At the end of his comments regarding Genesis 3:15, Witherington says that “even if [the passage] were a reference to Christ, Christ solved the Satan problem not by being a warrior messiah and thus by killing but by dying on a cross!! Jesus was the antithesis of a warrior messiah when he came.”
Yes, of course. Jesus “solved the Satan problem” by dying on a cross. To that extent, Witherington and I are in happy agreement. Imagine the two of us exchanging a kiss of peace.
But the way he expresses this is less satisfying. He doesn’t write that Jesus “conquered” or “defeated” Satan, which apparently is too militaristic a way of putting the point. Where in Scripture is Satan a “problem” rather than an “enemy”? And, he adds, Jesus is the ” antithesis of a warrior messiah.” Given the fact that Witherington seems to be given to hyperbole, perhaps I shouldn’t read too much into his use of “antithesis.” Pressing that word might further reveal my true colors as an over-reading, maximalist allegorizer. But he wrote it, so I’ll work on the assumption that he meant it. That is, he meant that Jesus is the opposite of a warrior Messiah. If by “antithesis” Witherington means Jesus is a “paradoxical” or “surprising” or “subversive” or “revolutionary-way-of-being-revolutionary” warrior messiah, then we return to that kiss of peace.
That Jesus is a warrior Messiah of some sort is a foundational Christian confession: Jesus is soter , which among many other things means “Victor.” Jesus is Jesus , Jeshua, the antitype of Joshua the conqueror . . . . but there I go again, playing with words. Put aside the typology for a moment: If we cut past his rhetorical excess, Witherington agrees with me. Here I content myself with quoting Witherington against Witherington.
Discussing the image of Christ as the rider on a white horse with blood-stained clothing in Revelation 19:13, Witherington criticizes Caird’s view that the blood is Jesus’ own. Citing Isaiah 63:1-6, Witherington argues that the blood “is that of Christ’s enemies.” The passage is not talking about the redemptive work of Christ that occurs by His own shed blood, but rather “his work as final judge of all the earth.” The armies that follow Jesus, he points out, are wearing “ceremonial garments, not armor or battle gear,” ready for worship rather than war, and this is because “Christ does whatever fighting is required, and that by his word.” Christ himself doesn’t even do much fighting but “merely speaks the judgment against these opponents” to gain His victory.
Witherington distinguishes between Jesus’ redemptive work, in which he sheds His own blood, and His work as Judge, in which His garments are stained with the blood of His enemies. But that distinction is not an antithesis either. Jesus characterizes His redemptive work as an act of judgment and a victorious “casting out” of the ruler of this world (John 12:31). Witherington agrees; in his commentary on John, he notes regarding 12:31 that “Christ’s death is viewed as the crucial turning point in the war against the powers of darkness,” and he goes on to cite Paul’s claim that “the supernatural powers are disarmed by Christ’s action on the cross.”
On Colossians 2:15, Witherington notes that Paul “uses the image of the Roman triumph” in Corinthians 2, and adds that “Christ is the conquering hero leading the triumph, but as with the Roman heroes the idea is that a god operated in or through the hero to bring about the victory . . . . During the procession to their death they are still alive, visible, and potentially dangerous, though they are condemned and headed for destruction.”
Of course, none of this is the typical Jewish concept of what a warrior Messiah is going to do. I can agree that Jesus’ victory is the “antithesis” of the victory expected by many Jews. But Jesus remains a warrior Messiah, which is exactly what we would expect from the Old Testament. All the warrior figures of the Old Testament - the Seed of the Woman, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samson, David - are paradoxical figurae Christi .