Bell and Golden’s third chapter, “David’s Other Son,” begins by quickly summing up some major Israelite history – the return to Jerusalem and the reconstruction of the Temple. Yes, technically the Israelites are home, but things are still very “off.” The Roman Empire occupies their land, forcing Israelites to support through taxes the expansion of Roman military efforts. Bell and Golden note that the Romans built the Praetorium, a military center, next to the Temple, and just a few feet taller than the Temple, in order to “remind the Jewish people who really is in charge when they go to worship their God.” (pg. 76)
Interestingly, the authors note that the Israelites’ captivity in Egypt lasted 430 years (Ex. 12.40-41), while Nehemiah’s return to Jerusalem could be marked around 430 BC. (pg. 78)
Enter Jesus, a prophet like Moses. Bell and Golden highlight that the language surrounding Jesus’ birth brings us back to exodus terms. The only Old Testament quote used in all four New Testament gospels regarding Christ’s birth is Isaiah 40.3: “Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight paths for him.” (pg. 78)
Solomonic comparison is the focus of Chapter Three. Bell and Golden donate a significant amount of energy in this book to explaining the significance of Solomon as a character in the biblical narrative. Their understanding of the landscape of first-century Judaism (clearly influenced by New Perspective sources like NT Wright) excels here. First-century Jews are not without a robust theology of grace, nor are they merely seeking a political Jesus to make Israel a superpower itself (instances of such mindsets are examples of fringe minorities and not that of the common first-century Jew). Rather – and Bell and Golden make this perfectly clear – there is a nervousness about Christ’s Son of David identity. Will this Son of David hear the cry of the oppressed? Will he turn Israel into a light to the nations, or just another Rome?
When Bell and Golden say that “this new son of David isn’t just leading a new exodus for a specific group of people; he’s bringing liberation for everybody everywhere and ultimately for everything everywhere for all time,” this redemptive theology should be understood in two facets – atonement and blessing. (pg. 83)
Bell and Golden are correct to say that this new son of David is for all the earth and not just a select portion of its human beings. Jesus is the Second Adam, not the Sort-of Second Adam or the Second Adam For the Limited Few. Christ’s work matches the Fall in scope and range. Atonement is an exodus for all who were in exile from Eden, or at least all who choose to follow Jesus to New Jerusalem. Just as no one was forced to follow Moses out of Egypt, no one is forced to follow Jesus out of an “east of Eden” life. (If they were, it wouldn’t be exodus; it’d be a different type of exile and slavery.)
In terms of favor, partiality exists even after Christ. The promise to Abraham is very much in tact (see Romans 11), the Church is still called to invite the entire world into the Jesus Way. The concept of “blessed to be a blessing” does not end with Jesus; through Jesus it is only empowered. The call to royal priesthood remains a call to duty for Christ’s Church. (This is the context of Paul’s election language through the middle of Romans.)
Chapter Three continues to explain Jesus by way of comparison to Solomon. From the miracles that Jesus performed, to his correction of Peter when Peter cuts off Malchus’ ear (Jn. 18.10), to the cross itself, Bell and Golden want readers to see Christ as an end to the myth of redemptive violence. (pgs. 87-88)
“Someone would have to have the courage to put away the sword, forever, regardless of the consequences for his own security. No matter how tempting it is to pick it up and start swinging, someone would have to say, ‘Forgive them, Father, because they just don’t get it.’” (pg. 88)
Bell and Golden’s third chapter wraps up with a succinct version of Romans 5:
“What has been needed from the start is another Adam, not an Adam who would again give in to the temptation of the serpent but one who would crush the serpent. But the serpent-crusher’s victory would have to happen in a specific way. The only way it would actually change things would be if the serpent-crusher survived death – to experience the worst a human can suffer and then come out the other side, alive.” (pg. 90)
