All comments

Richard Dawkins, Knowledge, and Faith

john doyle: Re: Richard Dawkins, Knowledge... (20 hours ago)
john doyle: Re: Richard Dawkins, Knowledge... (20 hours ago)
Jacob: Re: Richard Dawkins, Knowledge... (2 days ago)
peter wilkinson: Re: Richard Dawkins, Knowledge... (3 days ago)

Proving God’s Existence Absolutely: The Atheists vs. Christians Debates Often Yield Rotten Fruit

P.A.Wahid: Re: Proving God’s Existence... (20 hours ago)

Sir Toby Redivivus?

peter wilkinson: Re: Sir Toby Redivivus? (4 days ago)
peter wilkinson: Re: Sir Toby Redivivus? (5 days ago)

Jesus is not God Almighty

PastorKG: Re: Jesus is not God Almighty... (4 days ago)

Is Jesus Even Relevant?

SPUNKMEYER: Re: Is Jesus Even Relevant?... (4 days ago)

The Irony of Christian Syncretism

Jacob: Re: The Irony of Christian... (5 days ago)
Syndicate content

The resurrection from the dead

The death and resurrection of Jesus, locked together in a brief three-day period, constitute the defining moment of Christian belief. It is here that the light of God’s love for humanity burns most brightly through the dingy fabric of history. But the light of the Easter event can be so intense at times that we fail to see the surrounding context, the whole unrolled cloth, the long narrative of which the cynical execution and ambiguous resurrection appearances are an integral part - and without which they so easily become misappropriated by a truncated mythology of personal salvation. This simple contribution to our Easter reflections highlights four of the narrative insights that foreshadow and explain the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Ezekiel’s vision of a valley of dry bones

Ezekiel is told that the dried, sun-bleached bones of the house of Israel will live; they will be raised from their graves in exile, raised from the death of judgment, and restored to life, brought back to the land (Ezek. 37:1-14). Resurrection is the hope of a nation that has suffered punishment for its failure to observe the terms and conditions of the Law; it is a metaphor for the renewal of the createdl microcosm of Israel through the Spirit of God: “And they will say, ‘This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden, and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are now fortified and inhabited’” (Ezek. 36:35).

Resurrection on the third day

Hosea calls rebellious, idolatrous, unrighteous Israel to return to the Lord. The nation has been politically wounded, ‘oppressed, crushed in judgment’ (Hos. 5:9-13), but God will heal it; Israel has been struck down, but he will bind up the people. After two days, the prophet says, God will revive his people; on the third day he will raise them up from death, so that they might live before him (Hos. 6:1-2). Resurrection - indeed, resurrection on the third day - is again a metaphor for the restoration of the people following judgment.

The righteous will shine like stars

At the climax of the crisis of national faith provoked by the Syrian tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes, there will be a time of suffering unlike anything that the nation has experienced before. But the righteous are given hope: the people of YHWH will eventually be delivered from the oppressor; those whose names are written in the book will live. Many of the dead will be raised. Those who have been disloyal to the covenant will be raised to receive ‘shame and everlasting contempt’; but those who suffered because of their faithfulness and who helped to preserve Israel through the crisis by turning many to righteousness will be raised to the life of the coming age: they will ‘shine like the brightness of the sky above…, like the stars forever and ever’ (Dan. 12:1-3).

So Jesus tells a simple but devastating story about a harvest at the end of the age of second temple Judaism, when the weeds of sin and lawlessness will be burned up in the fires of divine judgment, and ‘the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father’ (Matt. 13:43). Resurrection is the culmination of the crisis of pagan aggression against Israel: it does not mark the end of history; it marks the historical deliverance and vindication of the righteous.

The resurrection of the martyrs

The Maccabean literature also illustrates how this hope of vindication developed under conditions of intense pagan hostility. When the nation is suffering under the brutal hand of the foreign invader because it has sinned against God, resurrection is the hope of the righteous who refuse to renounce their faith even under extreme torment. The fourth of the seven brothers savagely tortured by Antiochus, now at the point of death, upbraids the tyrant: ‘It is desirable that those who die at the hands of human beings should cherish the hope God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!’ (2 Macc. 7:14). In language that foreshadows Paul, the martyrs are spoken of as athletes in a divine contest:

Truly the contest carried on by them was divine, for then virtue, testing them for their perseverance, offered rewards. Victory meant incorruptibility in long-lasting life. Eleazar contended first; the mother of seven boys entered the fray, and the brothers contended. The tyrant was the antagonist; the world and human society looked on. Godliness won the victory and crowned its own athletes. Who did not marvel at the athletes contending for the divine law code? Who were not astonished? (4 Macc. 17:11-16).

The fulfilment of hope

In his death at the hands of Rome, betrayed by a nation on the brink of apostasy, Jesus suffered for the sins of his people, anticipating the faithfulness of those who would take up their own cross out of loyalty to him during this protracted eschatological crisis. In his resurrection from the dead through the power of the Spirit, he anticipated the restoration of the people of God and the eventual vindication of the community that would take the risk of following him down a narrow and dangerous path leading to life.

The story would soon clash with the dominant religious conceit of the pagan world. Unlike the lawless, blasphemous, self-aggrandizing type of Caesar, Jesus did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. He embarked on an entirely different trajectory, downwards towards servanthood, humiliation, suffering and death. But God raised him from the defeat of death - he did not abandon his soul to Hades (Acts 2:27) - and gave him a name far above all the governors and kings and emperors of the earth; and because of his faithfulness and obedience, all the ends of the earth would come to see that YHWH alone is God, that he is sovereign over the nations and cultures of the world.

Firstborn of all creation

In overcoming the enemy of righteous Israel, Jesus also overcame the final enemy of all creation - and thus opened up the unprecedented possibility that not merely the microcosm of Israel but the whole cosmos might be rescued from corruption and made new. The resurrection of Jesus from the dead was the hoped-for renewal of the life of the people of God. It was the re-creation of a nation that, for all its good intentions, had simply failed to escape from the law of sin and death that ruled over the macrocosm. It provided the assurance that those who would lose their lives for his sake and for the sake of the gospel in that time of eschatological upheaval would find their lives again - that those who would enter the fierce contest against pagan tyranny would win a crown on the day of their vindication.

But the resurrection of Jesus also inaugurated a new incorruptible ontology; and the whole of creation came to find in the imminent vindication of the suffering community the promise of its own eventual liberation from a bondage to decay (Rom. 8:19-22). Hope jumps from the microcosm to the macrocosm, from the small, condensed story of Israel to the grand, expansive story of the cosmos. Jesus is not merely firstborn from the dead for the sake of his body; he is firstborn of all creation, the image of the Creator, through whom ‘all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities’ (Col. 1:16; cf. Jn. 1:1-3; 1 Cor. 8:6). So the New Testament came to imagine a final resurrection of all the dead, a final accounting for all that has been done, and a final destruction of everything that stands in opposition to the good work of the Creator God (Rev. 20:11-21:8).

In the light of this extraordinary transposition of the resurrection motif, as Tom Wright wrote in an opinion piece in today’s Times, notwithstanding a couple of details, ‘We who live in the interval between Jesus’s Resurrection and the final rescue and transformation of the whole world are called to be new-creation people here and now. That is the hidden meaning of the greatest festival Christians have.’

No votes yet

Comments

Re: The resurrection from the dead

Observant travellers in the blogosphere will notice something curious about Andrew’s reframing of the biblical narrative - that while the resurrection has implications for all humanity as the life of the new creation in which they can share, the death of Jesus has significance for historic Israel alone. So we have a narrative which includes the cross which is relevant to Israel alone, and a resurrection which is relevant to everyone: the beginning of a cosmic renewal in which all may participate. The missing middle for us is Jesus on the cross - which is just as much part of a personal encounter with the Jesus who died on it as the resurrection which followed it (Romans 6:3-7, addressed to Jews and Gentiles).

Is Andrew’s retelling of the biblical narrative accurate? In the narrative of Abraham which framed the story of Israel, Abraham was to be made into a great nation, to be blessed, and to bring blessing to all peoples of the earth. This was to come through his seed, which in its singular sense referred to the coming messiah, Jesus, and in its corporate sense, to all who were joined with him as the renewed people of God - the great nation. The nation referred to in Ezekiel 37, and also in Hosea 5 & 6, found its fulfilment in this prophecy - which included the believing part of ethnic Israel, but was not limited to her, and when set alongside it, the Roman Empire and Caesar became its grotesque parodies.

Jesus was the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham - the outer boundaries of which encompassed all peoples. This fulfilment of the promise comprised Jesus’s entire history, including his death on the cross, by means of which “one died for all, and therefore all died” - 2 Corinthians 5:14; “all” meaning the occupants of the old creation, Jew and Gentile, as becomes clear in verse 17: “Therefore, if anyone (Jew or Gentile) is in Christ, he is a new creation: the old has gone, the new has come!”

The main thing which is ‘truncated’ here is not ‘a mythology of personal salvation’ but the missing middle to Andrew’s reframed biblical narrative - the death of Jesus on the cross. It is truncated in Andrew’s scheme because it is detached from the wider narrative, in which it became the means of reversing the Genesis catastrophe. In this narrative Abraham and ethnic Israel were forerunners of the main act. The narrative was ultimately that of Jesus, the crucified and risen messiah.

Peter came to understand this wider narrative slowly, the conversion of Cornelius and his household being a defining moment. Paul understood the narrative early and from all parts of the scriptures: from Genesis 1-3 (as recounted in Romans 5:12-19); from Abraham (as recounted in Galatians); from Isaiah (as recounted in his frequent allusions to Isaiah and his own divine mandate (eg Acts 13:47).

The life, teaching/ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, outpoured Spirit and on-going life of Jesus in the people of God are a continuum which is of direct relevance and application to all who believe in him. The death of Jesus on the cross, vindicated and interpreted by his resurrection, was never detached from the rest of the narrative in its wider relevance.

Re: The resurrection from the dead

I enjoyed reading both of these posts, and I look forward to learning whether Andrew thinks Peter’s reading of him is accurate and fair. I appreciate the emphasis Andrew places on the resurrection; it has not escaped my notice that the liturgical calendar gives more emphasis to the resurrection (Easter) than to the cross (Good Friday). Perhaps here is an example of the church’s theology (theory) needing to catch up to its worship (practice).

Then again, Peter’s re-narration of the biblical narrative sounds very similar to my own reading. I especially like his last paragraph, as it takes the whole story of Jesus seriously. As I put it in a sermon recently, “His whole story counts.”

It seems to me that one of the most crucial points of disagreement hinges on how one interprets 2 Corinthians 5:14—and even more specifically the little word “all.” (Interestingly, this little word has been much debated in a different context, that of the argument between Calvinists and Arminians, with Calvinists claiming that “all” refers only to all the elect.) Did Jesus die only for the sins of Israel, or did he die for the sins of humankind?

Re: The resurrection from the dead

The disjunction, Peter, is overstated. On the one hand, as far as the New Testament narrative takes us, the dominant thought is that Gentiles share in the ‘resurrection’ life of renewed Israel. It is the historic people of God - that is, national Israel as it existed at that moment - that is ‘raised’ metaphorically and in certain sense literally through the resurrection of Jesus. Gentiles are joined to that ‘raised’ existence through belief in the announcement that was made to the ancient pagan world.

On the other hand, as far as the New Testament narrative takes us, I think it is correct to say that the dominant thought is that Gentiles share in the death of Jesus which is for the sake of Israel. The issue, as I’ve said repeatedly, is not whether Jesus can be said to have died for the whole world but how that belief is fundamentally constructed in the New Testament.

Even John’s description of Jesus as the ‘Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world’ (Jn. 1:29) is not such a universal statement as it at first sounds if we read it in the light of Revelation 5, where it is said that the Lamb is worthy to open the seals of the scroll because ‘by your blood you bought people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth’. We naturally suppose that this verse simply states that Jesus died for people from all nations - and maybe that’s correct. But there are echoes of Isaiah 66:18-21, for example, in this passage which suggest a background narrative in which God sends ‘survivors’ of the judgment on Israel to proclaim to the nations what he has done for the sake of his people, and from the nations which come to Jerusalem bringing scattered Israel with them, God will take priests (cf. Is. 61:5-6).

This narrative of Israel’s redemption and the impact of that redemption on the nations, which is everywhere present in the New Testament, is barely acknowledged in what I called the ‘truncated mythology of personal salvation’ that has dominated evangelical theology.

The question of whether Paul has in mind both Jews and Gentiles in Romans 6:3-7 is a difficult one. I’m inclined to think that this forms part of an argument addressed principally to Jews - or that he is speaking as the voice of redeemed Israel. The question of 6:1 (‘Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?’) was asked in 3:8 in a context that seems to have a Jewish reader in mind (cf. 3:1, 9); and 7:1 is addressed to Jews. But in any case, there is no question, as I said above, that when Gentiles become part of Israel’s eschatological narrative, they come to share in the story of suffering and vindication, death and life. Paul is not arguing here that Jesus died for the Gentiles; his point is that through baptism Gentile believers have come to share in the dying to the old and the living to the new. In Romans 3:21-26, by contrast, the argument about Jesus’ death as a propitiation is directed at Israel.

I also think that the basic argument of Romans 5:12-19 has in view Israel, which is redeemed from its many trespasses against the Law by the obedience of the one man Jesus Christ. Genesis 1-3 is relevant not because Paul is speaking here of a universal redemption but because, as he has argued at a number of points, Israel is as subject to sin as the rest of humanity.

2 Corinthians 5:11-21 is also difficult, but again I would suggest that there is a narrative at work that militates against the simple reductivist mythology of ‘Jesus died for my sins’. I would point out that the ‘we’ in this passage refers to the apostles as representatives of redeemed Israel and envoys of YHWH to the nations - indeed, this is the ‘we’ of the whole letter so far. They are controlled by the love of Christ, they have died to themselves because he died for them, they share directly in his suffering as apostles (cf. 4:7-18), and they now live exclusively for him. So they have been reconciled to God - and they have been given a ministry of reconciliation to the whole world as envoys of Christ (5:18-20). In that sense it can be said that ‘in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself’ - not because Jesus died for the sin of the world but because God is ‘not counting their trespasses against them’. Verse 21 then reasserts the fact that Jesus was made a ‘sin offering’ (if that is the correct interpretation) for Israel so that redeemed Israel (represented by the apostles) might become the ‘righteousness of God’ demonstrated to the world. Again, there are important narrative distinctions at work here that are excluded from the personal salvation mythology.

There is nothing in the Cornelius incident to suggest that Jesus was understood directly to have died for the Gentiles. The emphasis in Peter’s preaching is on the fact that Jesus has been appointed judge of the pagan world (Acts 10:42-43; cf. 17:30-31; Rom. 2:6-10).

Re: The resurrection from the dead

Andrew - my reading of the NT is that the Gentiles share in the resurrection life of Jesus - not in the renewed life of Israel primarily. The resurrection is of direct significance to all mankind - and so is the death of Jesus.

Jesus is the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham, that all nations would be blessed through him, and that this blessing would be brought by his seed - the promised messiah, and all who would be incorporated into him. How did they become incorporated? By believing in Jesus - in particular his death on the cross for their sins, and resurrection from the dead for their (re)new(ed) life.

The Abraham narrative is the key narrative for Israel, pointing to Israel’s destiny, and emphasized by the prophets, especially Isaiah, which is of the blessing and salvation that was to come from Israel, through her messiah, to all nations. This narrative seems to get lost in your particular interpretation of Daniel’s ‘Son of Man’ narrative, which I am of the opinion distorts the Abraham narrative, and reverses its significance. Jesus in your scheme serves the promise to Abraham, rather than, as it should be, the promise to Abraham was fulfilled in Jesus.

I think you are overstretching the other references you cite to fit into your scheme, when more straightforward interpretations are at hand. Isaiah 66:18-21 finds fulfilment when a remnant of survivors, the faithful of Israel who believed in Jesus, were sent to the nations to proclaim him, the glory of YHWH. The temple into which their brothers were brought was the eschatological temple of God’s renewed people. John’s ‘Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world’ is still the passover lamb, whose redemptive and atoning function extends now to the whole world, not simply Israel.

I would make the same comment on your interpretation of the Romans verses. There is no reason to think that Romans 3:21-26 addresses Jews and not Gentiles, especially since in the preceding verses 9-18 we see Paul’s inclusive field of vision when he charges that “Jew and Gentile alike are all under sin”, and in verse 21: “But now the righteousness of God, apart from the law, has been made known”. When Paul goes on to say in verse 22: “There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”, the “no difference” is between Jew and Gentile; the argument continues to assume both are being addressed.

Similarly with Romans 6:3-7; why assume a difficulty when there need be none? The thrust of the passage is inclusive and general, not directed towards Israel as opposed to the Gentiles. The burden of Paul’s gospel is everywhere to break down Jew/Gentile distinctions in the formation of one new man.

In this sense, Romans 5 provides the inclusive backdrop to 6, and I don’t see how you reach the conclusion that 5:12-19 is directed at Israel and not the Gentiles. The framework is, in the first place, the sin that was in the world before the giving of the law - verse 13. The passage is inclusive, not particular. Into this inclusive scenario comes the gift of God through Jesus. Verse 20 continues: “the law was added so that the trespass might increase”, but this is not taking us out of the universal framework of the passage into a more limited framework through which 6:3-7 is interpreted. That would make the flow of the argument illogical. Added means in addition to sin at large, not subtracting Gentile sin from the argument.

Your interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:11-21 uses the device of setting your own narrative interpretation against an alternative caricature interpretation of the passage. The real alternative to your interpretation is the one which sits most naturally with the passage - that there is a universal offer of salvation to Jew and Gentile, in the sense that Jesus’s death on the cross was a death to the old creation in which all (Jew and Gentile) may share, and his resurrection from the dead was a new creation in which all may likewise share. That provides a fulfilment of the promise of universal blessing to all nations in the Abraham narrative - the events of Jesus’s life and death (and resurrection) explaining the particular way in which it was brought about.

In 2 Corinthians 5:11-21 the alternative you provide to your own interpretation is intended to give yours the greater validity, but actually I don’t see anything wrong at all in the statement ‘Jesus died for my sins’. Maybe there is something intellectually offensive about it, but I don’t accept that it is in any way ‘reductivist’. The statement could be said to rest on an extraordinary history in which a narrative was being played out, in particular, the narrative of Abraham which governed Israel’s destiny, behind which was the Genesis catastrophe and YHWH’s intention to bring about restoration. In fact, the narrative was always the narrative of Jesus, in whom all the different threads of the story converge and find their fulfilment and resolution. The boundaries of the narrative were always the entire creation, not Israel per se, although that is how the narrative came to be limited in Israel’s mistaken self-perception.

It is perfectly valid for anyone who believes in Jesus today to say that ‘Jesus died for my sins’, because that is how the narrative interprets and offers an application of his death. This does not mean the narrative ceases to be important, as it provides explanation in depth and historical particularity of what ‘sins’ meant, in the story of Israel as well as that of the wider world. The narrative also explains who the ‘Jesus’ was who died for ‘sins’, and why he ‘died’, both of which are essential questions which need to be understood in their historical and contemporary (present day) contexts.

Re: The resurrection from the dead

…my reading of the NT is that the Gentiles share in the resurrection life of Jesus - not in the renewed life of Israel primarily. The resurrection is of direct significance to all mankind - and so is the death of Jesus.

Yes, and the difference is basically how we correlate or prioritize those two narratives - one about Jesus, the other about Israel. I think I would want to say that they are rather more interdependent than you would allow - you prefer to prioritize the story of Jesus, and there are, of course, very good reasons for doing that.

The Abraham narrative is the key narrative for Israel, pointing to Israel’s destiny, and emphasized by the prophets, especially Isaiah, which is of the blessing and salvation that was to come from Israel, through her messiah, to all nations.

We disagree somewhat here. I don’t think the point is that a universal saviour arises from the people of Israel in fulfilment of the promise to Abraham. I would say that it is the people who will be blessed and who will be a blessing to the nations, but that only becomes a reality through the participation of that people in the death and resurrection of Jesus. I see a stronger narrative continuity here than you do. So, yes, I think that there is an important sense in which Jesus serves the promise to Abraham. I would say that modern evangelical theology, by its overwhelming focus on Jesus, tends to downplay the significance of the concrete, historical existence of a called people.

Son of man

The Son of man argument is not at all at odds with the calling of Abraham. It provides the paradigm by which the salvation of Israel through the faithfulness of Jesus at a time of crisis is interpreted. I argued in Re: Mission, in fact, that Jesus’ statement about seeing the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man (Jn. 1:51) brings the two narratives together: the disciples will come to understand that it is through the suffering and vindication of the Son of man that the patriarchal vision of this people as new creation will be fulfilled.

Lamb of God

You more or less make the point for me with regard to the Lamb of God motif. The modern ‘truncated mythology of personal salvation’ has very little sense of how the description of Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world presupposes a more complex narrative about Israel and the nations. We disagree on how that narrative works, but that was not really my point in the original post.

Romans

Your comments on Romans are helpful. I’ll look at this more carefully. I would stress again, I am not trying to argue that Jesus’ death does not have a bearing on the spiritual destiny of all mankind - it is a question of how the biblical narrative underlying such statements as ‘Jesus died for my sin’ works. And I am quite happy to back up this road if it should prove to be a dead-end.

I still think, however, that Paul’s intention in Romans 3-4 is to convince Jews that they are no better off than Gentiles - that’s why the quotations in 3:10-18 all speak of Israel’s unrighteousness. It is an argument about Israel in the light of the condition of all humanity.

When we come to 3:21-23, you are right to point out that now the righteousness of God has been revealed in a way that has relevance for all humanity. ‘Redemption’ in 3:24 is a forward-looking concept (cf. Lk. 21:28; Rom. 8:23): it has in view the wrath that is coming, first on the Jew, then on the Greek. Jews and Gentiles alike, if they are in Christ Jesus, will be justified on that day of wrath - that is, they will not suffer the consequences of condemnation. But this does not necessarily mean that in 3:25 Jesus’ death is regarded as a death directly and indiscriminately for Jews and Gentiles alike. In a passage that seeks to convince Jews that they are as wretched as the Gentiles, as much under sin, I wonder whether the very Jewish image of the hilastērion does not point to the thought that Jesus’ death was in the first place a death for sinful Israel facing judgment, which secondarily changed the conditions for membership of the people. Similarly, in Ephesians 2:11-22 Jesus’ death is not regarded as a death for the sins of the Gentiles but as the means by which the ‘dividing wall of hostility’ between Jews and Gentiles was broken down.

In Romans 4:25 Paul writes that Jesus was ‘handed over for our trespasses (paraptōmata) and raised for our justification’. This strongly suggests that Jesus died because of the sins of Israel - paraptōmata are contraventions of the Law. The echo of Isaiah 53:12 adds further weight to this: the servant was handed over (paredothē) not because of the sins of the world but because of the sins of Israel.

The argument of Romans 6:3-10 is not that Jesus died for but that we have died with. That is not an insignificant difference. It is my argument about the story of the Son of man that it entails the concrete participation of the early church in the experience of Jesus’ suffering and vindication, death and life. Now in this sense it may be appropriate to speak of a death for Jews and Gentiles alike, but this is not the same point as 3:25 or 4:25.

2 Corinthians 5:11-21

There is a universal offer of reconciliation with God in this passage - that is clear. But all the way up to 5:13 ‘we’ has referred to the apostles: eg., ‘we persuade others’, ‘we are not commending ourselves’, ‘we are beside ourselves’ (5:11-13). The basic thrust of these chapters, moreover, has been that the apostles have made themselves nothing for the sake of Christ - indeed, they have suffered greatly for the sake of the gospel. My suggestion, therefore, is that he refers to the death of Christ for all in 5:14 as part of this argument: they share in the death of Christ and so live not for themselves but for the sake of Christ. It is on that basis that they carry out their task as envoys to the nations, seeking to reconcile both Jews and Gentiles to God. They do so as representatives of Israel, for whom Christ became a sin offering so that the apostles might become the righteousness of God.

The issue here is not that there is anything intellectually offensive about the statement that ‘Jesus died for my sins’. I’m just not sure it is the best summary of the ‘salvation’ narrative in the New Testament. I think that there is a strong case for saying that Jesus died for the sins of Israel, so that they would escape the condemnation of the wrath of God; envoys are then sent to the nations to proclaim what God has done for his people and to announce that this has implications for the whole world; Gentiles such as Cornelius believe this announcement and come to worship God in the Spirit; and the church concludes that there is nothing to prevent them from being baptized into membership of this eschatological community that must share in the sufferings and vindication of Jesus.

Re: The resurrection from the dead

Prioritising the narratives

You say I ‘prefer to prioritise the narrative about Jesus’. Is there any other possibility? The story of Jesus and the story of a people are of course interdependent - with Jesus being the priority (chief cornerstone of the temple, head of the body etc). That’s why I used the word ‘primarily’. The Gentiles share in the resurrection life of Jesus, and not primarily in the renewed life of Israel, which is only, initially, a vehicle for taking the message of the resurrection of Jesus to the Gentiles. It rapidly becomes clear that there is no renewed life which can be said to belong specifically to Israel in distinction from the Gentiles. The barriers have been broken down between the two in the renewed people of God.

Son of Man

I think the ‘Son of Man’ narrative is at odds with the Abraham narrative; your version takes one aspect of the narrative, judgment on Jerusalem/Rome (thereby, in my opinion, creating a misinterpretation), and subordinates other aspects of Jesus’s history to this event - ie his life/ministry, death, resurrection (in its initial phase), outpoured Spirit. My understanding of the fulfilment of the Abraham narrative gives the entire Jesus story a worldwide significance. It was the ‘seed’ in its entirety which brought blessing (through the people who announced it) to the world, not just one aspect of his story which left the other aspects as the exclusive possession of Israel.

Romans

I’m completely disarmed by your gracious comments!

2 Corinthians 5:11-21

I don’t really see how you get from the “we” of the apostles to a restricted usage of “all” in verse 11. If the gospel is ‘a Jewish gospel for a Gentile world’, as I take it to be, then the movement to universality fits well with the natural flow of the passage. This is reinforced by the “anyone” of verse 17, and the “old” and “new” creation terminology, which takes us outside the boundaries of ethnic geo-political Israel.

Cornelius and his household

The language of Peter’s proclamation moves from the particular (Jesus the Jewish messiah) to the universal: “the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead” (I think that covers everyone!), and “everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins”, thereby cutting out the middleman, Israel, which is also reinforced by the direct descent of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius and his household. Peter didn’t even have time to lay hands on him - which might have suggested Cornelius’s need to participate in the community of renewed Israel as a precondition of receiving the blessing. The message is clear - there was indeed a people who shared in the blessing, but this was no longer a renewed people identified with the Israel with which Peter was familiar.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.