Maybe Jesus's sacrifice helped open the covenant to gentiles, and helped Jews with the transition to faithfulness without the temple?

[Longfellow]

I'm considering the possibility that Jesus was truly called by God, like Ezekiel, to dramatize a message from God, and to help it happen. He played the role of a sacrifice to end all sacrifices, but it was more than symbolic. It had real effects in the world, that helped make it possible for gentiles to inherit the Covenant, and helped with the growth and spread of rabbinical Judaism.

(later) Or maybe I should say, helped make it possible for gentiles to benefit from the Covenant, spreading the light of Israel to all the world, without requiring them to become Jews.

 

[Longfellow]

Then again, Paul did actually say that gentiles could inherit the Covenant without Torah observance, and could say that without disqualifying himself as a Jew.

 

[Longfellow]

Also, I was forgetting that it was actually Peter's idea to baptize gentiles without requiring full Torah observance, and James ratified it, and you couldn't be any more Jewish than Peter and James. Also, claiming covenant inheritance without full Torah observance was already normalized in the diaspora.

 

[RJM]

I'm considering the possibility that Jesus was truly called by God, like Ezekiel, to dramatize a message from God, and to help it happen.

Some folks think the Christ was more than that

it was actually Peter's idea to baptize gentiles without requiring full Torah observance, and James ratified it, and you couldn't be any more Jewish than Peter and James.

Peter came around to Paul's viewpoint in a vision:

Peter … became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
...

Peter … said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.
Acts 10: 9-15; 27

It went on to include circumcision and observance of Jewish law, I think?

 

[DerekhHikmah]

I'm considering the possibility that Jesus was truly called by God

What made you consider that? What opening disclosed that possibility to you?

He played the role of a sacrifice to end all sacrifices, but it was more than symbolic.

What do you take symbol to be? Like do you think symbol is a reality unto itself or like an allegory? That distinction really matters. Also that is the traditional Christian understanding, John says, "And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins," (1 John 2:2; compare Hebrews 2:17; 9:11-14, 24-28.) The earlier sacrifices prophetically prefigured Jesus' sacrifice, not the other way around.

It had real effects in the world, that helped make it possible for gentiles to inherit the Covenant,

How do you understand the connection between Jesus surrendering his life and the opening of the way for Gentiles? That is a deep theological point, I am just wondering what you think about how that works itself out.

Paul did actually say that gentiles could inherit the Covenant without Torah observance, and could say that without disqualifying himself as a Jew.

Yes, but do you know what led Paul to come to that conclusion? His argument in Galatians 3 is that the promise to Abraham preceded the Mosaic Law and ultimately centered upon Christ. Those belonging to Christ could therefore receive Abraham’s blessing without first coming under the Mosaic Law.

Also, I was forgetting that it was actually Peter's idea to baptize gentiles without requiring full Torah observance, and James ratified it, and you couldn't be any more Jewish than Peter and James.

I would hesitate to say it was Peter's idea. Jesus had promised that the holy spirit, what he calls the “helper” paraklētos, would guide his disciples into truths that they were not yet ready to receive. (John 14:26; 16:12, 13.)

RJM makes a good point he is pointing to a turning point in covenant history - Acts 10. This was in fulfillment of the vision at Daniel 9 from the angel Gabreil about the 70 weeks for the covenant. The covenant was then kept in force for the final week, with the good news first directed to Israel; afterward, Peter is directed to Corneilus and his household by Holy Spirit confirming that gentiles were now brought into covenant history. (Daniel 9:24-27; Acts 10.)

 

[RJM]

Taking the second part of the thread premise: Maybe Jesus's sacrifice ... helped Jews with the transition to faithfulness without the temple?

IMO Jews don't recognise Jesus and so it's a slippery slide to try to infer Jesus into Judaism? It's just not relevant, as a line of reasoning?

 

[DerekhHikmah]

Maybe Jesus's sacrifice ... helped Jews with the transition to faithfulness without the temple?

Well of course people may have a variety of interpretations on this point I suppose but the Christian understanding is the other way around, the temple and its sacrifices prefigured the sacrifice of the messiah which would make a permanent atonement of sin. That was always the intention and orientation of the whole temple arrangement. Look specifically at Hebrews chapters 8 through 10 Paul lays this out clearly to Jewish Christians.

Heb. 10:1-4 "For since the Law [Torah] has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, [men] can never with the same sacrifices from year to year which they offer continually make those who approach perfect. 2 Otherwise, would the [sacrifices] not have stopped being offered, because those rendering sacred service who had been cleansed once for all time would have no consciousness of sins anymore? 3 To the contrary, by these sacrifices there is a reminding of sins from year to year, 4 for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away."

IMO Jews don't recognise Jesus and so it's a slippery slide to try to infer Jesus into Judaism?

Again, this of course split Jews. All the apostles were Jews and Acts 2:41 and 4:4 record thousands of Jews accepting Jesus as Messiah. The original controversy over Jesus was therefore not Christianity trying to insert a foreign figure into Judaism; it was a dispute within Israel over the fulfillment of Israel’s own Scriptures.

The line of promise runs through the Tanakh: the offspring who would crush the serpent (Genesis 3:15), Abraham’s offspring through whom all nations would be blessed (Genesis 12:3; 22:18), the promise carried through Isaac (Genesis 21:12), and the permanent heir to David’s Kingdom (2 Samuel 7:12-16). The Christian claim is that these lines converge in the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, son of David. One may reject that interpretation, of course, but it is not historically accurate to dismiss it merely because later rabbinic Judaism did not accept Jesus.

 

[Longfellow]

@RJM @DerekhHikmah ,

I was glad to see such thoughtful comments and questions. Thank you! I’ll need more time to answer all your questions, but I wanted to make a start.

I’m thinking that whatever way it can be true to say that Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were called by God to do what they did, Jesus was called by God in the same way, to do what he did. More than Just in their imagination, but I don’t know how to explain what I mean. It’s just a feeling from all the reading and thinking that I’ve done. I’m thinking that he was called, like Ezekiel, to dramatize a message from God, and that he was also called to help it happen. The message was that the temple would soon be destroyed, but faithfulness to God would still be possible without it.

I’m thinking that Torah observance was never seen as an absolute condition for inheriting the Covenant. It was called for by God, but it was not a condition for being under the Covenant. The Covenant was made with Abraham before the law was given, and it was because of his commitment to doing God’s will. My understanding of Paul is that if the Covenant was made with Abraham because of his commitment to doing God’s will, then it’s possible for anyone to come under the Covenant because of their commitment to doing God’s will. In the diaspora in the time of Paul, it was already understood that inability to fully observe the Torah did not remove a person from the Covenant. Also, a person who was not born a Jew could become a Jew if they were committed to obedience to God, measured by Torah observance as much as possible. To disciples of Jesus, he was God’s regent on earth, the promised king that God would call his son, so obedience to him became the new measure of obedience to God.

I’m imagining that he gave many talks, in synagogues, on hills and in open fields, that were heard by multitudes of people who considered him a prophet, and that did a lot to help with the growth and spread of rabbinical Judaism. At the same time, the spread of his teachings into the gentile world brought the spirit of the law, the light of Israel, to all the world.

(later) I'm thinking that Israel's light to the world was not in the law itself, but in its spirit.

 

[RJM]

Again, this of course split Jews.

There was obviously a Jerusalem movement that accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but to say it split Jews may be a step too far, imo? Jerusalem became involved in an increasingly violent revolt against Roman rule, including violent faction conflict between Jews, and leading to the destruction of the Temple.

It all had nothing to do with Jesus. Josephus describes it in harrowing detail in ‘The Jewish War’.

The original controversy over Jesus was therefore not Christianity trying to insert a foreign figure into Judaism

I mean later generations.

One may reject that interpretation, of course, but it is not historically accurate to dismiss it merely because later rabbinic Judaism did not accept Jesus.

I don’t pretend to be knowledgeable but to say that “Maybe Jesus's sacrifice ... helped Jews with the transition to faithfulness without the temple,” is doubtful in my opinion.

However I don’t have enough knowledge to argue history and scripture on the point.

I’m just wondering to whom the thoughts in the thread OP are directed? Christians know all this, and believe in the incarnate and resurrected Jesus Christ. Jews really don’t think about Jesus in relation to their own religion -- Jesus just doesn't come up -- so it is irrelevant to Jews.

Jesus as a part of the Quran is quite a different Jesus from the incarnate and resurrected Christ of the New Testament.

 

[RJM]

I’m thinking that whatever way it can be true to say that Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were called by God to do what they did, Jesus was called by God in the same way, to do what he did ... that he was called, like Ezekiel, to dramatize a message from God, and that he was also called to help it happen.

Christians regard the Christ as far more than just a prophet called by God to dramatize a message.

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
Hebrews 1-4

The message was that the temple would soon be destroyed, but faithfulness to God would still be possible without it.

Fair enough

 

[Longfellow]

@RJM @DerekhHikmah

In my next few posts I’ll try to answer your questions more directly. First I want to explain what I’m currently thinking about part of what Jesus did according to the gospels.

He saw himself partly as a prophet like Ezekiel, called by God to dramatize a message from him, playing the role of Israel. For Jesus, part of that was playing the role of the suffering servant. At the same time he was playing the role of the promised regent of God, the one that God would call his son. As regent, he was not here yet to do everything that was promised. He was here to do two things: to help with the growth and spread of rabbinical Judaism, and to help spread the light of Israel to all the world. Maybe more than that, but that’s as far as I’m seeing now.

It looks to me like full Torah observance was never seen as a requirement for being under the Covenant. Inability or failure to fully observe it did not remove a person from the Covenant, and it did not prevent a person who was not born into it from entering into it. What qualified a person for membership was a commitment to doing God’s will. Baptizing people without full Torah observance was not new. What was new was replacing Torah observance with obedience to Jesus as the measure of doing God’s will, but that made perfect sense in a Jewish context if he was God’s regent.

 

[RJM]

As regent, he was not here yet to do everything that was promised.

Do you believe another was to come after him, to fulfill the mission? Do you have anyone in mind? It feels like you're waiting to make some sort of point, but never actually getting there, imo?

 

[Longfellow]

Some folks think the Christ was more than that

I've noticed that too.

Taking the second part of the thread premise: Maybe Jesus's sacrifice ... helped Jews with the transition to faithfulness without the temple?

IMO Jews don't recognise Jesus and so it's a slippery slide to try to infer Jesus into Judaism? It's just not relevant, as a line of reasoning?

What I mean is that he might have helped with the spread of rabbinic Judaism. I'm thinking that he gave talks in synagogues, on hilltops, and in open fields, where he was heard by multitudes of people who considered him a prophet. His teachings were similar to rabbinic teachings in some important ways, especially in how to be faithful to God without the temple.

There was obviously a Jerusalem movement that accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but to say it split Jews may be a step too far, imo?

I don't think that it split Jews at all, until it became clear that the movement was welcoming multitudes of gentiles and using obedience to Jesus instead of the Torah as a measure of their obedience to God.

I’m just wondering to whom the thoughts in the thread OP are directed?

To everyone, to see what different people think about it.

Christians know all this and believe in the incarnate and resurrected Jesus Christ.

What I'm saying has nothing to do with Jesus being resurrected as that is understood in Christianity. It isn't about him being resurrected. I said that the way he *died* had real effects on the world, not the claim that he was resurrected. As far as the resurrection is concerned, Paul says "raised," not "resurrected," and saying that he was resurrected, however true it might be and whatever it might mean, misses the whole point.

Jews really don’t think about Jesus in relation to their own religion -- Jesus just doesn't come up -- so it is irrelevant to Jews.

Maybe some Jews, but not all. Far from it.

Jesus as a part of the Quran is quite a different Jesus from the incarnate and resurrected Christ of the New Testament.

The Jesus of most Muslims today might be quite different from the Jesus of most Christians, but in my view that has nothing to do with the Quran or the New Testament.

 

[RJM]

I've noticed that too

Do you discount Paul in the passage quoted in post #10 from Hebrews 1-4?

Did Jesus speak of himself as just another prophet?

What is your interpretation of Jesus's parable of the wicked tenants:

“Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.

“The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.

“But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

“Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”
Matthew 21:33-40

Maybe some Jews, but not all. Far from it.

Would you care to expand? Allowing for Messianic Jews.

Paul says "raised," not "resurrected," and saying that he was resurrected, however true it might be and whatever it might mean, misses the whole point.

Care to expand?

the Quran or the New Testament.

Do you believe they tally about Jesus?

EDIT: Sorry @Longfellow
You are the one posting all these threads, and I am just reacting, trying to establish where you're actually going with it?

 

[Longfellow]

What made you consider that? What opening disclosed that possibility to you?

(that Jesus was truly called by God)

I mean that I think that in whatever way it might be true that Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel were truly called by God to do what they did, the same is true of Jesus. It's just a feeling from all the reading and thinking that I've done.

What do you take symbol to be?

He played the role of a final sacrifice, to free Israel from the need for a temple.

Like do you think symbol is a reality unto itself or like an allegory?

HIs role was more than symbolic, for example because he also helped with the growth and spread of some ideas that later became part of rabbinic Judaism, which was partly about faithfulness to God without the temple.

Also that is the traditional Christian understanding, John says, "And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins," (1 John 2:2; compare Hebrews 2:17; 9:11-14, 24-28.) The earlier sacrifices prophetically prefigured Jesus' sacrifice, not the other way around.

That isn't what I'm thinking.

How do you understand the connection between Jesus surrendering his life and the opening of the way for Gentiles? That is a deep theological point, I am just wondering what you think about how that works itself out.

It isn't his sacrifice alone that helped open the way for gentiles. It was everything in his life, teachings, death and enthronement, that helped pave the way for the light of Israel to spread to all the world, without requiring commitment to Torah obedience.

Yes, but do you know what led Paul to come to that conclusion? His argument in Galatians 3 is that the promise to Abraham preceded the Mosaic Law and ultimately centered upon Christ. Those belonging to Christ could therefore receive Abraham’s blessing without first coming under the Mosaic Law.

That was the theology that he provided for it. That may or may not be how he discovered it. He might have learned it from Peter.

I would hesitate to say it was Peter's idea. Jesus had promised that the holy spirit, what he calls the “helper” paraklētos, would guide his disciples into truths that they were not yet ready to receive. (John 14:26; 16:12, 13.)

I meant that it was Peter's idea to baptize gentiles, although he said that it was God's idea, which I actually agree with, but Peter might have been the first to get the message from God and to do it.

RJM makes a good point he is pointing to a turning point in covenant history - Acts 10. This was in fulfillment of the vision at Daniel 9 from the angel Gabreil about the 70 weeks for the covenant. The covenant was then kept in force for the final week, with the good news first directed to Israel; afterward, Peter is directed to Corneilus and his household by Holy Spirit confirming that gentiles were now brought into covenant history. (Daniel 9:24-27; Acts 10.)

I think I agree with that.

 

[Longfellow]

Thank you. I like your questions very much. I couldn't have hoped for better.

Do you discount Paul in the passage quoted in post #10 from Hebrews 1-4?

No.

Did Jesus speak of himself as just another prophet?

What is your interpretation of Jesus's parable of the wicked tenants:

“Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.

“The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.

“But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

“Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”
Matthew 21:33-40

If your point is about Jesus being the son of God, I believe that, but not in any physical way. Only that he is the one that God promised to David, saying "I will be his father, and he shall be my son."

Would you care to expand? Allowing for Messianic Jews.

See for example Amy-Jill Levine.

Care to expand?

What Paul says about Jesus being raised is about his enthronement at the right hand of God, not about coming back to earthly life. It's about obedience to him as the measure of obedience to God.

Do you believe they tally about Jesus?

Yes.

(later) I believe that, but I don't want to talk about the Quran. That was a mistake.

You are the one posting all these threads, and I am just reacting, trying to establish where you're actually going with it?

I'm grateful for that, and I'm doing my best to help you.

(later) I'm not going anywhere that I know of. I'm brimming with new ideas about all this, and I'm curious to see what people think.

 

[RJM]

What Paul says about Jesus being raised is about his enthronement at the right hand of God, not about coming back to earthly life. It's about obedience to him as the measure of obedience to God.

Paul believed he was knocked off his horse and blinded, by what?

 

[Longfellow]

Paul believed he was knocked off his horse and blinded, by what?

By a flash of light.

 

[RJM]

By a flash of light.

Paul believed he encountered the risen Christ.

I'm not saying what actually happened, or did not happen. I'm posting what the New Testament actually says. Paul (in all his writings taken in context) was quite plainly talking about Jesus being the physical resurrection. A person can deny that is what Paul actually wrote -- that it has been altered, or whatever -- or disagree that Paul's writings represent Christian belief but it's not possible to get a symbolic resurrection from the New Testament, read in context.

It's going to be the same old roundabout, imo. Folks trying to use the NT to disprove the NT.

I've been there too many times ...

 

[Longfellow]

Would you care to expand?

Also see Geza Vermes, Jacob Neusner, and David Flusser.