[This is
an ongoing project that is analyzing N.T. Wright’s 5 volume series, Christian
Origins and the Question of God. This series is widely read and bridges the gap
between the academic and devotional world. It is therefore worthy to be
carefully analyzed so that all readers can understand his key points while at
the same time gaining a critical eye to some of his rather bold claims. This
series of posts are concerning volume 2 –
Jesus and the Victory of God.]
In this second chapter on the content of Jesus’ message of
kingdom, Wright focuses on the intended reception of that message for his
audience. Here, Wright’s analysis is helpful because it explains how the
characteristic of the apocalyptic Jewish prophet could logically also include
ethical injunctions in the present while at the same time expecting a radical
transformation eschatologically in the future. Wright is helpful here because
he shows the strengths and weaknesses of the concept of Jesus as an
eschatological prophet rather than a social reformer.
Wright has argued that Jesus’ message was that Israel had
returned from exile. However, one has to recognize that the makeup of Israel
was not the historic one – only a portion of those living in Israel followed
him. Therefore, for there to be an Israel, it should best be understood as the
community following Jesus. Wright explains this as his basic argument in this
chapter:
“I shall argue in the present
chapter that Jesus’ implicit, and explicit, kingdom-narratives carried as part of
their story-line the sense that his hearers were invited to see themselves as
the ‘Israel’ who would benefit
from his work; and also, to some extent at least, as the ‘helpers’ who
would have an active share in that work. With that invitation there went a
further implication: the returned-from-exile Israel must conduct itself in a certain
fashion. Nor was this simply a general set of rules, an abstract ‘ethic.’…They
were summoned to specific tasks, which had to do with his own career and
project.[1]
245
Wright argues that his hearers were called to be the new
Israel that is now returned from exile. Logically, then, he is arguing that
Jesus saw his followers as the new true Israel. While this may or may not be
accurate, for the moment we will accept this premise. If they were the new
Israel, it should logically be expected that they do have duties and ethics to
perform. They do not do this especially to transform the world – that would be
the John Dominic Crossan ethical reformer – they do this because that is the role Israel has in this world. It is
this emphasis on Jesus’ followers as the new Israel and their key role which
this chapter explores.
First, Wright explains that this role of Israel was
expressed in his kingdom language in four key stages. These stages should
present the fullness of his message:
“In order to see how the
controlling story works in this way, we shall study it in four stages. It
begins with invitation: the
kingdom-announcement necessarily included the call to ‘repent and believe the
good news’. This phrase has become something of a slogan over the years, and,
having acquired certain anachronistic connotations as a result, has had its
authenticity questioned in some quarters. It will be important to go behind
this problem, and tease out its actual first-century connotations. For those
invited, there was also welcome:
Jesus’ kingdom-stories made it clear that all and sundry were potential
beneficiaries, with the most striking examples being the poor and the sinners.
Invitation and welcome gave birth to challenge:
those who heard Jesus’ call, and understood themselves as characters in his
kingdom story, were summoned to live precisely as the renewed Israel people,
personally and corporately. Finally, the story generated a summons. Some at least of those who made Jesus’ story their own
were called to go with him on his journey to Jerusalem, to be his companions as
his mission reached its strange climax. These four elements together make up a
profile of the praxis generated by Jesus’ kingdom stories.[2]
The idea behind this is that the kingdom announcement was
called to a group of people who encapsulated Israel in a variety of ways.
One of the key elements that Wright presents is that this
Israel is one that can allow many people within it. Here, Wright argues that
Jesus transformed Israel by its welcome. His primary discussion of what the
kingdom is was not the particular troubling aspect – but who it could include
is what bothered the larger Jewish world:
“Jesus’ ‘welcome’ to sinners, and
the offence that it caused, therefore had everything to do with eschatology (in the sense I set out in
the previous chapter), and little to do with (what we call) ‘religion.’ That is, he welcomed people
into his retinue as, by implication, part
of the restored people of YHWH.[3]
The reason this could be troubling is not that Israel could
include some people who were gentiles – it was that these people were the
figures who would play the role of Israel in the cosmic drama of Israel and her
god.
This forms, I believe, the correct
context of understanding two aspects of Jesus’ new teaching which have often
caused great problems. I refer to Jesus’ view of the people who gave him their
allegiance, and his intentions for their behavior, their praxis. One of the
‘characters’ in the ‘story’ of the kingdom is the community of those who were
loyal to Jesus. One of the key elements in the whole narrative is the behavior
to which he summoned them.[4]
These figures – according to Wright – have ethical standards
specifically because they are Israel in its final act in history.
The value of Wright’s analysis is that it explains how an
apocalyptic Jewish prophet could expect ethical behavior. If one believes that
Jesus was primarily apocalyptic, then it does not necessarily entail an ethical
change. Apocalyptic structures of the world start from the premise that evil is
in the world in a palpable way. However, rather than needing to conquer it –
which humans cannot do – God will arrive to conquer it himself. Therefore, for
ethics to be important they must serve some kind of purpose – and so therefore
do humans – in this scheme. Wright has argued that within this construct there
is a role for Israel to play, and only in the sense of that role should we
expect an ethical charge. This provides a kind of middle ground that does not
expect Jesus to be a social reformer while still allowing for an ethical
charge.
Wright’s problem here is that he has unwittingly made Jesus
an amazingly aggressive supercessionist. Wright’s argument is that Jesus’
community of followers were the Israel returned from exile. No matter how
openly he allowed a wide range of groups to join, the implication is that
historic Israel as a religion/race/nation (all interchangeable in antiquity)
was not Israel any longer. It was
only those who followed Christ who was the true Israel who had now returned
from exile. This picture would be very supported by the Gospel of Matthew, but
far less supported by other early Christian traditions. Are we to expect that
Paul’s idea that “all Israel shall be saved” was simply inaccurate? Are we to
embrace a Jesus who rejected all of the promises to Israel to radically revise
them in a way that excluded the children of Abraham? This is one point that
most scholars do not agree with Wright on – Jesus was a radical apocalyptic
prophet who had a profound message to Israel. However, few of them would
suggest that his message to Israel was that they were not Israel any longer.
They were certainly still Israel – even if they could be punished for their
disobedience. After all, this is a message that should not be so different from
Jeremiah’s – they are surely guilty and deserving of punishment – but they
never lose their status as Israel itself. Here I don’t think Wright even intended
this to occur, but his interest in Jesus being so much the apocalyptic prophet demanded this element which was an
unforeseen consequence.
The value of reading Wright is that he presents better what
many (perhaps even most) Christians hold (at least Protestants). Protestants
are very happy to reject the concept of supercessionism – until they have to
nail down what they think of Jesus’ message and at that point, they quickly
embrace a kind of aggressive idea of Israel having been obliterated as the
people of god. This is, to be fair, a very difficult issue for modern theology,
but for ancient reconstruction of the historical Jesus, we have to be honest
about his real view if we have any chance of developing from that a
historically accurate theology now.
No comments:
Post a Comment