With all this talk about Jesus' alternative kingdom, you might rightly ask (as did the Jews of Jesus' time) whether this Jesus is intended to replace the history, promises, covenants, even the relationship between the people of Israel and God.
That is, when Jesus says he is doing a new thing, is he telling us that he is abolishing what came before? Are the Jews out and the new believers, later called Christians, in?
This is an important question and since we do not know the mind of God, we only see dimly in Jesus and the inspired Word of God, it does not have a clear answer. How you answer this question impacts your relationships with our Jewish neighbors (historically Christians have not done a particularly good job of that). Are Jews called children of God, covenant people, recipients of God's promises? Or, has Jesus 'superseded' the old relationship, put it out to pasture, erased its validity?
No matter how you answer those questions, new questions are raised. If Jews continue to be called children of Israel with God's promises valid, then what is the benefit of Jesus? What do we do with such passages as "unless a man be born again of water and the spirit" or "I am the way, the truth and life; no one comes to the Father but through me" ? How do we speak of salvation (even in its broader understanding as wholeness, completeness in God) separate from the person of Jesus? Isn't the person of Jesus the whole point?
But then, if you answer the other way, disenfranchising the Jews (who have the position of being 'the chosen people') then what good are Jesus' promises to us? Can we rely on them? What if something else is coming beyond Jesus? Of course, folks who take this position (and a lot of others as well) hold Jesus to be the ultimate revelation of God this side of God's kingdom. But it does raise some questions.
You can see then, that your answer also impacts your theological construction of who God is and how God acts in this world.
Having said all that Jesus teaches early in his ministry in Matthew that he has come not to abolish the Law (which is shorthand for Israel's relationship with God) but to fulfill it. Now that word fulfill is not all that clear, but in the Greek it gives a sense of satiation - like being full after a meal. Jesus has done it all; all that needs to be done according to the Law is now accomplished in Jesus.
It is helpful to remember in these discussions that Jesus was an observant Jew, he followed the holy days, he was probably circumcised and bar mitzvahed (notice the trips to Jerusalem in his childhood according to Luke) and he was always found in the synagogues. His ministry was grounded in the tradition and faith of Israel and it was upon this faith that he was shining a light.
The light was to bring additional understanding but also to bring the so-called pious to confession and repentance, thus his statement regarding righteousness in the last verse of the reading.
Is this passage meant to separate and disenfranchise......or is it meant to expand the tradition of God's relationship with God's creatures? How can we preach Jesus without disrespecting God's long covenant with Israel as the chosen people?
That should keep you thinking for a while. It has me. Peace.
I'm still thinking about this post, but I wanted to let people know that on the Mars Hill Network (FM radio 102.9) Friday evening they are doing a segment on covenant theology... thought it would be an interesting addition to this post!
ReplyDeleteOk, I have been thinking on this one for a while now... and I'm still not clear on it. For me this passage (vs.17-20) is telling me that he is not abolishing anything that came before him. It's seems to me that he's just adding to it... he's fulfilled the words of the prophets and now he's bringing them to a new dynamic in thier relationship with God... which they reject? When Jesus says that he's come to "fulfill" the prophets, isn't that in essence a close to that "era" in the Jews relationship with God? Maybe I'm ignorant to the specifics of the Jewish beliefs so I'm not understanding it all, but it seems to me that Jesus was telling them that he was coming to Fulfill all that was prohesized (sp) and start a new covenant with them. But when you think about it like that... it leads to understanding ehy they wouldn't just accept something new. Wouldn't it be like Jesus coming now and teaching us something different than what we've been practicing our entire lives? hmmm... so much more to think about... :)
ReplyDeleteA thoughtful response to this question, which BTW, is not as black and white as my presentation appears to make it.
ReplyDeleteWhat if we say that in fulfilling the covenant made with Abraham and all Israel, Jesus is in fact expanding that covenant to new boundaries, boundaries which would include the whole kosmos or world. Israel is not excluded, but the relationship between the divine and creation is re-defined in a positive way. Therefore, Israel were and are the chosen people - but from the beginning their calling was to be a light to the nations, notice the plural. Israel's task was to point the way to a living relationship with God who we now experience in a more intimate and 'down-to-earth' manner in Jesus. Jesus gathers Israel in, and defines righteousness much more broadly. This does not end God's relationship with Israel, but calls them into a deeper, richer relationship. Paul in Romans opines that the Jews are being blinded 'for a time' so that the Gentiles can 'see' Jesus and in the second coming, their eyes will be opened. Paul does not want to cut Israel out of the divine covenant, and yet acknowledges that Jesus has taken the entire history of the faith to a whole new level.
Many Christian writers have suggested that the new relationship was necessary because Israel was stuck in the Law - which is often defined as legalistic adherence to ritual without regard for impact of day to day faithful living. I quibble with that approach on two counts: first, the Jews did not make the coming of Jesus necessary - Jesus was a gift from the beginning of time to all the world. Who do we think we are that pagans or heathens were any less in need of some straigthening out than Israel? Secondly, arguing that Israel was legalistic and Jesus changed all that gets it wrong on two counts: look to Nicodemus and see that some in Israel were open to Jesus; and two, Jesus doesn't reject the faith practices of Israel.
A last thought for today - have we who follow Jesus 'gotten it right'? Aren't we equally tempted to rely on offerings, worship attendance, and occasional good works to offset the demands of a life of faith and the hard work of on-going relationship? PW