The New Testament picture of the Kingdom of God has not been painted on to a blank canvas; rather, we watch it emerge from the historical and religious circumstances of first century Judaism. Israel had failed to realize the potential inherent in its religious institutions and traditions, in its national identity and in its calling, to be a righteous, God-centred people and an authentic and effective ‘light’ to the peoples of the earth. This failure was apparent in various ways: creeping Hellenization, Roman occupation, the fragmentation of religious leadership and community, the loss of any prophetic voice, and the awareness that the return from exile in Babylon remained tragically incomplete.
John the Baptist, the last of the prophets, first articulated the belief that this state of religious failure was bound to culminate in national disaster: ‘Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire’ (Matt.3:10; Lk.3:9). At the same time, however, he is interpreted by the Gospel tradition as the messenger who cries in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight’ (Mk.1:2-3; Matt.3:3; Lk.3:4-6). The quotation from Isaiah 40:3 invokes a declaration of ‘good news’ to Jerusalem that the punishment of the exile is coming to an end, that her sins have been forgiven, and that the Lord God is about to return to Zion. The forgiveness of sins in the Gospels is not a matter of purely personal benefit: each instance is a sign of national restoration. Central to the prophecy is the description of a righteous ‘servant’, who is both an individual and Israel, who will suffer, but who will be ‘a covenant to the people, a light to the nations’ (Is.42:6). This is the context in which Jesus begins his ministry.
Israel finally became "people of God"
I want to question the idea that Israel failed in its calling. Certainly, there were times when Israel was unfaithful to her covenant with God; but this was provided for in the covenant (curses for disobedience) and God delivered on his promises for such behavior, culminating in the exile. The major problems of pre-exile Israel, however, were largely dealt with and overcome by the time of the incarnation. I’m speaking of widespread idolatry and disregard for YHWH. By the time Jesus was born, the Jews were fiercely monotheistic, and their religious culture was centered on YHWH’s temple and Torah. Far from indicating to me massive failure, factors such as “Hellenization, Roman occupation, the fragmentation of religious leadership and community” point to a convergence in God’s planning—to a “fullness of time” when the gospel would be able to quickly spread throughout the known world.
Most arguments I’ve seen claiming that Israel “failed” are premised on what I consider to be declarative rather than imperative clauses.
(As an aside, I would say John the Baptist was one of the last Hebrew prophets to draw attention to the consequences of covenant violation, not the first.)
The failure of Israel?
This may be right, but I don’t see that it’s incompatible with the argument about failure - the diaspora was always an effect of divine judgment and the gathering of the dispersed was always a sign of restoration. Jesus does not accuse Israel of idolatry particularly (except perhaps the worship of mammon), but he has plenty of other things to complain about. The message of judgment runs right through the gospels, starting with John the Baptist (which is what I meant when I said that he was the first - I agree that in other respects he marks a culmination of OT prophecy). Judgment, moreover, is inseparable from the presence of Roman power. If there is judgment, there must surely have been failure. It’s a good question to ask whether this was the failure that led to the exile (as Daniel 9 would suggest) or some other form of failure subsequent to the exile (the nature of Israel’s response to Hellenization and the Roman presence perhaps) - or both. Wright’s argument (and Josephus’) is that Israel was bringing disaster upon itself by its wrong-headed attitude towards Rome.
I don’t think this precludes the idea that Israel became the people of God. Presumably we need to say something like: Israel according to the flesh failed and was judged, Israel according to the promise became the kernel of a renewed people of God.
If this still doesn’t sound convincing, you probably need to explain what you mean about declarative and imperative clauses.
Israel's failure?
Just wondering where you fit John 1:11 and Romans 9-11 into your scenario, Chris?
(P.S. The cafeteria at the Royal Festival Hall is quite good for post-modern travellers seeking a daytime rendez-vous close to Waterloo station, London)
Rejecting God's annointed
In looking over those texts, I see this as a different issue than whether Israel failed to do her duty. These texts are about Israel rejecting the Messiah, not about being faithful to her covenant. Anyone—not just Jews—who rejects Jesus is under judgment. But only the Jews were bound to keep the Mosaic covenant. Even pious Jews who responded to the Baptist’s call for repentance, but who did not kneel to Jesus as the Messiah, were under this judgment. The early church leaders felt keenly the irony of God’s old covenant people missing his messiah.
For Israel to be said to have failed on this basis, though, I would want to see it established that Israel’s duty was to become Christians.
Declarative vs. Imperative
I think the relevant question here is, “What was Israel responsible to do, such that it could be said to have ‘failed’ if it did not do it?” In answering this question, I would priviledge commands (clauses in the imperative or jussive) over God’s promises or statements (what I call declarative clauses). If God said to Israel, “Do X,” I would weigh that more heavily than if he said, “You will be X.”
In Isaiah 42 and 49, for example, God says “I will give you [Israel?] as a light to the nations”—not “Go out and be a light to the nations.” (It is also arguable as to what the referant is for “Israel” here.) In addition, I would find it odd that the duty of Israel was only recorded at such a late point in time. I would want more solid reasons to consider “Be a light to the nations” a responsibility on Israel’s part (rather than a promise on God’s part).
I think I could make a better case for saying that Israel was responsible to keep the Mosaic covenant (see e.g. Exodus 19, 24). You know: the 10 Commandments and all that other stuff. It was basic things like idolatry that led to the exile.
If you want to step back farther and ask why keep the Sinai covenant, I would want to speak in terms of the Abrahamic covenant. As I understand it, the Sinai covenant led to the fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham of the land of Canaan and to make his descendants a great nation (these promises were fulfilled: see 1 Kings 4:20-21, Acts 7:17ff); so in taking Canaan and being “great” (a result of being faithful to the covenant) Israel fulfilled this “deeper” purpose. The new covenant fulfilled God’s promise to Abraham to bless all nations (Acts 3:25-26, Gal. 3:14-16). I think this was the way God planned it—that while God used Israel to lay the groundwork for the Messiah, he did not expect Israel to do the work of the Messiah.
Israel’s experience was one of occasional national blessings (e.g. during the reigns of David and Solomon) and, more often, national curses, culminating in the exile. The subjugation to Rome was not as bad as the exile, and I don’t think Israel’s unfaithfulness at the time of Jesus was comparable to her unfaithfulness just before the exile. Before the exile many Israelites had never even heard of the Law or of the temple; by the time of Jesus, nearly all Jews were fiercely monotheistic, and Jesus’ conversation partners—the Pharisees—were all about adhering to the covenant.