Reflections on Resurrection Sunday
March 24th, 2008 by JohnO
As I sat in an Easter service today, I couldn’t help but dwell on the idea that the understanding that the writers of the New Testament are working out a theology to deal with reality. They didn’t sit down and craft how they could get from a nationalistic warrior Messiah theology to a peaceable wisdom teacher calling Israel to repent, who is then killed by his countrymen. Nor, did they have to figure out a way to justify the idea of a Messiah being, not only vivified, but resurrected from the dead into glory. They didn’t have to figure out how they would admit Gentiles into their Jewish religion, without going through the standard Jewish ways – they just did because of reality.
They walked the earth with a healer and teacher. They understood that this could very well be the Messiah. Somewhere along the line they were ultimately convinced he was the Messiah. Peter, acting in the absolutely normal manner protects his Messiah-claimant from the Romans with a sword. But Jesus is about to redefine the popular notion of a nationalistic warrior Messiah into a universal Messiah calling Israel to repent of it’s violence and be the light of the world. He performs that redefinition by being crucified. And that redefinition is proven as God’s will by his resurrection.
I pray that the Church can continue to find their true and good theology from their reality. Though, I am also afraid that they will take this heed in the crippled and maimed state they are in and do an incredible disservice to the work of our lord. Far be it from us to take our broken reality and declare this is what Jesus intended. Rather, let us be transformed with the same resurrection power as Jesus – and declare that reality as theology and Gospel. That we may display the true Kingdom values today as Jesus did in his day. That we put down our weapons of violence, our weapons of factions, our weapons of insult. That we be peacemakers, go the second mile, and accept the insult without reviling. Seek God’s justice, and not the justice of this present evil age. We have to learn to tell the difference. But I think it will only come with a changed reality in our own lives and communities.
We need to be careful here. This is huge statement. To say that Jesus redefined the office of Messiah from the “nationalistic warrior Messiah” is to me untenable. Where does Jesus do this? Where does Jesus say, “I know that the prophets speak of a davidic conquering king who will rule the nations with a rod of iron but actually I’m just going to live at peace with the world?” I haven’t found such a text. Furthermore, if Rev. 19 is any indication (or Rev. 2.26-28) then Jesus still intends to do the warrior/conqueror part of his messianic office.
Sean,
As per our recent discussion I’m not going to comment on Revelation, but on one hand neither of us have a problem saying Jesus declared pacifism as the way to live. Yet, you can’t have a Jesus who does not hold to a warrior Messiah mentality.
Three points: (1) the idea of Messiah was not fully concrete, all groups had differing opinions on what he would look like, hence all the claimants with overlapping ideas, (2) nearly all claimants decided that to be rid of the pagan influence they would have to fight it with violence, (3) Jesus didn’t think that.
I do agree that Jesus intends to rule over the world – but he isn’t going to do it as a nationalist warrior like Bar Kochba, or Judas the Galilean. God is going to judge and destroy those who refuse to accept the rule of Jesus.
I believe Jesus changed the way we live with the Sermon on the Mount. This is New Covenant stuff. Anyhow, pacifism was certainly not taught to the people of God before Jesus. God commands them to kill their enemies. Thus we conclude that before Jesus changed the rules killing our enemies was ok. So…what about when Jesus comes back in flaming fire dealing out retribution with the angelic army to those who do not know God or obey the gospel (2 Thes 1.6-8)? Apparently there is another change in rules. Besides the violence of the apocalypse is clearly God’s divine judgment.
The idea of Messiah was definitely not concrete, though there are certain OT prophecies that he MUST fulfill. And by fulfill I don’t mean “spiritually” I mean in actuality. To your second and third points I believe Jesus does intend to use violence to defeat the antichrist (what does it mean slay them with the sword that comes out of his mouth?)…sounds like Jesus will come to kill the bad guys in an act of irreversible, unprecedented, divine violence.
God will judge them through his messiah. At the parousia the tribes mourn and judgment comes (Mat 24.29-31; Acts 17.30-31) this happens through the man whom he has appointed. Remember Richard Pratt?…Jesus has done enough for us to believe that when he comes he will do the rest. I don’t like the idea of redefining the office of Messiah so that is becomes unjewish and unrecognizable to the OT prophecies.
It isn’t redefining. Jesus defined, once and for all, what the Messiah is to those who follow him. Nor does any other Jewish individual in the first century have a problem with Jesus’ definition. So why should we?
God’s tolerance of violence used by Israel was for his justice, and his justice alone. When they abused that right to violence – they were severely punished for it.
I’ve talked a little bit about this idea in Atonement and Power. Jesus essentially judges everyone who holds power as abusing it. Both through physical violence and religious traditions that impede God. I do think that the judgment to come will be done in justice. I just think we have to shed our ideas that Jesus is going to be just like any other King, only the one God likes. I think Is 11 shows us that he is very much unlike every other King in character. Therefore wouldn’t his practice be different? Didn’t his ministry show his practice to be different?
I think we’re closer than you think.
What do you guys make of (Mat 10:34). Is not Jesus making a statement here that resounds in other versus you two are using as examples to your own view points. It’s obvious to most that we will most definitely see two sides of Jesus, the One Fair Judge and Executioner.
John wrote:
“I couldn’t help but dwell on the idea that the understanding that the writers of the New Testament are working out a theology to deal with reality.”
What is the basis that you are making this argument for? What part of it are you saying is “theology” and “reality” that they had to deal with in their writings. Just clarify it for me. I get the gist of what your saying, but need it put in more lament terms.
Pete,
I’m glad you commented. My idea about reality can be illustrated in one point very well I think. Everyone agrees that the Jewish people were not expecting the Messiah to die and be resurrected. But, that is indeed what Jesus’ disciples claimed happened. Therefore they are doing their theology, how they understand God to act in the world – based on reality. Rather than based on a greek philosophical precept. Or based on oral Torah as the rabbi’s of the next two centuries would do. Their understanding of God and how he works is based in reality, and not theory.
Even so, how they interpret the reality is determined to some degree (a large degree?) by the grid of the Hebrew Bible. For his death: Is 53; Ps 22; etc. For his resurrection Ps 16; For his ascension Ps 110.1.
Of course, the Hebrew bible is their background for how they understand the world. They couldn’t find a meaningful meaning to reality in any other way than to look in their Scriptures. Even after the temple is destroyed, that is exactly what the rabbi’s turn to to understand why, and what to do about it.