approach the question from the conservative perspective, I point the reader to the multitude of works which offer significant support to the accuracy of the historical Jesus found in the Gospels.^[43] And I concur with those who argue that the burden of proof in this discussion lies with those who deny the historicity of Jesus’s words and work.^[44]

3.2 The Identification of Jesus’s Words

Another challenge facing the pursuit of Jesus’s theology: what exactly did Jesus say? There are three aspects to this question. First, identifying the original Greek text of the NT must precede all other investigation. This whole subject, of course, plunges us into the technical world of NT textual criticism. Interestingly, the two largest variant readings in the NT contain significant and unique teachings by Jesus: the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) and the ending of Mark (16:9–20). Including or excluding these passages in a description of Jesus’s theology requires prior textual decisions to be made.

Second, we must inquire into situations where Jesus’s words are easily confused with the words of the Evangelist; i.e., where do Jesus’s words end and the Evangelist’s comments begin? For example, in John 3:1–15 Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night and they interact over the question of how one can be born again. Jesus gives a rather lengthy answer in vv. 10–15 as he speaks about the necessity of the Son of Man’s death. Many red-letter editions continue to print vv. 16–21 in red, but are these Jesus’s words? If we consider the parallel story in 3:22–36 with John the Baptist, it appears that John the Evangelist has followed the same pattern in both narratives. That is, in 3:1–15 and in 3:22–30, the Evangelist records the interaction between the characters; then, in 3:16–21 and 3:31–36 he provides a commentary on what just occurred.^[45] Thus, the words of John 3:16–21 are not those of Jesus but are, rather, the words of the Evangelist. Hence, these six verses should not be used when articulating a theology of Jesus.

Third, the issue of the ipsissima verba and the ipsissima vox of Jesus requires attention. The precise Aramaic words spoken by Jesus are recorded quite infrequently in the Gospels.^[46] Aside from his words on the cross (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34) and his words to Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:41), there are few other instances where Jesus’s Aramaic words are recorded. Rather, the Evangelists have translated Jesus’s Aramaic words into Greek. A problem arises when we consider the extent to which the Evangelists are translating or summarizing Jesus’s voice. If the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels differ at all (assuming that the words were spoken at the same event; e.g., the Lord’s Supper or the feeding of the 5,000), how can we discern the theology of Jesus since such changes represent the various theological interests of the particular Evangelist who recorded the event? These differences help to show the theology of Matthew or Luke, but they could tend to confuse the effort to articulate Jesus’s theology.

With few exceptions,^[47] the differences between Gospel quotations of Jesus do not affect one’s understanding of the meaning of Jesus’s words. Two examples must suffice:^[48]

Matt 16:13: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

Mark 8:27: “Who do people say I am?”

Luke 9:18: “Who do the crowds say I am?”

While Jesus probably said, “Son of Man,” Mark’s and Luke’s insertion of “I” in its place does not constitute a change in meaning; the same can be said for Luke’s use of “crowds” as opposed to Matthew’s and Mark’s use of “people.” A second example comes from Jesus’s trial:

Matt 26:64: “Yes, it is as you say…. But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Mark 14:62: “I am…. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Luke 22:67b–70: “If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer. But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”

Again, there are a few differences between the three accounts, but as Bock states, “Though there is variation and difference in detail, the gist of the replies is the same.”^[49]

Thus, the attempt to articulate Jesus’s theology is not thwarted by the slight modifications the Evangelists may have made to the words of Jesus.^[50]

3.3 The Timing of Jesus’s Words

When considering the raw material needed for articulating a theology of Jesus, we must set the parameters not only with regard to identifying Jesus’s words but also with regard to their timing. The Gospels are the main source of Jesus’s teachings both before and after his resurrection. Additionally, Acts 1:4–5, 7–8; 11:16 record similar words of Jesus found in Luke 24:47–49. And most agree that the agraphon in Acts 20:35 (“It is more blessed to give than to receive”) came from Jesus’s mouth during his earthly ministry. Furthermore, Paul’s recounting of Jesus’s words at the Last Supper in 1 Cor 11:24–25 likely precede the recording of the same words in each of the Gospels. Thus, the words of Jesus in the Gospels, Acts, and 1 Corinthians constitute the bulk of the material for articulating a theology of Jesus.^[51]

But Jesus said other things from his exalted position at God’s right hand that are recorded in the NT. In Acts 9:4–16 (parallel accounts include Acts 22:7–21; 26:14–18), Christ speaks to Paul on the Damascus road; Acts 10:13, 15; 11:7, 9 record the words of Christ to Peter in the vision of the sheet; Acts 18:9–10 quotes Jesus’s words to Paul in Corinth; in Acts 23:11 Christ comforts Paul regarding his coming witness in Rome; and 2 Cor 12:9 recounts when Christ encouraged Paul in a time of personal weakness. All of these instances relate to the ministry of the apostles and a situation when Christ spoke directly to them.

Furthermore, the Book of Revelation includes Jesus’s words to the apostle John on Patmos (Rev 1:8–11, 17–20) and to the seven churches in Asia (Rev 2–3). These are similar to those in Acts and 2 Corinthians in that they provide encouragement and instruction to the first-century church and its leaders. Finally, Christ gives several exhortations regarding his coming (Rev 16:15; 22:7, 12–13, 16, 20), and these are likewise directed to the late first-century readers of this prophecy.

Should these post-ascension words of Christ found in Acts, 2 Corinthians, and Revelation be included in the study of Jesus’s theology? Or are Jesus’s pre-ascension words qualitatively superior than his post-ascension words as a source for his theology? To the first question, we ought to answer “Yes,” which entails “No” to the second.  True, Jesus’s words in Acts, 2 Corinthians, and Revelation address believers in the church as opposed to his pre-ascension words, which were directed to people not yet in the church (because the church had not yet begun). But this fact does not alter the value of any of Jesus’s words recorded in the NT, which were clearly intended to teach the believers of the church the unsearchable riches of Christ.^[52]

The challenge of articulating Jesus’s theology does encounter several hurdles. But I have sought to help the reader clear these hurdles with alacrity. First, we have ample reason to affirm that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John accurately reported the words Jesus said and the deeds Jesus performed. Second, we can be confident we are studying the actual words of Jesus by considering text-critical and contextual issues, while also considering the ipsissima vox of Jesus. Third, we should study both the pre- and post-ascension words of Christ if we hope to delineate a comprehensive theology of Jesus.

4. The Methodology for the Study

Before explaining the method for pursuing a theology of Jesus, I have a few words about alternative approaches to this subject. Some have chosen to explain Jesus’s theology by looking at the literary forms he used. Books on the parables of Jesus are one example.^[53] Others have investigated the commands of Christ.^[54] Certainly, other forms could be studied such as discourses, prophecies, etc. Schlatter’s History of the Christ approached the theology of Jesus through a chronological and historical consideration of his life. In a sense, reading his book is like reading a life of Christ, although his interests were theological, rather than historical, using the events of Christ’s life as a springboard to describe Jesus’s theology. While each of these approaches has merit, I propose that a theme-based method holds more promise.

4.1 A Theme-Based Approach

Those who have chosen a thematic treatment of Jesus’s theology provide the wisest way forward.^[55] Yet no one to date has attempted a comprehensive topical study. So what categories or themes should be used to organize a theology of Jesus?

The answer to the question of category choice best derives from a detailed investigation of all the material available. But the amount of material is immense, and so it seems wise to organize it into smaller chunks such as parables, discourses, imperatives, prophecies, answers to questions, proverbs, etc. Once the material has been organized, one must determine the major theme or themes addressed and any sub-themes mentioned. Sometimes this theme identification is easy (e.g., a parable which begins with “the Kingdom of Heaven is like…”) and other times quite challenging (e.g., Matt 12:31, “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven”). Sometimes Jesus interprets his actions clearly as when he explains why he washed the disciples feet (John 13:12–17). Yet in other places his actions and explanations appear quite confusing (e.g., the cleansing of the temple and the prophecy to rebuild it).

Once a set of themes arises from an inductive exegesis, they become the organizing principles used to systematize Jesus’s theology. Sub-themes are then organized under the broad themes. One must avoid a couple temptations in this endeavor. First, one might pursue themes personally intriguing or seemingly more application-oriented rather than those that Jesus emphasized. And second, one might import categories from systematic theology or contemporary issues^[56] rather than use the themes Jesus did. In both cases, there is a temptation to allow external categories to control Jesus’s theology. Rather than following an inductive approach, deductive^[57] approaches that begin with foreign themes tend to see evidence where there may in fact be none.

5. Conclusion

Given the scant treatment of Jesus’s theology in the history of the discipline of NT theology, must we assume that studying the theology of Jesus is a hopelessly futile exercise? Μὴ γένοιτο! (May it never be!) New Testament scholars, who hold to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, and who declare that the Christ of faith is the Jesus of history, have an immensely wonderful opportunity before them.

The prospect and possibility of articulating a theology of Jesus require attention and involvement, but they also call for certain virtues. Those who would desire to enter the foray must possess at least three. First, they need courage to face the potential ridicule that may come from the academy. Ben Witherington’s experience will likely be repeated for those who engage in this task:

When my book The Christology of Jesus came out at the beginning of the 90s a panel discussion of the book was undertaken at the Society of Biblical Literature. Some scholars saw it as humorous to talk about Jesus viewing himself in a messianic light. Nevertheless, I persisted, and the book has served as a stimulus in the discussion of Jesus’ self-understanding. One angry person came up after the panel discussion at the Society of Biblical Literature and accosted me: “You’re just a theologian, not a historian, why not just admit it? You’re not talking about the historical Jesus, you’re talking about the later Christian evaluation of Jesus.”^[58]

Second, they must have a love for our Savior that compels them to pursue a knowledge of his teaching. All understand that, if not for Jesus, there would be no Matthew, Luke, or Romans or any other NT book. Jesus stands at the forefront of the Christian church as its Founder and Head. What he said and did is of profound importance for those who carried on his teachings. Hence, there must be a priority placed upon loving and learning from this Christ since, as Peter confessed, he alone has “the words of eternal life” (John 6:68).^[59]

Third, they require diligence to investigate closely all the teachings of Jesus. Conservative, Bible-loving scholars ought to lead the way in the detailed and comprehensive study of the words of Jesus. Sadly, liberal scholars like Rudolf Bultmann and F. C. Baur put many conservatives to shame with their painstakingly thorough scholarship.^[60] Bible-believing scholars who desire to explain the teachings of Jesus for today’s church must step forward to engage the task with unfaltering zeal.

I have tried to demonstrate that articulating Jesus’s theology holds great promise as a starting point for the task of NT theology. Indeed, this enterprise, though not pursued very often or at great length, holds the potential to provide encouragement and joy in the faith. The words of Jesus are convicting, comforting, instructive, hope-driven. May God give us more who will enter this neglected field of study whose promise is, indeed, as glorious as the Savior whose words and works it seeks to understand and proclaim.