I am holding a couple of Bible studies on the meaning of Jesus’ death tonight and next Monday here in the Hague. The following brief notes outline what I think are the main interpretive perspectives on his death in the Gospels. Next week I will look at Paul. To my mind, the main points to be grasped from these perspectives are i) that we need to make sense of Jesus’ death primarily within a (multilayered) narrative rather than systematic theological framework; and ii) that at least in the Gospels his death is understood as being not for humanity but for Israel. In essence, his death is interpreted by means of various extended stories drawn from the Old Testament that articulate a hope of forgiveness and restoration for Israel following judgment and alienation from YHWH. It seems to me that any attempt to understand his death in universal terms must first respect the historical contingency of the Gospel accounts. This is not to say that the cross has no universal significance, rather that whatever universal significance it has comes by way of its significance for first century Israel.
The wrath of God against Israel
Jesus describes his death as a cup from which he must drink. He tells the disciples that they will drink of the same cup (Matt. 20:22-23); in Gethsemane he asks that the cup might be taken from him (Matt. 26:39). In the background is the Old Testament image of the cup of God’s judgment, a ‘cup of staggering’, that Jerusalem is made to drink, which is the Babylonian invasion (Is. 51:17, 22; Ezek. 23:31-33).
The cross as a means of execution represented Rome’s punishment of rebellious Israel - and therefore represented God’s ‘punishment’ of Israel through the brutality of their enemies. Thousands were crucified during the war of AD 66-70 in order to terrify the besieged residents of Jerusalem. Josephus writes: ‘The soldiers themselves through rage and bitterness nailed up their victims in various attitudes as a grim joke, till owing to the vast numbers there was no room for the crosses, and no crosses for the bodies’ (Jos. War 5.11.1; cf. 2.12.6). Jesus’ death was not in the first place a mythical event - it was a political event, lodged tightly in the story of first century Israel under Roman occupation, and its significance must therefore be presented in political terms.
Suffering and restoration
The ‘good news’ about the imminent reign of God in the Gospels is like the ‘good news’ that is announced to Jerusalem in Isaiah 52:7-10. Indeed the whole narrative of judgment and restoration in Isaiah 40-66 is superimposed on the story of Jesus. Jesus is re-enacting that narrative for the sake of the future of Israel.
At the heart of Isaiah 40-66 - and closely connected with the announcement about the restoration of Israel following judgment - is the exquisite passage (52:13-53:12) about a servant who suffered the punishment of Israel, who was ‘wounded for our transgressions’, who made himself an offering for sin, who ‘bore the sin of many’. Jesus quotes from Isaiah 53:12 when, just before his arrest, he instructs his disciples to arm themselves: “I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’” (Lk. 22:37). The general point is that they are about to face the violent rejection that is foreshadowed in Isaiah 53. He may also allude to it in the saying that the ‘Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many’ (Matt. 20:28; cf. Mk. 10:45). But if we interpret Jesus’ death in the light of this passage, we must recognize that what Isaiah describes is a suffering because of Israel’s sins.
The Maccabean precedent
The typology of the crisis provoked by Antiochus Epiphanes’ violent attempt to impose Hellenism on the Jews is crucial for understanding Jesus’ death.The Son of man figure which Daniel sees coming on the clouds of heaven to receive a kingdom from the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:13-27 represents the community of righteous Jews who faithfully refuse to abandon the covenant and who as a result suffer at the hands of Antiochus.
Jesus immediately evokes this story when he begins to explain to his followers that the journey to Jerusalem will end in his death. It is as the Son of man that he will be rejected by unrighteous Israel and killed by the Gentile oppressor; but as the Son of man too he will be ‘seen’ coming in glory to receive a kingdom (Matt. 16:21-28; 20:17-19; Mk. 8:31-9:1; 10:33-34; Lk. 9:21-27; 18:31-33; 24:7). In his suffering and vindication, therefore, he represents the community of righteous Israel who will remain faithful to YHWH during the coming crisis of judgment. So in the story of his own suffering and vindication he includes his followers: ‘If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me’ (Matt. 16:24).
How the typology could acquire atoning significance is apparent from the stories of martyrs who defied Antiochus in the Maccabean writings:
I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our fathers, appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation and by afflictions and plagues to make you confess that he alone is God, and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty which has justly fallen on our whole nation. (2 Macc. 7:37-38 RSV)
These, then, who have been consecrated for the sake of God, are honoured, not only with this honour, but also by the fact that because of them our enemies did not rule over our nation, the tyrant was punished, and the homeland purified – they having become, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation. And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice, divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated. (4 Macc. 17:20-22 RSV; cf. 4 Macc. 15:24; 16:22; 17:2)
The last supper
Several cross-references point to an understanding of Jesus’ death as the means by which Israel is saved from a state of alienation from God and a new community established. The indirect association of the meal with the Passover suggests a theme of liberation from enslavement to a Gentile power. The phrase ‘my blood of the covenant’ recalls Exodus 24:8: ‘And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”’ The ‘new covenant’ of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is not explicitly alluded to, but the passage anticipates the collocation of four elements that appear in the last supper narratives: i) the idea of a ‘new covenant’ (31:31); the departure from Egypt (31:32); the confirmation of the law (31:33); and the forgiveness of Israel’s sins (31:34). Nothing in this, however, suggests a universal interpretation: Jesus thought of his death as a sacrificial act for the sake of sinful Israel.
As with the other motifs, the last supper incorporates the disciples in Jesus’story. As Paul will say, the cup of blessings is a fellowship in his blood; the broken bread is a fellowship in suffering (1 Cor. 10:16). This ‘fellowship’ (koinōnia) reflects the fact that the Son of man in Daniel 7 represents the oppressed saints of the Most High, the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is also Jacob and faithful Israel, and (see below) the sheep are refined through suffering when the shepherd is struck down.
I will strike the shepherd…
Just after the last supper Jesus warns the disciples: “You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered’” (Matt. 26:31). The quotation is from Zechariah 13:7. In the context of a prophecy of judgment against Israel, when God will ‘gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken’ (Zech. 14:2), the Lord says that his shepherd will be struck down and his ‘little ones’ scattered. Two thirds of Israel will perish; a third will be refined through the suffering, as silver and gold are refined, and will become God’s true people (13:7-9). Jesus means, therefore, that his death will be a consequence of God’s wrath against Israel, but through the affliction part of Israel will be saved.
Psalms 22 and 69
These two Psalms in particular provide a direct commentary on Jesus’ experience of suffering. Psalm 22 is indicated by Jesus’ cry of abandonment (Matt. 27:46; Mk. 15:34), the mockery of bystanders (Matt. 27:39-43; Mk. 15:29), the division of his garments by lot (Matt. 27:35; Mk. 15:24; Jn. 19:23-24); Psalm 69 is explicitly invoked by the offering of vinegar for Jesus to drink (Jn. 19:28-29). The allusions are not merely incidental. Both Psalms speak of the severe affliction of one who is righteous and who trusts YHWH to deliver him from the hands of his enemies and from death; they conclude with the hope that God will act in the midst of crisis to establish his people and demonstrate his sovereignty in the world. Jesus reflects on his death in the light of these narratives from the heart of Israel’s scriptures about the faithfulness of God towards his people. The words ‘into your hands I commit my spirit’ in Luke 23:46 echo Psalm 31:5 in a similar manner.
The serpent in the wilderness
Jesus speaks of the lifting up of the Son of man, which is presumably a reference to his death (cf. Jn. 12:32-33), as being analogous to Moses lifting up the servant in the wilderness (Jn. 3:14-15). The people of Israel had complained against God and against Moses for having brought them into the desert to die. As punishment the Lord sent fiery serpents among them to bite them, and many of the Israelites perished as a result. Eventually Moses is told to make the image of a serpent and place it on a pole. Then if a person was bitten, they would look at the serpent and live (Num. 21:4-9). The point of the analogy is clearly that when cantankerous Israel is again under judgment, people will be saved from destruction by looking at the Son of man.
Re: The death of Jesus in the Gospels
Andrew,
Great post. I agree with much. You did a fine job of situating Jesus’ death in its historical context. A few questions to think about.
This is not to say that the cross has no universal significance, rather that whatever universal significance it has comes by way of its significance for first century Israel.
How does first century Israel relate to our present condition?
How does Jesus’ death seen in the context of first century Israel relate to me here today in the U.S.? Is there a risk that it doesn’t?
Is there a risk of conflating (as do many conservative evangelicals in the U.S.) first century Israel with the modern state of Israel?
Re: The death of Jesus in the Gospels
1. How did the exodus relate to the situation of 6th century Israel - or Israel in the first century AD? Israel was always a people which had been redeemed from slavery by a defining act of God. It was part of the story that they told about themselves - to the extent that it always in principle determined the nature of their relationship to God. So if nothing else, we have a narrative link with Jesus’ death that we celebrate in the last supper in much the same way that Israel celebrated the Passover.
But there is still the sense that anyone who today responds to the call of God to be part of his people makes the transition from the old world to the new, from the macrocosm to the microcosm, on the basis of Jesus’ death. It still gets personal. We still put ourselves under the lordship of one who made himself a servant, humbled himself to the point of death, for the sake of the future of the people of God. We become part of a people that was redeemed from its sins, rescued from complete annihilation, through the death of Jesus. We can hardly be complacent about that.
See also the thread Is Jesus even relevant?
2. Yes, there’s a risk that a narrative-historical reading of the Gospels will make it harder for an unimaginative, culture-bound church to connect with the cross. But there’s also a risk that our highly personalized, sentimentalized, mythicized, almost gnostic modern gospel will prevent the church today from grasping the prophetic and political dimension of what it means to be the people of the creator God in the world. There are always going to be risks. My view is that the church needs to learn how to make the narrative work much better. If contemporary church culture makes that difficult, then the answer is that we need to transform contemporary church culture.
3. The story about Jesus’ death in the Gospels and in the New Testament as a whole presupposes the imminent destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. As far as the New Testament is concerned, that is final. Zionism is no longer an option. Jesus provided an alternative path, a narrow and dangerous path, that would lead to life for descendants of Abraham. From that point on it is those of faith who are counted as heirs of the promise to Abraham.
I would argue that national, torah-based Israel represented a failed paradigm for God’s new creation. Western imperialist Christendom is another failed paradigm. The emerging church is part of a search for a new paradigm or model for constructing and ordering a prophetic new creation in the midst of the nations and peoples and cultures.
Re: The death of Jesus in the Gospels
Andrew, I totally agree with your approach. You mentioned, and I agree, “that our highly personalized, sentimentalized, mythicized, almost gnostic modern gospel will prevent the church today from grasping the prophetic and political dimension of what it means to be the people of the creator God in the world.” The gospel as understood by many Christians today [I]is[/I] borderline Gnostic, and this is one of my main concerns for the present and future of Christianity, but I won’t get into that here. However, I have one comment to make on your post.
If you plan on talking about the universal significance of the cross, perhaps the best thing to talk about is how that the Gentiles were once “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise … [being] made nigh by the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:12-13). Yes Jesus’ death is a death for Israel, but it also foreshadows the beginning of a new covenant (cf. Heb 9:16 [I]et. al[/I]), and the renewal of Israel as a Jew-Gentile community; is not his death secondly a death for those who are grafted in (cf. Rom 11:17), even thousands of years later? Perhaps those are some points to focus on.
By the way, are you planning on having your lecture recorded so it can be uploaded to the website? I would look forward to hearing it if so.
Re: The death of Jesus in the Gospels
You’re right about Ephesians. The cross made it possible for Gentiles to become part of the covenant people. But that belongs to the development of the narrative - and hopefully we’ll get to that next week. It is not something clearly anticipated in the Gospels. It was almost a by-product of the proclamation in the Gentile world of what God done for Israel. That sort of impact is foreseen in Isaiah, but it is not really part of the theology of the cross in the Gospels, which, incidentally, is a matter of some importance for the historicity of the Gospels.
It wasn’t really a lecture, I’m afraid, though I appreciate you asking. Just an informal church bible study.
Re: The death of Jesus in the Gospels
Zionism is no longer an option
You should spread the word on that one. Empirically, Zionism is far from dead. It is alive and well not only in Israel but among some conservative evangelicals in the U.S. who self-identify with the movement and support Israeli national security and foreign policies almost without question. There seems to be a strong sense that ancient Israel of the Bible is directly tied to the modern state of Israel. It is a link that is cultivated by some Christians and some politicians. And this link justifies practically any policy.
I would push you to explicitly establish more distance between ancient Israel and the modern state of Israel. I would push you to write a post that challenges that conflation. For, simply saying that it is no longer an option misses the point that for many it very much is an option that justifies any number of actions.
And that is a real risk I see with your insistence on rooting the storyline in the context of ancient Israel. You’re generating the possibility that some emerging believers, say, those with a more conservative orientation, can frame their faith in Zionist terms.
Zionism is no longer an option
An interesting challenge! I’ll think about it. The problem is that the issue doesn’t carry the same cultural, political and theological weight in Europe that it does in the US. I have tended to steer away from it, partly because I don’t know enough about it, partly because I don’t want to know any more about it.
I take your point that there is a problem with grounding the story in the context of ancient Israel. But that’s simply where the story belongs - and to remove the gospel from that context is to distort it, sometimes quite seriously. It is a story about ancient Israel - but it is fundamentally a story about judgment on ancient Israel, which makes it rather ironic that this approach is seen as potentially supporting Christian Zionism. I would suggest that it is precisely the failure to grasp the eschatological-historical realism of the New Testament that has created the theological space for Christian Zionism to emerge.
Re: Zionism is no longer an option
The problem is that the issue doesn’t carry the same cultural, political and theological weight in Europe that it does in the US. I have tended to steer away from it, partly because I don’t know enough about it, partly because I don’t want to know any more about it.
True. But emerging engagement with the predominant interpretations of Christianity are not confined to Europe. Christian support for Zionist policies have international consequnces. The message of Jesus insofar as it is to be taken to all the nations has international significance. I would like to see you step outside your comfort zone.
I take your point that there is a problem with grounding the story in the context of ancient Israel. But that’s simply where the story belongs - and to remove the gospel from that context is to distort it, sometimes quite seriously.
I would caution that "the story belongs" there because you and others have situated it there. Not everyone does. There are multiple contextual possibilites. Or have you laid your hands on the Right Interpretation and Right Context?
I would suggest that it is precisely the failure to grasp the eschatological-historical realism of the New Testament that has created the theological space for Christian Zionism to emerge.
Or maybe it is because Christian Zionists and Jewish Zionists make a link between ancient Israel and the modern state of Israel that is eerily similar to what you are implicitly suggesting.
I urge you to show us how the story of ancient Israel is not connected to the modern state of Israel. I fear that your storyline, however multi-layered it is, can be appropriated by such conservative views and put to use to justify their theological and policy stances.
Re: Zionism is no longer an option
I really struggle to understand this. The story is set in the context of first century Judaism; it takes its bearings from the political situation of first century Judaism; it interprets that situation and the impact of Jesus in the light of Israel’s scriptures. How is ancient Israel not the immediately relevant interpretive context for the story about Jesus?
How might my ‘storyline’ be used to justify Zionism? What am I missing? Central to the New Testament narrative, as I see it, is the prospect of catastrophic judgment on Jerusalem and the temple and the decisive reorientation of the people of God around Jesus. I’m afraid you have to explain to me how that eerie similarity arises.
Re: Zionism is no longer an option
I really struggle to understand this. The story is set in the context of first century Judaism; it takes its bearings from the political situation of first century Judaism; it interprets that situation and the impact of Jesus in the light of Israel’s scriptures. How is ancient Israel not the immediately relevant interpretive context for the story about Jesus?
We agree that the story in the Holy Bible was set in 1st century Judaism.
But you live here in the 21st century in England, so I would say that the most immediate and most relevant interpretive context is the one that you are physically and mentally situated in and cannot remove yourself from. As far as I know, you are not a first century Jewish Christian. You are looking backward from your present context and reading the text in a particular way made possible by more recent scholarship on the matter. You can’t escape where you stand and the interpretive angle it affords you.
So, when you assert that "the story belongs" in that 1st century context, you are legitimizing your present day interpretation of the scriptures, which is fine. But I don’t think you are speaking about The Way Things Are.
On the your second question, I need some time. I’ll get back to you.
Re: Zionism is no longer an option
I entirely accept that my situation and perspective (actually I am in the Netherlands, not England) should be taken into account. But the ‘immediate and most relevant interpretive context’ for the story about Jesus still seems to me to be the literary matrix in which it is embedded - unless we have good reasons under the terms of our engagement with that story to reduce it to a simplistic evangelistic or pastoral core and violently uproot it.
My present context embraces the story of Jesus within the story of Israel - and may well distort my understanding. But I don’t see that it gives me good grounds for extracting the story of Jesus from the story of Israel. That is something that modern theology has done in different ways and for different reasons, but I am enough of a positivist - and I think a realist - to maintain that we cannot remain faithful to the Jesus of the New Testament without making at least provisional and critical judgments about what constitutes a good reading
The fact is, while all interpretations are biased, some are still better than others, and I don’t see anything wrong in exercising our critical faculties in the interests of understanding Jesus more accurately. That doesn’t mean I think I or we or anyone else can say definitively, this is The Way Things Are; but there comes a point when you get tired of going round and round on the postmodern merry-go-round, waving knowingly to the crowds, questioning every blessed thought that comes into our heads. We are called to live out the word of God, and we can’t do that if everything is challenged on the grounds of perspective.
Re: Zionism is no longer an option
I entirely accept that my situation and perspective (actually I am in the Netherlands, not England) should be taken into account.
Then how does your speaking from a perspective shape your view? Could you be more explicit and concrete in discussing this? It seems to me that you accept the perspectival character of your view, but then stop there. Push it further. What are the implications of a perspectivalism?
But the ‘immediate and most relevant interpretive context’ for the story about Jesus still seems to me to be the literary matrix in which it is embedded - unless we have good reasons under the terms of our engagement with that story to reduce it to a simplistic evangelistic or pastoral core and violently uproot it.
I would say that you aren’t simply telling the story about Jesus—cut and dry. It is the story about Jesus as you see it relating to you and the community of believers you are part of.
we cannot remain faithful to the Jesus of the New Testament without making at least provisional and critical judgments about what constitutes a good reading.
What constitues a "good reading" of the NT? Is it getting the context of the story just right? Is it relating the story to our present condition? Is it more or something else? It seems to me that a "good reading" is immanent to communities of interpretation. Are we all to join your community?
The fact is, while all interpretations are biased, some are still better than others, and I don’t see anything wrong in exercising our critical faculties in the interests of understanding Jesus more accurately.
I agree. Some interpretations are "better than others," but that doesn’t entail they are more "accurate." If by "accurate" you mean a word more or less accurately fits the external world of things. Accuracy used in that way entails a dualistic presumption that I am uncomfortable making.
I sense that your aim is to get down to the Core Story about Jesus, to uncover the facts of the matter, to look underneath all the biases.
I would submit that our aim shouldn’t be about discovering, but about authentically and creativly bringing the redeeming story of Jesus’ life, crucifiction and resurrection to bear today. We are called to be disciples of the living word, not to be "accurate."
We are called to live out the word of God, and we can’t do that if everything is challenged on the grounds of perspective.
I agree. But the only way that we can "live out the word of God" is through a perspective. There is no non-perspective, or objective ground on which to stand. Is there?
Re: Zionism is no longer an option
Well, yes, obviously. That’s why I said, ‘That doesn’t mean I think I or we or anyone else can say definitively, this is The Way Things Are’. We always read as part of a critical and indeed argumentative community, and as you say, there is ‘no non-perspective, or objective ground on which to stand’. But I don’t see that that invalidates the attempt to make sense of the story about Jesus within the context of first century Judaism. Nor do I think that biblical interpretation should be held hostage to our (or rather your) anxieties about evangelical Zionism.
Forgive me for saying so, but that strikes me as rather silly. Surely we are already part of a community of interpretation by virtue of participating in this conversation - and in many others that are taking place throughout the church at the moment.
No, I don’t mean that. By ‘accurate’ I mean primarily that it is coherent with its various interpretive contexts. I think it likely that this semantic or literary coherence will led to a better sense of how the New Testament relates to other ‘historical’ narratives, but that is not my primary concern. I think the first need is to make sense of the story as a story within the matrix that immediately presents itself, which, as is clear from Matthew 1 and Romans 9, for example, is a story about first century Judaism.
Why is it one or the other? Why not both? Otherwise you can make the redeeming story of Jesus mean pretty much what you like. It seems to me to lack hermeneutical and theological integrity to divorce the two - Jesus was a historical figure. Why deny him that status? Isn’t that what the incarnation means? Besides, I thought you didn’t like dualisms. I would argue for a creative and critical continuity between these two activities.
Re: Zionism is no longer an option
I live in D.C. On several occassion groups of Christian Zionists have gathered dowtown to protest in support of this or that war-making policy in Israel. They sometimes protest for this or that U.S. strike against Iran or name any other country seen as a threat to Israel and the U.S. I’ve actually went down and tape recorded some of their protest shouts, some of their calls for people to repent or burn in hell. Yes, I am concerned about evangelical Zionists. What they do in the name of God is damn scary.
Why is it one or the other? Why not both?
Internal consistency. Both seems to me to be internally inconsistent—sort of like having your cake and eating it too. I say take a stand on one side or the other and work out what that means.
Otherwise you can make the redeeming story of Jesus mean pretty much what you like.
Not really. There are always limits. The limits aren’t the facts behind the text. The limits are internal to the storyline and the community of believers you particpate with. You cross certain boundaries and the community may well expell you.
It seems to me to lack hermeneutical and theological integrity to divorce the two - Jesus was a historical figure.
Historical in the sense that the Bible is a primary text that is ancient. To appeal to the facts behind the text is the first move in devaluing the text—I think. To say that Jesus was a historical figure outside the biblical text is to start to set him up as a hypothesis that can be tested. I personally don’t go there, but many Christians do.
Why deny him that status? Isn’t that what the incarnation means? Besides, I thought you didn’t like dualisms. I would argue for a creative and critical continuity between these two activities.
I don’t deny Jesus any status. I just don’t appeal to behind the text facts about the figure of Jesus.
Incarnation…one way to think about it is to say that Jesus is incarnated when believers come together and live and work in his name.
Its not all dualisms, just the Platonic dualisms that I dislike. Like the dualism between ideas/materials or subjective/objective and so on. The classic greek dualisms.
Re: The death of Jesus in the Gospels
Andrew - yes, it’s a good bible study, but no surprise that I’m still not convinced by your conclusions, though the argument is presented logically enough.
Could I suggest that your comment: "highly personalized, sentimentalized, mythicized, almost gnostic modern gospel" betrays a very high degree of prejudice? It’s possible that some accounts of the gospel could be described in this way. It certainly is not true that all accounts (which, throughout history, have been fairly consistently similar) could be so described.
I have no argument with your main thesis that the gospel accounts portray the death of Jesus in terms of the history of Israel. I disagree that the means of connection between non-Israelites and Jesus is purely through identifying with a narrative. In fact, such an identification cannot be made, because the narrative - according to the terms with which you describe it - belongs to no-one else but Israel.
The issue then becomes - what was the narrative of Israel all about? Having been redeemed from Egypt and brought into the promised land, was that meant to be the end of the story?
Obviously not - there were the promises to Abraham to be fulfilled, which had a worldwide significance. The worldwide significance of Israel’s destiny forms a key theme of Isaiah, and is how Paul describes his own calling. How were the promises to be fulfilled? Not, as you have it, in a historical 1st century rescue of the faithful from judgement on Israel, but in the death and resurrection of Jesus as events, or a complex of events, which were significant in themselves.
When the gospel of Jesus’s death and resurrection was preached, something more was understood than rescue from forthcoming judgement (though that was certainly part of the message). A new creation required new ‘creations’ which would inhabit it. For this to come about, the underlying issue which had been brought to a focus in Israel needed to be addressed - namely, sin.
The reason why the message of Jesus’s victory over death had such power and appeal to non-Israelites as well as Israelites is not a mystery of God’s grace. It was addressing the same issue which was at the heart of their experience as it was of Israel’s experience. The outpouring of the Spirit on Gentiles as well as Israelites was an earnest of the intention of the whole story, not a fortuitous coincidence which was incidental to the historical narrative. New creation inhabitants for a new creation world (yet to be fully realised).
So the story comes to us: our primary problem is the reality of the working of sin and death in our lives. A Jesus who had not come to redeem us from these realities would be of little or no relevance to us. I’ve argued this time and again on the site - that you have set up some extra hoops for us to jump through which are entirely unnecessary. We don’t need to jump through the hoop of Israel’s story in order to participate in their promises. We enter Israel’s story by direct, personal and corporate encounter through faith in the Jesus who died for the sins of the world.
Most interpreters recognise in the suffering of Jesus on the cross something of far greater significance than a local story to do with a middle-eastern tribe. There is every ground for this in view of the scriptures themselves. JHWH was not a local deity, but God of the whole earth. The outer frame of the story is not Israel’s national story at all, nor is it a middle-eastern folk myth, but a story about the origins of things which explains in a combination of powerful simplicity yet profound psychological insight a creation which has become seriously out of kilter with God. The rest of the story is a record of the consequences of this primal origin of things, and the painstakingly tortuous path which led to the coming of Jesus as the one who would provide the long-awaited and much needed redemption.
My main argument therefore is that Israel’s story was never intended to be primarily about herself and for her own benefit, but always had the rest of the world in view - however obscured that destiny may have become. I have argued this in relation to Abraham, to Isaiah, to Daniel (and especially the passages which Andrew singles out) elsewhere on the site. The Psalms invoked by Jesus at the time of his death were no doubt expressing his own conviction that the narrative of redemption through suffering was his own narrative. I have no disagreement with the interpretation of Zechariah 13 & 14 - except that precisely how the refining of the third part of the people in Zechariah 14 is accomplished is incomplete in Andrew’s account.
Redemption is not simply accomplished, as Andrew suggests, through the saints following the example of Jesus in patient endurance of suffering. The broken bread and the wine of the last supper represent primarily a suffering of Jesus which only he could accomplish, and which was accomplished on behalf of others, to bring about the final Exodus - which underlay the passover drama which he was re-enacting in himself.
For a more detailed explanation of why I diverge from the route which Andrew’s interpretation of Daniel takes him, read http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/888#comment-3516 (if you dare!).
Re: The death of Jesus in the Gospels
The word ‘purely’ is your word not mine. I said ‘primarily’, which is very different. I think that the narrative approach is potentially very powerful, but I also outlined secondary ways beyond the narrative that we today connect with Jesus’ death. Since you apparently missed that paragraph, I’ll quote it here:
Nor, for the sake of clarification, did I talk about ‘identifying with a narrative’. What I said was that ‘we have a narrative link with Jesus’ death that we celebrate in the last supper in much the same way that Israel celebrated the Passover’. The point is not that we identify with the narrative, though that would not perhaps be inappropriate. It is that we are connected to Jesus’ death by the narrative - or better, we are members of a community that is defined by the narrative.
It is also not true that non-Israelites are necessarily excluded, according to the terms of my interpretation, from a narrative that focuses on Israel. Isaiah envisages the participation of foreigners, in various ways, in the salvation of Israel - that is part of the overall narrative. And Paul argues that Gentiles become descendants of Abraham on the basis of faith, thereby dealing with precisely the problem that you raise. The narrative about national Israel is situated in the narrative about Abraham. But these developments are not part of the Gospel narratives, which, as far as I can see, account for Jesus’ death only within the framework of the story of the judgment and restoration of Israel.
There is too much in the rest of your comment to address now and much of it we have argued over before. The issue is not whether YHWH was merely a local deity, or whether Israel’s mission was global, or whether Gentiles become part of God’s people on the basis of Jesus’ death. The issue is how the cross fits into the narrative.
As a summary of the New Testament I think your statement ‘We enter Israel’s story by direct, personal and corporate encounter through faith in the Jesus who died for the sins of the world’ is misleading; it is the product of later theological reflection rather than of exegesis. That doesn’t mean it is not true, just that it oversimplifies the New Testament argument.
It seems to me that we are much closer to the New Testament view of Jesus’ death if we regard it in the first place as a death for the sake of Israel’s sins, the sins that brought the nation under judgment, in need of forgiveness, and made it liable to destruction. That is how it is presented in the Gospels and Acts. It is also, I think Paul’s argument in Romans. He sets the case of Israel against the backdrop of human sin generally in order to explain why Israel was bound sooner or later to come under judgment. But it is nevertheless the promise of the one true God to Abraham that is ‘saved’ by Jesus’ faithfulness. Because Jesus died as an atonement for Israel’s sins, the descendants of Abraham will inherit the earth - that is where the universal themes come into play.
Again, this is not what I am saying. You have added the ‘simply’. I repeat: Jesus’ death is interpreted as an atonement for Israel. But much of what he says about his own suffering has the effect of drawing the disciples into his story, because they will face the same opposition - they will have to take up their cross. The New Testament does not, as far as I am aware, suggest that the suffering of the disciples has the same atoning significance, but it certainly sees it as an extension of Jesus’ story.
The death of Jesus in the Gospels
We had a church leadership awayday last weekend, during which my pastoral style was said to be more the sheepdog than the shepherd - following after those who were at the edge, or in danger of leaving the flock altogether; nipping their heels and bringing them back. Somehow during the prayer which followed, the breed of dog got changed from sheepdog to Rottweiler - refusing to let go once it had its teeth into something. Pity the poor sheep! Maybe that’s why I find it difficult to let go of issues, such as this, once I have my fangs into it. I hope the heart is more the sheepdog than the Rottweiler.
The corrections in detail to my comment raise as many questions and problems as the original comment. The main problem is how we have any connection/identification with Israel’s story if Jesus died for the sins of Israel alone.
The proposed “later theological reflection” which is said to have produced the idea of “direct, personal and corporate encounter with God through faith in the Jesus who died for the sins of the world” is of course very early indeed. It is in particular the language of John’s gospel, and the thrust of the letters to the Romans, Galatians and Ephesians. In Ephesians, “one new man” is made “out of the two”, reconciled to God “through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility”. And “through him (Jesus), we both have access to the Father through the Spirit” - Ephesians 2:16-17. The death of Jesus is directly related to issues beyond Israel (the gentile/Israel divide), and is described as providing personal/corporate access to God for both - with neither having (in this sense) precedence over the other.
Are John and the letters disqualified for being too late? What if you take an early date for the composition of John? There are so many references in it to the life and death of Jesus having significance for the kosmos (rather than Israel alone), that a limited interpretation of his death is left very vulnerable indeed. Kosmos is also a significant term within the teaching of Jesus in the synoptic gospels, and also provides a significant framework of understanding for his death.
The “limited” interpretation of the death of Jesus runs into problems which are exegetical and theological, and which undercut the basis for a Christian faith which applies to anyone beyond an Israel that ceased to exist in the 1st/2nd century. My original comments about the death of Jesus providing worldwide significance for Israel’s story as a whole still stand - as does, I hope, my intended break from contributions to the site.
The death of Jesus and the Gentiles
You, a Rottweiler? Are you serious?
Part of the issue here is how the narrative develops. It’s not too outrageous to suggest that the heightened universal perspective of John reflects a later development, and certainly Paul has to take into account the inclusion of Gentiles in the covenant people. That was yesterday’s post on the death of Jesus in Paul. But even then we should be careful not to read extraneous ideas into Paul’s argument. The significance of Jesus’ death with regard to the Gentiles, as Paul argues in Ephesians 2, is that it led to the abolition of the law (because it had got to the point that the law could only condemn Israel to destruction and not save). But if the law has been abolished, the cultic boundary between Jew and Gentile, circumcision and uncircumcision, is no longer in force, so it becomes possible for Gentiles to have access to the Father through the same Spirit that was given to the Jewish believers.
This was the significance of Acts 10. Because the laws determining uncleanness were no longer valid, there was nothing to stop Cornelius and his family boldly walking in the through the front door. The argument is: Jesus’ death led to the abolition of the law, which gave Gentiles access to the community of Israel. So Jesus died for the Gentiles but not in quite the same way that he died for Israel. The Gentiles receive forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43), but this is attributed not to Jesus’ death for their sins (Peter rather skips over the death) but to their belief in the announcement that God had made Jesus judge of the living and the dead.
Re: The death of Jesus and the Gentiles
I’ve had my teeth into you for the last three years, Andrew - in the politest possible way, of course. Hadn’t you noticed?
Anyway - very interesting on Paul and the death of Jesus. Very well presented. And I would not be here had it not been for an untimely call from John Doyle drawing attention to his lengthy riposte. I’ll have to leave that for now. This reply will have to limit itself to your response to my immediate post.
To simplify things, one of the issues being raised is: for whom did Jesus die? Universal atonement theories are not, as you suggest, metaphysical schemes imposed on an (unwilling) narrative. They are reflections about the very narrative itself - just as your reflections are.
You refer to Acts 10 and verse 34 in particular, and suggest that Peter has little to say about the death of Jesus being the means of forgiveness of sins for Gentiles, and that inclusion of the Gentiles in forgiveness of sins has more to do with Jesus being “appointed as judge of the living and the dead”.
Actually, Peter has given a summary of the ‘gospel’ in the preceding verses - from Acts 10:39 onwards - of which Acts 10:43 is the conclusion. Peter covers the life, death, resurrection and appointment of Jesus to judge, as (in their entirety) testified by the prophets. His conclusion is that “everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” - verse 43b. First - “everyone who believes” (not just Israel); second - the “believing in” relates to the entire narrative of Jesus, of which Peter has given a summary, which includes pre-eminently the death of Jesus. I don’t see the distinction between what Gentiles are given to believe in, and Jews.
Neither is such a distinction seen in Paul - though I’d have to go over it in more detail to demonstrate it. Galatians places an emphasis on the cross as the means of abolition of the Law, because that was the issue in the Galatian church - the reimposition of the Law on believers. How are ‘Gentile sinners’ - Galatians 2:15 - to be forgiven and released from their sins? In the same way as Jews. Paul is not making an argument for a separate means of ‘forgivenes of sins’ in Galatians 2:16-21, but is reinforcing the argument that what was true for Jews is also true for Gentiles - “we (Jews) too (as well as Gentiles) have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified (declared righteous, acquitted form the charges of sin which stood against us) by faith in Christ and not by observing the Law.”
In fact the whole issue of observing the Law for Gentile Galatians was to do with how they could be identified as God’s people, which included how they could fully experience forgiveness of sins, the reception of which was marked out by “God (giving) you his Spirit and (working) miracles among you” Galatians 3:4 - as a result of Christ having been “clearly portayed as crucified”. That we are talking here about reception of forgiveness of sins through the cross for Gentiles is demonstrated in the consequences. This was how Jesus himself brought forgiveness of sins to Israel (seen in advance by healings, deliverances, miracles etc), and how Isaiah had said forgiveness of sins would be demonstrated.
Whichever way you look at it, and I sympathise up to this point with Andrew’s presentation, the cross was as significant to Gentiles as it was to Jews for forgiveness of sins. When Peter preached to the household of Cornelius, it wasn’t the abolition of the Law through the cross which he emphasized, but forgiveness of sins (along with Jesus’s life, death, resurrection, coming in judgement etc - a standard formulaic summary of the key events of Jesus’s life). In hearing the entire message - not just the final part of it, Cornelius and his household were able to believe, and received the Spirit as evidence that belief had been met with God’s approval.
Re: The death of Jesus and the Gentiles
Ephesians 2.15, I would argue, speaks about the "enmity" [Gk: ἔχθρα; echthra] that was ‘ocassioned’, brought to substance, by the Jewish attitude to Torah. The Torah which Jesus himself specifically establishes, in Matthew 5.17, he did not come to "abolish."
Peter’s vision in Acts 10 was not about the removal of the purity laws, but about the removal of Jewish prejudice against Gentiles, as a look at the whole context will demonstrate. Torah (translated by Gentiles as "the Law", but by Jews as "the Teaching") was not abolished, but transformed by the Messiah; a transformation only the Messiah coud make according to Jewish tradition.
The Gentiles were invited into the New Covenant, which was apparently made with the House of Israel and Judah ("the Jews") according to Jeremiah, because the apostle recognised that according to the prophets this was God’s will.
The principal question that the early church had to answer (Acts 15 et al) was: must Gentiles therefore submit to Torah, and most specifically, the Abrahamic covenant entrance rite of circumcision. The New Testament teaching establishes that this is not necessary for Gentiles (though Paul continues to uphold its practice for Jews, e.g. when he chose to circumsice Timothy, Acts 16.3).
Moreover the NT establishes that even for Jews who go on observing Torah, the entrance into the New Covenant (Community) is through trusting in the Messiah and being baptised: the same entrance as for Gentiles.
The abolition of the law
But, John, Paul’s argument in Ephesians 2:14-15 is that Jesus has removed the enmity ‘by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances’. It is not the enmity that is abolished: the Jewish law is abolished which leads to the removal of the dividing wall of hostility. It doesn’t seem to me that we can shift this from the objective fact of the law to the subjective attitude of the Jews.
Similarly with Acts 10. It’s not just Peter’s attitude that is changed. He tells Cornelius:
It is unlawful (athemiton: the word is used in the Maccabean literature for acts that are contrary to the law of Moses, such as eating pork) to associate with Gentiles, but God has overruled that restriction to the extent that righteous Gentiles like Cornelius may also receive the Spirit. The change in Peter’s attitude is necessary in order for him to go and preach the gospel in a Gentile house; but the salvation of Cornelius and his household comes about because the law that excludes Gentiles from the commonwealth of Israel has been nullified - and we find that God in fact shows no partiality (Acts 10:34-35).
Jesus’ statement that he came to fulfil the law rather than abolish it, I would suggest, presupposes the eschatological framework of the Sermon on the Mount. When he says that the law will be in force until heaven and earth pass away, until all is accomplished, he means until the sort of judgment-restoration scenario envisaged by Isaiah comes about (cf. Is. 65:17) - that is, until the flood of God’s judgment comes upon Israel (Matt. 7:24-27) and the kingdom is given to the suffering community of the Son of man (Matt. 5:11).
Re: The abolition of the law
I will confess that I have no expectation of being able to convince you, Andrew—merely to register a protest against the idea that the NT teaches the abolition of Torah and open another avenue of thought for those who wish to consider it. Nevertheless, I submit that it is both a reasonable and a consistent argument to suggest that it is the enmity "ocassioned" by the Torah which is in view:
The enmity between Jews and Gentiles had four components:
These did not naturally arise, as friction does typically between different ‘tribes’, but was specifically brought about by, ocassioned by, the "Torah, with its commands set forth in ordinances". This is what was abolished, not the Torah itself (which can seem a ridiculous argument, since Torah is used throughout the NT to confirm the New Covenant. If it is abolished, how can it thus confirm?)
Thus, re. Acts 10, I also venture to disagree with your affirmation and consequent conclusion:
Stern argue that "athemitos" does not mean unlawful, forbidden or against Jewish law, but "taboo, out of the question, not considered right, against standard practice, contrary to cultural norms." This ‘enmity’ again, might be considered to have been ocassioned by Torah, but should not be identified with it (were it to do with Torah, a derivative of nomos would have been the appropriate word, would it not?)
Furthermore, Gentiles are invited into the commonwealth of Israel, indeed because God has no partiality. But to demonstrate God’s impartiality does not require an abolition of Torah as you imply. It merely reqired the invitation consisting of the Gospel, which is in agreement with and "confirms Torah" (Romans 3:31) but not a harbinger of its abolition or annulment or abrogation…only its transformation through the Messiah.
I find your dismissal of the significance of Jesus own words within Matthew 5.17, re the role of Torah, unconvincing. It overlooks the contrast that Jesus was making: he did not come to abolish but to complete the Torah.
He did this through his role as prophet, king and high priest and through these roles transforming the Torah, the ‘Teaching’ of God, in order to bring about a new humanity, a new covenant community that was committed to the "Torah as upheld by the Messiah" (Galatians 6.2) This set of Teaching (i.e. the Tanakh, the OT, modified by the NT) elevates the weighty commands of "fellowship" ‘twixt Jews and Gentiles above the ‘lesser’ commands that could otherwise continue to seperate them. Thus, the dividing wall of hostility, the middle wall of the spiritual temple is done away with forever, not by abolishing the Torah, but by transforming it…
Re: The abolition of the law
Just a quick response on the translation of Ephesians 2:14-15. This is how it looks to me:
That looks like two distinct actions: the breaking down of the wall of partition, which appears to symbolize the enmity between Jew and Greek; and the abolition of of the law of commands in ordinances. It’s not entirely clear what the logical relation between them is. They could, I suppose, be more or less synonymous. But how do you escape the conclusion that the law has been abolished?
Re: The abolition of the law
A thorough translation, Andrew, that only very slightly differs from Stern’s examination of the same verse:
On the basis of this slight variance, Stern argues for consistency with the basic notion that the New Testament does not abolish, abrogate or annul Torah, instead it modifies or transforms it (as Wright argues for a transformation of many aspects of the former covenants under the auspices of the New Covenant).
Stern’s interpretation of the import of the Ephesians verses above, is as saying that "for his Body, the Messianic Community, Yeshua abolished not the Torah in its entirety, but the takhanot (rabbinic ordinances) relating to the seperation of Jews and Gentiles spiritually. The middle wall of the spiritual temple is done away with forever."
Key verses that in practice require a Jewish perspective in order to argue this analysis include Acts 10, Romans 3:31 & 7:12, Galatians 2.11-16, as well as Matthew 5.17 and 5.21-48 (where the Messiah made Torah commands not less rigid but more so—transforming Torah, not abrogating it—indeed, missing a perfect opportunity to do so, if that was his intention: "You have heard…but I say to you, Torah is abolished"…something simply unthinkable from a Jewish perspective).
Of Colossians 2.20 et al, Stern basically argues that they are speaking about ‘legalism’ (Gk. erga nomou)—the intention to obey the letter of Torah mechanistically, self-righteously, without graceful dependence upon God’s Spirit (Cranfields commentary upon Romans 1979, p 853), in order to secure God’s approval (blessing). The New Covenant specifically provides the capacity for graceful dependence upon, empowerment by the Spirit in a way that the Sinai Covenant did not and could not—mainly, I would suggest, because as a result of Jesus’ death, the Spirit is poured out in a way that he / it was not before.
Re: The abolition of the law
I’m afraid I can’t follow Stern’s translation. I don’t see how you can avoid the conclusion that the Torah has been abolished in order that the enmity between Jew and Gentile may be overcome so that they become one new person. Perhaps you could argue that the law has been abolished insofar as it establishes and maintains the enmity between Jew and Greek. It makes sense to me that while there was still the possibility of Israel as a nation repenting and avoiding destruction, Paul should regard the law as being still valid for Jews. As I said, I think Jesus’ statement presupposes the same eschatological condition. The law remains in force until the flood comes and sweeps the house away, when it is the house built on Jesus’ word that will remain standing.
The word athemitos seems to mean more than simply ‘taboo’, though it may have a particular association with the conflict between Jewish and Gentile values that is fully apposite for Acts 10.
As for Matthew 5:17-18 (see also the commentary), Jesus explicitly attaches a temporal limit to the validity of the Torah: ‘until all things take place (panta genētai)’. The allusion to Isaiah, as I suggested, points to an eschat-historical crisis of judgment and restoration; and one could quite naturally connect ‘until all things take place’ with Jesus’ assurance in Matthew 24:34 that the present generation of Jews would not pass away before ‘all these things take place (panta tauta genētai). ‘All these things’ are the desolation of Jerusalem and the vindication of the Son of man. This is his eschatological horizon, and we must allow it to frame his teaching.
And in what sense does Jesus ‘fulfil’ the law? Precisely, I would argue, in bringing a sword of judgment rather than peace (Matt. 10:34): this is how he ‘fulfils’ the law (cf. Deut. 28:25) and the prophets (cf. Ezek. 21:2-3). So the law now condemns Israel to destruction. It remains in force, therefore, until that point, until the flood. Then it is superseded by Jesus’ word.
Re: The abolition of the law
I provided several alternatives that indeed ‘mean more than taboo’, such as ‘out of the question, not considered right, against standard practice, contrary to cultural norms’; the point is that it avoids an extension of ‘nomos’ which is the Gk word invariably used in the NT for Torah. Thus, it would seem that it is referring to something other Torah decrees, making it, as you say, apposite for the Acts 10 passage, which is not speaking about abolishing the kashrut, purity laws, but Jew / Gentile prejudice—albeit that which had been enshrined in religious laws (but not grounded in Torah).
Stern’s commentary on these verses is thorough and a little complex so I won’t attempt to reproduce it here. He basically suggests that the ‘abolish’ should be attached to the enmity, not the Torah.
However, the real issue is the ‘power’ of paradigms: Stern’s paradigm posits that the Torah was transformed (e.g., Hebrews 7.12, nomou metathesis), not abolished, so he discusses how verses such as these should be read in the light of the contextual message of the whole of scripture (the ‘reigning paradigm’). This seems consistent with your own method, which constantly interprets passages in the light of the reigning ‘CSoM’ paradigm you posit. As you might agree, in attempting to articulate such elaborate arguments, the suggestion is that, after all, it is God who is to be found lurking in the details and not the devil, as is popularly presumed…
As my post suggested, this is more or less exactly what Stern is arguing as the import of these verses.
Yes, that is interesting. It comes some way towards the position that Stern proposes, which I hold in tension, but lean towards, which is that the "Torah of the Messiah" is what is upheld by the NT. In your paradigm this is ‘the word of Jesus.’ However, I think Stern’s paradigm is more consistent in explaining the complex arguments that Paul makes in Galatians and Romans, regarding the relationship between Torah, the Messiah and the Good News.
(Stern actually goes as far as suggesting on the basis of Hebrews 8.6b, that the New Covenant has been given as Torah (Gk. νομοθετέω, omotheteō). Which, Stern argues, means the New Testament has been given the same status as the Torah of Moses. I’ll leave the implications of that for another post!)
Re: The death of Jesus in the Gospels
i have to say that i too see something in john’s gospel which is lacking in the others (especially mark and matthew). jesus “hour” comes in john when the greeks start to inquire after him (ch. 12), the good news has seeped outside israel’s borders.
i also detect throughout john a siding with paul - and the gentile church (against jerusalem - with the circumcision crowd). where matthew’s disciples are warned that “not one jot or tittle” of the law is altered and ALL must be obeyed, john’s gospel contrasts the “commandments” of jesus with “their” (or “your” law) rather than jesus’ law. the disciples of christ have only to obey HIS commandments and, in fact, in john 6 are expressly commanded to BREAK the levitical mandate against drinking blood.
the first evangelist to the samaritans is a samaritan herself (as opposed to luke having philip whisked away to spread the word).
and the idea of Kosmos…
it all adds up to john’s having a much wider, broader and deeper understanding of the implications of the death of jesus than simply a for-israel thing.
i love the idea of trying to see the scriptural writings as they would have been received by their first audiences, or intended by their original authors though.
this is FAR too brief. i’m off to a party and really haven’t taken the time i should have with it.
apologies. please come back at me with any questions or disagreements. :o)
shane magee
director: fake
w: www.fakerepublic.com