In his book Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination and History, Dale Allison puts forward a number of arguments in support of his view that Jesus is presented in the New Testament as an eschatological figure, whose identity and vocation must be explained with reference to Jewish apocalyptic themes. One of these arguments is that much of what Jesus says about the coming turn of events draws on Old Testament texts that “foretell the defeat of Israel’s enemies, the influx of the Diaspora, the transformation of the land of promise into a paradise, and the realization of God’s perfect will throughout the world” (78). Allison then sets out a representative, not exhaustive, catalogue of passages to which Jesus alludes (79-82).
- There will be a new covenant with the house of Israel, when the Law will be written on their hearts, and their sins will be forgiven and remembered no more (Jer. 31:31-34; cf. Lk. 22:20).
- Jesus is the servant or prophet who proclaims good news to the “poor” in Israel and to those who mourn in Zion, liberty to captive Israel, and a day of vengeance against Israel’s enemies (Is. 61:1-3; cf. Matt. 5:3-6); who will heal the blind, the deaf, and the lame (Is. 35:5-6; cf. Matt. 11:2-6 and par.).
- John the Baptist precedes Jesus in order to prepare the way for the coming of the Lord to his temple to judge the temple system and reform Israel’s worship (Mal. 3:1-3; cf. Matt. 11:10 and par.).
- Numerous passages in the Gospels refer back to the vision of a decisive judgment in Daniel 7, when the supreme pagan enemy of Israel will be destroyed, and the “Son of Man” figure will receive kingdom and authority to rule over the nations.
- Micah 7:6 was often taken to “presage familial division”—”the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother”, etc.—at a time when Israel is overrun and oppressed by its enemies because of the sins of the people, when Jerusalem waits “until he pleads my cause and executes judgment for me” (7:9; Matt. 10:34-36 and par.).
- Gehenna is characterized using the language of Isaiah 66:24 (cf. Mk. 9:48). In the aftermath of God’s judgment on Jerusalem by war, when “the Lord will come in fire…, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire” (66:15)—people will go out of the city and look pun the “dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me”: “their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched”. Allison does not mention that Gehenna is itself an allusion to the Chaldean siege of Jerusalem.
- At the time of God’s judgment against Israel, when he will “gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle” (Zech. 14:2), the shepherd who stands next to the Lord will be struck and his sheep will be scattered (13:7; cf. Mk. 14:27). Two thirds of the population of Israel will perish; the remaining third will be left alive, but they will be refined by fire “as one refines silver”, tested “as gold is tested” (13:7-9). On this day of judgment against Israel “the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him” (14:5; cf. Matt. 25:31).
- Jesus warns the daughters of Jerusalem of approaching judgment in the language of Hosea 10:8: when God judges idolatrous Israel, the people ‘shall say to the mountains, “Cover us,” and to the hills, “Fall on us” ’ (cf. Lk. 23:30).
- When Jesus wishes to reassure his disciples that they will see him again and rejoice (Jn. 16:22), he quotes Isaiah 66:14, which is an assurance to righteous Jews that they will see the restoration of Jerusalem and rejoice, when “the hand of the Lord shall be known to his servants, and he shall show his indignation against his enemies”. We could add here that the motif of resurrection on the third day according to the scriptures originally referred to the restoration of Israel following punishment (Hos. 6:1-2).
All this points to the very clear fact that Jesus entertained no thoughts regarding the salvation of humanity generally. Rather he consistently evoked a narrative about impending war as divine judgment on Israel, the forgiveness and restoration of the people following judgment, the vindication of the righteous, and the giving of kingdom to the “Son of Man”—that is, to the community of the martyrs represented by their head, Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 20:4-6). This is what is meant by the coming of the kingdom of God. Paul and John of Patmos will take the apocalyptic narrative a step further, drawing from it the implication that the aggressive anti-YHWHistic forces of pagan Europe will also be judged, the Greek as well as the Jew, and sovereignty over the oikoumenē given to Jesus.
This is a thoroughly Jewish—and therefore a thoroughly political—narrative. We do not know Jesus if we know him only as a personal saviour. This is not how he presents himself, and it is not how his followers presented him. He is an agent of eschatological transformation, the one through whom Israel’s God dramatically transformed the condition and status of his people in the world. In other words, he is a “king” whose kingdom cannot be reduced to the sphere of a privatized spirituality.
To those who argue from passages such as Luke 19:11 and Acts 1:6 that Jesus had to correct the disciples’ faulty ideas about a political kingdom Allison has this to say:
This is ecclesiastical eisegesis. Luke’s Jesus does not, in chapter 19, revise his disciples’ conception of the kingdom but only their misconception of its imminence. The same is true in Acts 1, where the question “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?” (v. 6) fetches this reply: “It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority” (v. 7). Jesus does not dispute that he will restore the kingdom to Israel; he says only that he will not necessarily do so immediately. (175)
Two further distinctions, however, need to be added. The first is that Jesus expected the kingdom to be restored not through strength but through faithful weakness, not through worldly power but through suffering—his own, but crucially also the suffering of his followers. But this unworldly means does not spiritualize the end. Secondly, the nature of the eschatological transformation precluded the literal restoration of geographical Israel. On the one hand, the judgment on temple, city and land was catastrophic and final. On the other, the early church quickly arrived at the conclusion that Israel’s resurrected king had been given the nations as his inheritance. His rightful territory was at least the Greek-Roman world, from Jerusalem to Illyricum and on to Spain (cf. Rom. 15:19-21, 24).
Interesting as the summary of Dale Allison's book is, it still does not extend to the full picture of who Jesus was, why he came, and what he did.
So where to begin? Matthew's genealogy places Israel's story in the framework of three periods - beginning outside national Israel's story with Abraham the gentile. Luke's genealogy goes further, and places Jesus in the framework of the history of all mankind, starting with Adam - who was, like him, "the son of God". The outer frame of the story is beyond Israel's history - important as that was in carrying the broader story forwards.
Also, Israel's scriptures place her story in the context of history from the creation of the world onwards, as well as being a story acted out in full view of the nations and as a demonstration of YHWH to the nations. This is the story which Jesus walked into, and addressed, and brought to fulfilment, not simply through himself, but crucially in himself. Exodus and Passover, which include the story of Abraham - Genesis 15:13-14, which also continues the story from creation and fall to Babel, are part of a story in search of conclusion, which comes not in a nation's story, nor a national event, but in a person, namely Jesus himself. We re-enact this conclusion each time we take the eucharist.
But now I'm having my doubts. Did Dale Allison write this book, or Andrew Perriman, with some deliberate mistakes to throw us off the scent?
Over to you.
@peter wilkinson:
I’m not sure what your problem is. I don’t particularly disagree with what you say. The post simply focuses on one part of the story.
@Andrew Perriman:
I don't have a problem. I assume your expanded summary of Allison's ideas was, in some way, a response to my comment on the original extract you quoted from the book. I was merely throwing a spanner in the works of a Jesus "as an eschatological figure, whose identity and vocation must be explained with reference to Jewish apocalyptic themes". It's not the entire story - at least as you, and presumably Allison read 'apocalyptic'.
The framework of Matthew and Luke is at least one way in which we see that Jesus is bringing the whole story, the story of creation, to a conclusion - not a 1st century Jewish story alone. An even wider framework is illustrated in John's gospel, but as it is academically unrespectable to quote from the synoptic gospels and John at the same time, I didn't do it. But this is only the starting point of a much wider interpretation of the gospels and letters, and Jesus himself.
I don't actually disagree with Allison as summarised by you, except that it is not the whole picture (my initial comment is relevant in illustrating this), and as you present it, Jesus is displaced from being a person who brought the biblical narrative to its climax, who can be known personally now, who sends the Spirit to transform our lives now (not simply to warn of judgement in AD 70), and by that Spirit brings us into living union with Jesus, also now.
Of course personal salvation is important today, through a personal encounter with Jesus through the Spirit. The historical version you (and Allison?) have written is that the things which make Jesus a relevant figure for people today are dismissed as 'modern evangelicalism', and relegated to the 1st century. All we are left with is an encouraging story, and the assurance that we will survive. Maybe historicist theologians don't like personal encounters?
@peter wilkinson:
Hi Peter and everyone else,
I have to say i agree with you peter, it seems to me that you can have both at the same time. Was Jesus eschatological horizon the defeat of Paganism and the establishment of a new covenant elect? undoubtably! But Jesus also persoanlly and historically forgave sinners, personally ate with tax collectors, personally drew a line in the sand etc. If we believe that Jesus rose from the dead and is seated with God as the messiah son of man, then i see no problem with him continuing his personal ministry into our time. surely as the true messiah and king of the new covenant people of God he would take an interest in his subjects, would still gather disciples, and would still want the world to know the fathers love he so drastically potrayed in the gospels? The story of Jesus the historic man has many parts to it not just apocalyptic, but also mercy, forgiveness, inclusion to individuals as shown in many texts.
If Jesus only concern was the establishment of a new Kingdom he wouldn't have spent so much time displaying and teaching what its moral content should be, he would, instead, surely just been another militaristic messiah. But to Jesus the ends did not justify the means, the kingdom was and is a kingdom of concience made up of personal individuals each with some form of relationship with the messiah.
I'm not the most learned of people so please be a bit gentle in ripping this apart lol
Neil
@peter wilkinson:
Peter, I can’t speak for Allison or other “historicist theologians”, but I do not myself see it as an implication of the “historical version” of Jesus’ story that he ceases to be a “relevant figure for people today”. The upshot of the historical version is that Jesus is alive, that he is Lord and King over the people of God, and that he embodies in himself as the firstborn from the dead the assurance of a final renewal of all things. He is, therefore, encountered, for better or for worse, in his people—either discredited by their disobedience or glorified by their obedience. Anyone who becomes part of the community of God’s people submits to him as King, gains access to God in his name, and receives the Spirit. All this is preserved without sacrificing the narrative-historical integrity of scripture.
Neil, in his response to you, seems to me to do a pretty good job of maintaining a viable tension between the apocalyptic narrative and the concrete personal relevance of Jesus today. He is certainly pushing things in the right direction, in my view.
It should be no wonder that those who are most likely to pitch the individualized personal salvation have an almost completely future eschatology. In addition, they completely miss the judgment against the pseudo-Jews under the Old Covenant because they don't see that covenant as having ended yet. Finally, they want the spiritual benefits of the New Covenant without realizing what that means to the status of the Old Covenant. We shouldn't be surprised that to be "born again" to them would mean a purely individual spiritual rebirth, when instead Nicodemus would have clearly seen that as a challenge to join a new nation with a new inheritence, where true salvation was finally possible.
Doug
@Doug in CO:
“Pseudo-Jews” jars. It sounds anti-semitic to me.
@Andrew Perriman:
I only meant that in the context of "those who say they are Jews but are not" and "For they are not all of Israel who are of Israel". Sorry if I didn't describe that very well.
Doug
This is an excellent post, and Allison is right. But it isn't just Allison. The overwhelming majority of critical scholars have concluded that Jesus is best seen as an apocalyptic prophet.
Bart Ehrman wrote a book about this, and the fact that the scholarly view of Jesus remains such a surprise to people who attend church. The real Jesus was a Jewish prophet completely consumed with Jewish issues and totally devoted to Judiasm. If you don't start with that assumption, you will not understand him.
@pf:
Thanks. The issue that doesn’t quite come to the surface in your brief comment is whether historical-critical scholarship can present us with a Jesus who can be confessed as Lord and Saviour, seated at the right hand of the Father. Historical criticism has a habit of pruning so many supposedly dead branches from the bush that we are left with very little to believe in.
@Andrew Perriman:
But do we study to get at the truth or to build our faith? That's always a fine line to walk.
I studied to build my faith, but the facts stubbornly got in the way. Jesus IMO was a prophet in the mold of John, they preached the imminent kingdom of God as was understood by ordinary Jews -- an earthly kingdom, tangible and not existential.
Over time, people reinterpreted his words, while others put words in his mouth that suited their own beliefs and needs. That's where I think the evidence leads. I have to reorient my faith to fit the facts than the other way around.
Recent discussion