Not all Israel is Israel, John’s starting point
October 7th, 2007 by JohnO
I was just listening to an interview on some current New Testament studies that intersected with a book I am reading that was very interesting. Some current studies called, New Perspective, make some great strides in pushing past some lingering traditional viewpoints from the time of the reformers. The time of the reformers was very anti-semitic, and results in a very anti-semitic view of the Scriptures. This still colors the Church and reading the Scriptures today. The New Perspective finds a much greater continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament.
However, one odd thought that some corners talk a lot about is the fact that Israel is fine - the emphasis is found on just the inclusion of the gentiles into the promises of Israel and the patriarchs. Of course we understand that the inclusion of the gentiles is a big deal - and we gentiles are very grateful! However, in my reading, it was pointed out the oddity that John the Baptist (and Jesus after him) starts out declaring to the Jewish people that they need to be a proselyte, a convert, once again. These two thoughts are at odd-ends. The fact that being a descendant of Abraham isn’t enough is plain on the lips of John the Baptist and Jesus after him. While I disagree with this point that the New Perspective makes is plainly wrong - I don’t understand the implications of John and Jesus’ actions for their Jewishness - I am grateful for the understanding that the Scriptures are a much more unified whole than I previously thought.
In the New Testament we take for granted that faith is this huge element that makes our world go ’round. However, I find it is just the same in the Old Testament. Clearly Paul tells us that was the case for Abraham. It was true when Habbukuk wrote it. And I think we’ve been misled to attempt to understand Judaism at the time of Jesus as putting works on a scale and seeing if it is good enough. As I was, hopefully, successfully, communicating in my Worldview post - I think we need to first understand Judaism at the time of Jesus, since Jesus was a Jew. Then we can see where he disagrees with his culture and religion and how he disagrees. It might, or might not, be simple enough to say the points in which he is silent, he agrees, I’m quite sure. We can then do the same for Paul who was an officially trained Rabbi. Ultimately, all of this is to the end that we may understand more clearly what is attempting to be communicated to us.
Make no mistake though, you don’t have to be some incredible scholar to do this. I think it takes good questions, and a curious nose to hunt after God. I firmly believe that someone reading the Scriptures, without imposing their ideas into it, will come out with the Gospel of the Kingdom and salvation. The Gospel of the Kingdom is painstakingly simple - of course it has to be! It is the simple nugget of truth that saves a soul - God has made it easy to communicate and understand. However, in order that the Church may grow into maturity and be able to combat the questions of the world head on, we have to ask ourselves questions.
Hi John O.,
I do not understand the point of your short article in relation to the title “Not all Israel is Israel, John’s starting point” ….
What is the point of “The New Perspective” and its teaching? Are they understanding John the baptist and Jesus to be teaching that the Israelites need to become proselytes? Someone doesn’t seem to use terms (such as “proselyte”) in the way other folks understand them …. ??
As for understanding what we read in Scripture, I agree that we need to understand the “historical” and “cultural” context which is recorded in the Scriptures if we are to correctly understand the message conveyed. Of course, we have a slightly more difficult time than the original recepients and people at the time had … being two milleniums removed and living in a different culture and speaking a different language, etc. … therefore gaining a correct understanding of the Scriptures may be simple, but I would not always consider it to be easy
Cheers,
Wolfgang
John, I don’t understand this paragraph.
What is the New Perspective (NP) saying wrong? Are you saying you don’t like that the NP thinks that Israel was excommunicated by the ministry of JohnB and Jesus unless they were baptized? or that the NP is saying that the communities of faith in Acts were not considered distinct from the non-messianic communities (i.e. synagogues).
John, you are definitely on to something here. There is a fundamental question that needs to be asked afresh. Was 1st century Judaism a religion obsessed with keeping the works of the law in order to gain the favor of God? OR Was a 1st century Jew someone who was born into the covenant (i.e. through circumcision) and then out of love and gratitude kept the law to remain in the covenant? I’ve heard the E.P. Sanders has pioneered this second perspective in his book Paul and Palestinian Judaism. But IF we go with the latter position (as the NP does), then what do we make of Paul’s recollection in Rom 7 (the struggle of a Jew) and Galatians where the law is a mere schoolmaster, etc? The Reformed Church and the Presbyterians are up in arms about this whole NP because it threatens their whole understanding of Paul, especially the phrase “the works of the law.” For those interested, Mark Mattison has put together the most comprehensive site on the web about this, called The Paul Page.
click here to hear Luke T. Johnson’s take on the authentic Israel.
I guess I didn’t do a good job of communicating the NP position. They submit basically that all Israel is really Israel. They submit that the big emphasis of Paul is just the fact that the gentiles are included. National Israel is fine and a partaker of the covenants. That’s what I disagree with - it seems Jesus and John come from the position that “not all Israel is Israel”. My point seems to be that John and Jesus are calling on even national Israel to repent and enter the covenant, to submit to God once again. Unless one does that, even being a child of Abraham will not save them.
And then of course comes Sean question:
Sean I guess I don’t understand what you’re searching for in these questions:
Why are those definitions altered because of the purpose/motive of the lawkeepers at the time of Jesus?
Right, thanks for clarifying. I agree with you that as soon as JohnB came on the scene preaching and baptizing that Israel was effectively faced with a serious challenge. This was slightly different than the other prophets who preceded JohnB because they were always calling national Israel to repent but JohnB requires them to go through baptism as a sign of their repentance in preparation for the soon coming messiah. The difference is that those unwilling to do this would be “excommunicated” from Israel. And the New Testament (NT) goes through great pains to show us that the majority of the common people did heed JohnB, although the leaders mostly did not. Then comes Jesus who says incredibly radical things like “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me.” He also says, “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no part in me.” And again, “unless you take up your cross and follow me you are not worthy” etc. etc. In other words one needs to both accept the message of Jesus and Jesus himself in order to be right with God. Then, comes the apostles who are just as “narrow minded.” They say, “salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” etc.
What did you think about Luke Johnson’s comments on “authentic” Israel?
Wow - that is a great clip. NT Wright said something similar. He saw the phrase “Repent, because the Kingdom is at hand” in the same way. He compared it to Josephus’ extended use of ‘repent’ where Josephus clearly called the people to trust him, NT Wright phrased it “Give up your agdenda, trust me and mine”.
Right, except one could misinterpret NT Wright’s take on repentance as solely “change the mind” without actually changing one’s life. That’s why I like Luke’s clip better–he does both, get on board with the program, change the mind AND change your life accordingly. I think in old times one would not have to say both “change your mind” and “change your actions” because that sort of distinction was absent. But today, we have to be careful not to imply that someone just needs to change their mind from believing in “heaven-at-death” to believing in “kingdom-after-resurrection” but also needs to live a holy life.
@Sean,
how dones one change one’s mind without it being reflected in a change of one’s actions in one’s life? Isn’t it rather that no change in one’s life’s actions would indicate that there has been no change in mind in the first place ?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Great point, Wolfgang! The technical term for one who changes their mind but not their actions is a hypocrite. Unfortunately, I have personally experienced this before in my own walk.
I kind of got an epiphany on the train this morning as to my own question:
Their actions make them fit more in line with Essene thought. Of course they don’t agree with withdrawing from society. While we already understand that they agreed with communal living and selling all that you have and contributing to that community. Now we can understand that they also agree with the fact that Israel is not “OK”, they are not on the right path. Jesus declared judgment on the temple, so did the Essenes. Although it appears they still differ on the solution to the problem though, John and Jesus call for repentance - ultimately heeding the words of the master Jesus. Has anyone read the scrolls in reference to the Essene Teacher of Righteousness?