#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.