In Chapter 3 N.T. Wright gives us a thorough and honest review of the development of the idea of resurrection within Judaism from the Old Testament.
The fullest Old Testament resurrection imagery doesn't appear within Hebrew scriptures until the much later writings. When it does appear, it emerges simultaneously as a metaphorical expression of hope for national/political restoration from exile and foreign oppression as well as a literal expression of hope for bodily resurrection. Both of these concepts are firmly rooted in Israel's Creational and Covenantal understanding of God. Because God is the Creator of all that is and has specifically chosen Israel to be his covenant people, they were confident that he would ultimately be faithful to his promise and establish them as his own people within the land they had been promised. Because God is the Creator of all that is and has specifically chosen Israel to be his covenant people, they were confident that he would ultimately be faithful also to the faithful from Israel who had already perished without seeing the fulfillment of his promises. He would raise them from the dead.
Wright goes out of his way to demonstrate that this resurrection hope cannot be confused with a hope for a disembodied afterlife. It also cannot be merely viewed as a hope for national/political restoration, though the literal hope for bodily resurrection cannot be separated from that literal hope for national/political restoration for which resurrection was a metaphor.
This view of resurrection was a much later development within Old Testament Judaism. Early mentions of what can be expected after death point us to Sheol, the place for the dead. These ideas contain an expectation of sleeping, or of an existence that is barely existence at all. Later on, this idea develops further into some kind of undefined hope for life beyond the grave. This finally emerges into an expectation of resurrection. This resurrection hope, Wright concludes, is still firmly based in Israel's Covenental and Creational understanding of God's character and nature.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
The Resurrection of the Son of God- Post#3
In chapter 2 of "The Resurrection of the Son of God" by N.T. Wright we get a survey class of Greco-Roman philosophy. As seen through the prism of Christian theology.
Now, I would be remiss to allow my alacrity to deny Wright his due. This is a brilliant mind at work. He is obviously intimate with the material. He also shows a profound respect for it's content. Kudos. As I will undoubtedly repeat again and again; in an intellectual death-match this guy would kill me in 1.2 seconds. I am NOT his equal.
He spends the majority of chapter 2 laying out the Greco-Roman thoughts on death and the afterlife. The bulk of it on Grecian giants such as Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. He quotes liberally and contextually from these as yet seldom matched minds and reaches his inevitable conclusion: Resurrection was not an accepted concept and therefore the resurrection of Christ was a unique and exceptional event, heretofore unheard of and unacceptable.
Beyond the evidence, admittedly inconclusive, that resurrection was attributed to others before Christ, it is true that, in general, this was a "novel" concept. Even, as Wright argues, an "unappealing" concept. The more stoic minded philosophers of Greek lineage were rather stark in their views: Death is inevitable; therefore, not to be feared or despised.
However, "Joe the Plumber" (or is it "Joe, Who's Dumber?") has little time for fearless intellectual inquiry. It's terrifying this death thing. We normal mouth-breathers don't really like the notion of "not existing". It flies in the face of what we have known thus far… you know, existing.
I stand accused and plead VERY GUILTY of this very thing. You do NOT want to sit next to me in coach class during turbulence! (Business Class or First Class I'm fine. Something about free drinks and Wi-Fi access calms me. I guess I'm an Epicurean).
However, fear, the great motivator, is still my enemy.
What I perceived as the over arching point in chapter 2 of this book is as follows, Alan please interject if you find misunderstanding in my interpretation:
Greco-Roman philosophy, the basis of Western culture, was learning to deal with death and the possibility of an after-life. In their philosophies an after-life was allowed, even championed. However, it was not inclusive of a bodily resurrection. In fact, this was looked at as anathema. Death was viewed stoically (to say nothing of Stoically) and as the inevitable birthright of the human being.
Wright, without coming out and saying it, seems to be setting up the veracity of Christ's resurrection as both shocking and historical because of it's "uniqueness". Ostensibly, it flies in the face of all the thought that precedes it and is therefore historically undergirded because of it's singularity.
These are compelling arguments. To a point. But Wright does his argument a disservice by underlining and emphasizing (and correctly so) the metastasis of the Greco-Roman thought train. He points out, quite lucidly, the evolution of thought from Socrates to Plato, from Plato to Aristotle, from the Grecian philosophes to the Roman political predilection for deifying it's heroes and emperors.
It is hardly a difficult step to see the conflation of Judaism and Hellenistic culture (first and second century Palestine/Israel) conjuring up a newly evolved faith that intermingles the "One True God" with a hero figure; one cut down in his prime, one that serves the "state" (the true believers), and one that triumphs over the last hurdle the philosophers could not defeat; Death.
I have a LOT to say on this chapter, but fear I've become gruesomely tiresome already.
I will conclude with this. N.T. Wright is a brilliant man. The fact that he believes in the New Testament is intriguing. It compels me to reread this text of my youth. I'm concerned that this "book club" could become quite boring to you readers. I hope it doesn't. Theism is more important today than ever. We still kill, die, and live by it's influence. Whatever your reading level (mine atrophied at Dr. Seuss) this is compelling and important stuff. It is VERY important politically, sociologically, and possibly, as my brother Alan would argue, eternally, where you stand on this stuff. So pay attention!
I await your blade, dear sir.
JE
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
The Resurrection of the Son of God - Post #2
How fondly I remember my first attempts at digesting N.T. Wright. He seemed to be involved in a conversation with lots of other scholars I'd never heard of about issues I had never considered. It was slow going for sure, madening even at times. I felt like a child stepping into the middle of a grownup conversation trying to figure out what it was all about.
I suspect you will get the hang of it quick enough.
I'm especially intrigued that you enjoyed the section on the five senses of which we can speak of "history". His clarification of these distinct senses and the confusion that comes when we aren't precise, when discussing history, about which of these we are presently considering, was very helpful to me too.
Those five senses are (for our readers, if we still have any):
"First, there is history as event. If we say something is ‘historical’ in this sense, it happened, whether or not we can know or prove that it happened."
"Second, there is history as significant event. Not all events are significant; history, it is often assumed, consists of the ones that are."
"Third, there is history as provable event. To say that something is ‘historical’ in this sense is to say not only that it happened but that we can demonstrate that it happened, on the analogy of mathematics or the so-called hard sciences."
"Fourth, and quite different from the previous three, there is history as writing-about-events-in-the-past. To say that something is ‘historical’ in this sense is to say that it was written about, or perhaps could in principle have been written about."
"Fifth and finally, a combination of (3) and (4) is often found precisely in discussions of Jesus: history as what modern historians can say about a topic. By ‘modern’ I mean ‘post-Enlightenment’, the period in which people have imagined some kind of analogy, even correlation, between history and the hard sciences."
The Scope of the Book
This book is almost 800 pages long, heavily footnoted, and approaches this subject both historically and theologically in unprecedented depth. In the introduction and first chapter N.T. Wright (hereafter NTW) helps set us up for the book's flow of thought.
Part One: Setting the Scene
In this section NTW begins by discussing history in general and setting the stage for his inquiry. He then moves on to an investigation into various views of death, the afterlife and resurrection moving first from the wide spectrum of pagan views during biblical times, then moving on to the Old Testament, and then Post-Biblical Judaism.
Part Two: Resurrection in Paul
Following the previous pattern of moving from the broad to the narrow, in this section NTW begins by discussing what Paul had to say about death, the afterlife, and resurrection in his epistles outside of those to the Corinthians. He then takes two chapters to examing what Paul had to say about these topics within his Corinthian letters, and he finally moves in to examine Paul's own account of experiencing the resurrected Lord on the road to Damascus.
Part Three: Resurrection in Early Christianity (Apart from Paul)
This section begins with an examination of content from the gospels outside of the Easter narratives, then looks at other New Testament writings, then moves on to non-canonical early Christian writings about resurrection, and finally ends with a historical/theological construction of Jesus as Messiah, the worldview of early Christians, and their beliefs about resurrection.
Part Four: The Story of Easter
This section begins with a discussion of some of the challenges inherent in studying the gospel Easter narratives and two of the main options for considering these stories historically. In the following four chapters NTW takes us through the various gospel narratives beginning with Mark and then moving on to Matthew, Luke, and John.
Part Five: Belief, Event and Meaning
In this final section NTW begins to draw conclusions, including the various options available for consideration, their various merits, and the overall challenge the resurrection presents historically. In the next and final chapter, he then discusses the theological development of our understanding of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God from within this historical framework.
I'm still currently working through his very early chapter on death, the afterlife, and resurrection within paganism. I'm enjoying it very much. Not in the way one might enjoy a good novel, but enjoying it still.
I suspect you will get the hang of it quick enough.
I'm especially intrigued that you enjoyed the section on the five senses of which we can speak of "history". His clarification of these distinct senses and the confusion that comes when we aren't precise, when discussing history, about which of these we are presently considering, was very helpful to me too.
Those five senses are (for our readers, if we still have any):
"First, there is history as event. If we say something is ‘historical’ in this sense, it happened, whether or not we can know or prove that it happened."
"Second, there is history as significant event. Not all events are significant; history, it is often assumed, consists of the ones that are."
"Third, there is history as provable event. To say that something is ‘historical’ in this sense is to say not only that it happened but that we can demonstrate that it happened, on the analogy of mathematics or the so-called hard sciences."
"Fourth, and quite different from the previous three, there is history as writing-about-events-in-the-past. To say that something is ‘historical’ in this sense is to say that it was written about, or perhaps could in principle have been written about."
"Fifth and finally, a combination of (3) and (4) is often found precisely in discussions of Jesus: history as what modern historians can say about a topic. By ‘modern’ I mean ‘post-Enlightenment’, the period in which people have imagined some kind of analogy, even correlation, between history and the hard sciences."
The Scope of the Book
This book is almost 800 pages long, heavily footnoted, and approaches this subject both historically and theologically in unprecedented depth. In the introduction and first chapter N.T. Wright (hereafter NTW) helps set us up for the book's flow of thought.
Part One: Setting the Scene
In this section NTW begins by discussing history in general and setting the stage for his inquiry. He then moves on to an investigation into various views of death, the afterlife and resurrection moving first from the wide spectrum of pagan views during biblical times, then moving on to the Old Testament, and then Post-Biblical Judaism.
Part Two: Resurrection in Paul
Following the previous pattern of moving from the broad to the narrow, in this section NTW begins by discussing what Paul had to say about death, the afterlife, and resurrection in his epistles outside of those to the Corinthians. He then takes two chapters to examing what Paul had to say about these topics within his Corinthian letters, and he finally moves in to examine Paul's own account of experiencing the resurrected Lord on the road to Damascus.
Part Three: Resurrection in Early Christianity (Apart from Paul)
This section begins with an examination of content from the gospels outside of the Easter narratives, then looks at other New Testament writings, then moves on to non-canonical early Christian writings about resurrection, and finally ends with a historical/theological construction of Jesus as Messiah, the worldview of early Christians, and their beliefs about resurrection.
Part Four: The Story of Easter
This section begins with a discussion of some of the challenges inherent in studying the gospel Easter narratives and two of the main options for considering these stories historically. In the following four chapters NTW takes us through the various gospel narratives beginning with Mark and then moving on to Matthew, Luke, and John.
Part Five: Belief, Event and Meaning
In this final section NTW begins to draw conclusions, including the various options available for consideration, their various merits, and the overall challenge the resurrection presents historically. In the next and final chapter, he then discusses the theological development of our understanding of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God from within this historical framework.
I'm still currently working through his very early chapter on death, the afterlife, and resurrection within paganism. I'm enjoying it very much. Not in the way one might enjoy a good novel, but enjoying it still.
The Resurrection of the Son of God -Post #1
The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3) -N.T. Wright
At Alan's behest I have agreed to read this book he's a fan of and slice and dice our way through it one chapter at a time.
After crawling through the preface I meandered through the first 4 chapters. I took about 4 pages of notes, none of which I will presently share. I must say, this is going to be a slog for me.
Alan, allow me to whine a bit and then I promise to eat my veggies and soldier on.
At first blush, this is a book for Christians. Scratch that, "intellectual" Christians. Which, I must confess, always seems, like "jumbo shrimp", a bit contradictory. But, as N.T. Wright says, perhaps I "give too much away". As I am decidedly not a student of Christian literary criticism (which I believe you folks call Christian Epistemology) I confess to being in, as usual, over my head. In the preface and first two chapters, Wright references Biblical scholars of whom I have no knowledge and alludes to schisms in the modern (post-Enlightenment) Church of which I am only vaguely familiar.
In short, I find it, much like this evenings Irish whiskey; a bit dry. However, the Irish has readily understood medicinal value and a warming quality I find lacking in the text. Thus far.
On the bright side....
I did quite enjoy his breaking down of 5 predilections in historical understanding. Perhaps part of the dryness I've experienced so far is in my heretofore mentioned ignorance. Wright is, obviously, exceedingly well educated and far more cerebral than I can ever aspire to be. I found this bit of the book to be quite compelling.
I'm certainly anxious to see where things go in this epistle. At present it's far too early for me to raise any major objections other than those intrinsic to my own evident prejudice. I feel Wright is being fairly balanced thus far and giving any Christian opposition to his (as yet unknown) point a fair shake at least. I'm curious about what his "evidence" for the resurrection will be.
At Alan's behest I have agreed to read this book he's a fan of and slice and dice our way through it one chapter at a time.
After crawling through the preface I meandered through the first 4 chapters. I took about 4 pages of notes, none of which I will presently share. I must say, this is going to be a slog for me.
Alan, allow me to whine a bit and then I promise to eat my veggies and soldier on.
At first blush, this is a book for Christians. Scratch that, "intellectual" Christians. Which, I must confess, always seems, like "jumbo shrimp", a bit contradictory. But, as N.T. Wright says, perhaps I "give too much away". As I am decidedly not a student of Christian literary criticism (which I believe you folks call Christian Epistemology) I confess to being in, as usual, over my head. In the preface and first two chapters, Wright references Biblical scholars of whom I have no knowledge and alludes to schisms in the modern (post-Enlightenment) Church of which I am only vaguely familiar.
In short, I find it, much like this evenings Irish whiskey; a bit dry. However, the Irish has readily understood medicinal value and a warming quality I find lacking in the text. Thus far.
On the bright side....
I did quite enjoy his breaking down of 5 predilections in historical understanding. Perhaps part of the dryness I've experienced so far is in my heretofore mentioned ignorance. Wright is, obviously, exceedingly well educated and far more cerebral than I can ever aspire to be. I found this bit of the book to be quite compelling.
I'm certainly anxious to see where things go in this epistle. At present it's far too early for me to raise any major objections other than those intrinsic to my own evident prejudice. I feel Wright is being fairly balanced thus far and giving any Christian opposition to his (as yet unknown) point a fair shake at least. I'm curious about what his "evidence" for the resurrection will be.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
#48.5 A Suggestion
You mentioned wanting to un-pause Belling the Cat. I have a suggestion. Neither of us has time to do a ton of research. It might be more efficient and effective to discuss someone else's.
The reality is that my view of the gospels hinges upon the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. If that didn't happen, nothing else about Christianity matters.
N.T. Wright wrote a tome that is wonderfully researched and footnoted. We could read a chapter at a time and then discuss. Thoughts?
Here's a link to the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303906340&sr=8-1
The reality is that my view of the gospels hinges upon the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. If that didn't happen, nothing else about Christianity matters.
N.T. Wright wrote a tome that is wonderfully researched and footnoted. We could read a chapter at a time and then discuss. Thoughts?
Here's a link to the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303906340&sr=8-1
Friday, March 4, 2011
#48 The Gospels as History Post #11
In the last post I talked about four main sects that existed in Jesus' day. Though each of these sects pretty much agreed about Israel's problem, they each offered a different solution.
One of the things I notice about the gospels is how well Jesus' message fits within this cultural/religious/political context. At the same time, his message was dissimilar enough to account for the opposition he received and his actions ultimately explain why he was killed. The consistently agreed upon problem across multiple sects was 1) We are in exile and need God to forgive our sin, 2) We need God to return to Zion, 3) We need God to cleanse the temple and priesthood, and 4) We need God to defeat our enemies.
The gospels present the life of Jesus as the unexpected answer to this problem. In the previous post I talked about how the Jews of Jesus' day viewed this problem from a very nationalistic perspective. In the gospels we find Jesus as the answer to these very questions minus the nationalistic emphasis. I believe Jesus, as presented in the gospels, addresses these very problems through the following grid.
In the gospels, Jesus IS YHWY returned to Zion. Jesus came to forgive sins. He came to restore the temple and the priesthood. He came to defeat our enemies and end our exile. But the enemy he came to defeat wasn't Rome. It was the serpent. The exile he came to end wasn't national Israel's political struggle, but rather the exile from Eden. He came to fulfill God's promise to Abram, that through him all the nations of the earth would be blessed.
This wasn't at all what the Jews of Jesus' day were expecting. Their nationalistic perspective had made them blind to the ultimate reason God had called Israel.
The second thing I want to say about the gospels is this. There is a historical reality that needs explanation. Second Temple Period Judaism existed. Christianity began (as initially a very Jewish movement), exploded, and changed that part of the world. The gospels actually make the most sense of why and how this could possibly have occurred. Why did a bunch of nice young Jewish boys launch something so obviously connected to their heritage (see above) yet so radically different from that heritage and the popular expectations and practices of their time?
These young Jewish men and women claimed that Jesus was the expected Jewish Messiah, and in claiming this meant something very Jewish by it, but different enough as to completely alienate them from influential Judaism while at the same time doing very little to help them within the broader Roman culture to experience anything but persecution.
When I look at Second Temple Judaism and the emergence of Christianity, the only explanation for this radical transition is that these men and women were eye witnesses to the resurrected Jesus.
In the posts that follow I hope to share why I believe their testimony is valid.
One of the things I notice about the gospels is how well Jesus' message fits within this cultural/religious/political context. At the same time, his message was dissimilar enough to account for the opposition he received and his actions ultimately explain why he was killed. The consistently agreed upon problem across multiple sects was 1) We are in exile and need God to forgive our sin, 2) We need God to return to Zion, 3) We need God to cleanse the temple and priesthood, and 4) We need God to defeat our enemies.
The gospels present the life of Jesus as the unexpected answer to this problem. In the previous post I talked about how the Jews of Jesus' day viewed this problem from a very nationalistic perspective. In the gospels we find Jesus as the answer to these very questions minus the nationalistic emphasis. I believe Jesus, as presented in the gospels, addresses these very problems through the following grid.
Genesis 3:14–15 (ESV)
14 The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
Genesis 12:1–3 (ESV)
1 Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
In the gospels, Jesus IS YHWY returned to Zion. Jesus came to forgive sins. He came to restore the temple and the priesthood. He came to defeat our enemies and end our exile. But the enemy he came to defeat wasn't Rome. It was the serpent. The exile he came to end wasn't national Israel's political struggle, but rather the exile from Eden. He came to fulfill God's promise to Abram, that through him all the nations of the earth would be blessed.
This wasn't at all what the Jews of Jesus' day were expecting. Their nationalistic perspective had made them blind to the ultimate reason God had called Israel.
The second thing I want to say about the gospels is this. There is a historical reality that needs explanation. Second Temple Period Judaism existed. Christianity began (as initially a very Jewish movement), exploded, and changed that part of the world. The gospels actually make the most sense of why and how this could possibly have occurred. Why did a bunch of nice young Jewish boys launch something so obviously connected to their heritage (see above) yet so radically different from that heritage and the popular expectations and practices of their time?
These young Jewish men and women claimed that Jesus was the expected Jewish Messiah, and in claiming this meant something very Jewish by it, but different enough as to completely alienate them from influential Judaism while at the same time doing very little to help them within the broader Roman culture to experience anything but persecution.
When I look at Second Temple Judaism and the emergence of Christianity, the only explanation for this radical transition is that these men and women were eye witnesses to the resurrected Jesus.
In the posts that follow I hope to share why I believe their testimony is valid.
Friday, February 18, 2011
#47 The Gospels as History Post #10
One of the key elements of a worldview involves the answers we assume in response to some key questions about the story of life. Where are we? Who are we? What is wrong? What is the solution? Where are we headed? There are direct and overt ways of answering these questions. But we also answer them with the stories we tell generation to generation. Whether answering these questions propositionally, through the telling of stories, or through the symbols we celebrate, we inform those paying attention about the way we see reality. The biblical story tells us about Creation (Where are we? Who are we?), the Fall (What is wrong?), Redemption (What is the solution?), and New Creation (Where are we going?).
The Jews, of course, lived life without the benefit of the New Testament, so we mustn’t anachronistically project the full scope of this biblical perspective back onto the Jews of the Second Temple Period. Though every element of my current understanding of Creation, the Fall, Redemption, and New Creation can be found in the Old Testament, the first thing I’ve found helpful to recognize is that the Jews were, for the most part, understandably a bit more nationalistic and Israel centered in their approach to scripture.
After his resurrection, Jesus was well able to show his disciples, from the scriptures, why he had to die and rise again, but let’s not pretend that that was an obvious option to readers of the Old Testament. Hindsight is 20/20. I’m admitting a violation by even calling it the Old Testament. It wasn’t the Old Testament then. It was just the Tanach, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.
And they read these scriptures as Jews, from a Jewish perspective, with a concern about very Jewish things. Their concerns were deeply religious and deeply political. For them there was no distinction between these things. We tend to assume a distinction in our day. They did not. Religious influence and political power were deeply intertwined. Religious eschatological expectation was thus very political in nature.
Here’s my best understanding of how the Jews of Jesus’ day might have answered the big questions.
Where are we?
We are on the earth, which was created by and belongs to the God of Israel, the one and only god (Creational Monotheism). We are in the specific piece of land promised to us by God.
Who are we?
We are God’s chosen people (Election/Covenental Monotheism).
What is wrong?
• Sin.
But don’t think of Adam & Eve. This wouldn’t have been their first thought, though they certainly wouldn’t have been ignorant of these implications too. Remember, they were pretty Nationalistic. Adam wasn’t Jewish. Abraham was the first Jew. Adam’s sin is about all humanity and, though aware of this, this wasn’t their primary focus. They had failed to hold up their end of the covenant. As promised, God had allowed pagan nations to come and rule over them as a consequence of their covenant violation. Currently this was Rome. Before that it was back and forth between the Assyrians and the Egyptians (various Ptolemy-s). Before that they were actually geographically exiled in Persia. Before that Persia. Before that Babylon. Before that a divided Kingdom. Before that Solomon, David (a period of blessing). Before that the Judges (another season where they cycled through obedience/disobedience and freedom/oppression). The overarching narrative that gave identity to the Jewish people was the story of Moses and their deliverance from Pharaoh and slavery in Egypt. They understood their identity as a people in terms of Exile and Return. Exile happens when we sin. If we want to Return, then the sin problem must be addressed. Also, though they weren’t geographically in exile (they had returned a long time ago from Persia during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah), the time of exile was clearly not over. The next bullet points will explain why.
• The Temple is a mess.
It was quite a beautiful facility, and all kinds of very Jewish religious things were taking place their everyday. But – it had been built by Herod, who had no legitimacy to construct it. He was in cahoots with Rome and was only marginally Jewish himself. The Sadducees (the priesthood) was notoriously corrupt, especially at the higher levels.
• God is not with us.
In the past, they had more than a book, more than a theology of God. They had God. Behind the veil, in the Most Holy Place, God dwelt among his people in shekinah glory. Though they had returned from exile, God had not returned to Zion.
• Rome.
They were ruled by a puppet of Rome, paid taxes to Rome, and were occupied by Rome militarily.
• God’s people (his “true” people) must be vindicated.
Clearly we are in exile because as a people we have been unfaithful. Clearly the exile isn’t over because some remain unfaithful. By extension, when God comes back and fixes all this the faithful remnant will be vindicated.
What is the solution?
• Messiah.
But there was all kinds of language that served to pack up their messianic hopes: Kingdom of God and Resurrection being very popular among those.
• Sects.
Though they all (mostly) agreed on the problem (what is wrong?), they didn’t all agree on the solution. The problem: When will God come back to Zion, vindicate those who are truly faithful in Israel, restore the Temple and the priesthood, and defeat Rome? This wasn’t a problem at all. They pretty much agreed about this. But, they didn’t agree about what it meant to be faithful, to be the remnant. How can we, as Israel, be faithful and thereby be the ones who get vindicated when God comes back instead of the ones who get judged? Four primary sects will help us understand the various responses.
o Pharisees:
This group’s answer was radical obedience to God’s Law. Not just by them though. They were a very influential social pressure group, resorting to violence toward those who weren’t getting with the program. Saul (later Paul) was one of these before his conversion. If the problem was violating God’s Law, then the solution is following it with a vengeance. Now there were sub sects among the Pharisees and some exceptions to what I’m saying but that’s another discussion.
o Sadducees:
This group’s answer was compromise. They had entrenched political/religious power because they controlled the Temple and were linked up with Herod and his successors. Their agenda was maintaining the status quo. Terms like “resurrection” and “kingdom” represented a significant threat to their power base. So, they had theological/scriptural objections to these things. They conveniently “didn’t believe” in a coming resurrection.
o Essenes:
This group isn’t mentioned in the gospels but history reveals them as being fairly significant. The scrolls discovered at Qumran were likely written, copied, and/or preserved by them. Their answer to the problem was separatism (which explains their absence in the gospels). Whereas the Pharisees were still participating, albeit under protest, in the current Temple system, the Essenes disconnected from the Temple process and system altogether. They were going to be proven as “children of light” by not participating in the corruption of the broader Jewish world. John the Baptist, though likely not an Essene, certainly can be understood as offering an alternative way forward for Jews separate from the Temple as well. This all the more significant because he was, himself, from a family of priests and should have been a priest in the Temple system.
o Zealots.
This group thought they would help God out by taking up arms against their oppressors. Lots of would be Messiah figures with their band of zealots made their appearance during the 100 years before and after Jesus. The way you knew your messiah wasn’t the Messiah was when Rome crucified them.
More to come...
Note: Much of the above taken from N.T. Wright: The New Testament and the People of God and Jesus and the Victory of God. It's mostly my paraphrase and summary, but I made little attempt to adapt his material or hide that it's his. Those who've read him will recognize his language with little difficulty.
The Jews, of course, lived life without the benefit of the New Testament, so we mustn’t anachronistically project the full scope of this biblical perspective back onto the Jews of the Second Temple Period. Though every element of my current understanding of Creation, the Fall, Redemption, and New Creation can be found in the Old Testament, the first thing I’ve found helpful to recognize is that the Jews were, for the most part, understandably a bit more nationalistic and Israel centered in their approach to scripture.
After his resurrection, Jesus was well able to show his disciples, from the scriptures, why he had to die and rise again, but let’s not pretend that that was an obvious option to readers of the Old Testament. Hindsight is 20/20. I’m admitting a violation by even calling it the Old Testament. It wasn’t the Old Testament then. It was just the Tanach, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.
And they read these scriptures as Jews, from a Jewish perspective, with a concern about very Jewish things. Their concerns were deeply religious and deeply political. For them there was no distinction between these things. We tend to assume a distinction in our day. They did not. Religious influence and political power were deeply intertwined. Religious eschatological expectation was thus very political in nature.
Here’s my best understanding of how the Jews of Jesus’ day might have answered the big questions.
Where are we?
We are on the earth, which was created by and belongs to the God of Israel, the one and only god (Creational Monotheism). We are in the specific piece of land promised to us by God.
Who are we?
We are God’s chosen people (Election/Covenental Monotheism).
What is wrong?
• Sin.
But don’t think of Adam & Eve. This wouldn’t have been their first thought, though they certainly wouldn’t have been ignorant of these implications too. Remember, they were pretty Nationalistic. Adam wasn’t Jewish. Abraham was the first Jew. Adam’s sin is about all humanity and, though aware of this, this wasn’t their primary focus. They had failed to hold up their end of the covenant. As promised, God had allowed pagan nations to come and rule over them as a consequence of their covenant violation. Currently this was Rome. Before that it was back and forth between the Assyrians and the Egyptians (various Ptolemy-s). Before that they were actually geographically exiled in Persia. Before that Persia. Before that Babylon. Before that a divided Kingdom. Before that Solomon, David (a period of blessing). Before that the Judges (another season where they cycled through obedience/disobedience and freedom/oppression). The overarching narrative that gave identity to the Jewish people was the story of Moses and their deliverance from Pharaoh and slavery in Egypt. They understood their identity as a people in terms of Exile and Return. Exile happens when we sin. If we want to Return, then the sin problem must be addressed. Also, though they weren’t geographically in exile (they had returned a long time ago from Persia during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah), the time of exile was clearly not over. The next bullet points will explain why.
• The Temple is a mess.
It was quite a beautiful facility, and all kinds of very Jewish religious things were taking place their everyday. But – it had been built by Herod, who had no legitimacy to construct it. He was in cahoots with Rome and was only marginally Jewish himself. The Sadducees (the priesthood) was notoriously corrupt, especially at the higher levels.
• God is not with us.
In the past, they had more than a book, more than a theology of God. They had God. Behind the veil, in the Most Holy Place, God dwelt among his people in shekinah glory. Though they had returned from exile, God had not returned to Zion.
• Rome.
They were ruled by a puppet of Rome, paid taxes to Rome, and were occupied by Rome militarily.
• God’s people (his “true” people) must be vindicated.
Clearly we are in exile because as a people we have been unfaithful. Clearly the exile isn’t over because some remain unfaithful. By extension, when God comes back and fixes all this the faithful remnant will be vindicated.
What is the solution?
• Messiah.
But there was all kinds of language that served to pack up their messianic hopes: Kingdom of God and Resurrection being very popular among those.
• Sects.
Though they all (mostly) agreed on the problem (what is wrong?), they didn’t all agree on the solution. The problem: When will God come back to Zion, vindicate those who are truly faithful in Israel, restore the Temple and the priesthood, and defeat Rome? This wasn’t a problem at all. They pretty much agreed about this. But, they didn’t agree about what it meant to be faithful, to be the remnant. How can we, as Israel, be faithful and thereby be the ones who get vindicated when God comes back instead of the ones who get judged? Four primary sects will help us understand the various responses.
o Pharisees:
This group’s answer was radical obedience to God’s Law. Not just by them though. They were a very influential social pressure group, resorting to violence toward those who weren’t getting with the program. Saul (later Paul) was one of these before his conversion. If the problem was violating God’s Law, then the solution is following it with a vengeance. Now there were sub sects among the Pharisees and some exceptions to what I’m saying but that’s another discussion.
o Sadducees:
This group’s answer was compromise. They had entrenched political/religious power because they controlled the Temple and were linked up with Herod and his successors. Their agenda was maintaining the status quo. Terms like “resurrection” and “kingdom” represented a significant threat to their power base. So, they had theological/scriptural objections to these things. They conveniently “didn’t believe” in a coming resurrection.
o Essenes:
This group isn’t mentioned in the gospels but history reveals them as being fairly significant. The scrolls discovered at Qumran were likely written, copied, and/or preserved by them. Their answer to the problem was separatism (which explains their absence in the gospels). Whereas the Pharisees were still participating, albeit under protest, in the current Temple system, the Essenes disconnected from the Temple process and system altogether. They were going to be proven as “children of light” by not participating in the corruption of the broader Jewish world. John the Baptist, though likely not an Essene, certainly can be understood as offering an alternative way forward for Jews separate from the Temple as well. This all the more significant because he was, himself, from a family of priests and should have been a priest in the Temple system.
o Zealots.
This group thought they would help God out by taking up arms against their oppressors. Lots of would be Messiah figures with their band of zealots made their appearance during the 100 years before and after Jesus. The way you knew your messiah wasn’t the Messiah was when Rome crucified them.
More to come...
Note: Much of the above taken from N.T. Wright: The New Testament and the People of God and Jesus and the Victory of God. It's mostly my paraphrase and summary, but I made little attempt to adapt his material or hide that it's his. Those who've read him will recognize his language with little difficulty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)