The Aims of Jesus: Part 5- Evil and Death
Dec 15th, 2009 by John
This will be our final reflection on Ben F. Meyer’s The Aims of Jesus, covering chapters VIII and IX. Again, I admit that this is a challenging book to comprehend, but well worth the effort. In these chapters I see the influence of Ben Meyer on N.T. Wright.
I heard New Testament scholar Dr. Scot McKnight recently at Mars Hill in Grand Rapids, MI speak about how Jesus added his own touch to the Shema, and with just the little addition reframed the complete Torah. Jesus took the Qaddish and added his creative touch and reframed prayer for the-reign-of-God community. After reading this section of Meyer, I think that another significant addition by Jesus to his culture’s popular mind-set concerns the messianic mission.
Having elicited a confession from his disciples to the question, “Who do you say that I am?”, that he was, indeed, the Christ (anointed one/messiah), Jesus launched into addition: his repudiation, suffering, and death. With these “prediction pericopes” Jesus does not cancel the [enthronement] mission of the messiah, but “completes and transforms it by integrating the destiny of Jesus into it” (215). The way to the throne means traveling to the cross.This becomes a massive stumbling block in the minds of the Jews. A crucified messiah?
Then this from Meyer: “Jesus did not aim to be repudiated and killed; he aimed to charge with meaning his being repudiated and killed” (218). And, “Evil would not be simply crushed by power. On the contrary, by subjection to evil Jesus would render it impotent. Betrayal, desertion, repudiation would only promote and realize his aims. By submitting to evil he would take its measure, established its futility, and shape it to his own purposes” (218). Finally, “On the brink of his death, Jesus interpreted his death as expiatory for the world…and as a sacrifice sealing a new covenant… ” (219).
Jesus was not a destructive revolutionary (though he was viewed that way by many). Nor was Jesus a well-intentioned reformer who was misunderstood and failed to reach his aims. Meyer concludes that Jesus transcended those aims “by conceiving himself to function as fulfiller” (251).
WHY?
Why did Jesus live and die as he did? “…[I]n the tradition generated by Jesus…we discover what made him operate the way he did, what made him epitomize his life as a single act of going to his death: He ‘loved me and handed himself over for me’…” (253).
“Amazing love, how can it be? That Thou, my God, should die for me!”
Amen.
Popularity: 2% [?]
hi pastor,
Did Ben Meyer draw any connection between table fellowship with those considered outsiders and the death of Jesus?
elias,
Ben Meyer did note both John the Baptist’s and Jesus’ “asocial” behaviors—John the ascetic in the wilderness and Jesus eating and drinking “with sinners.” This behavior (Jesus’) was an assault on Israel’s religious identity at the time and aroused violent hostility. The primary (human) reason for his death at the hands of the religious leaders was his cleansing of (assault on) the Temple and his prediction of its destruction.
Pastor John,
Israel’s religious identity was centered on the temple (Tom Wright will say)so it can be said that the assault on the temple was the culmination of Jesus`s protest agasinst Israel’s religious identity at the time a protest wich started with the table fellowship with sinners. I think that a stronger emphasis should be given to the connection between table fellowship ,temple action and death ( juan luis segundo makes this connection very well).
By the way, your posts on the aims of Jesus (all of them) were great.
Thanks, John. I like the thought that Jesus was a fulfiller. And in a way that was not predictable, especially during that time.
Ribi Yehoshua, was according to a logical analysis of the earliest manusscripts (including the logical implications of Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT, which demonstrates that the Jewish community (this does not include Hellenist “Jews” as Paul) were fully dedicated to Torah, a Torah-practising Yehudi (hellenized to “Jew”)) of what later was redacted to “Matthew”, who all his life practised Torah (the instructions of the Creator found in Tan’’kh (the Jewish Bible)) non-selectively.
“One of the reasons that Rib? i Y?ho•shu? a incurred such wrath from the Hellenist pseudo-Tz?doq•im? Ko•han•ei? hâ-Rësh? a is because Rib? i Y?ho•shu? a was becoming so successful in popularizing the practice of praying in Bât•ei? ha-K?nës? ëtamong the masses, which was perceived as a religious, political and financial a threat to the pseudo-Tz?doq•im? who, along with the Hellenist Romans, controlled the Beit ha-Mi•q?dâsh? ha-Shein•i? .”
“It is essential to distinguish between the Hellenist Roman appointed vassals of the Beit ha-Mi•q?dâsh? who sometimes weren’t even genealogically kohanim at all, from the Qumran Tz?doq•im? .The Pseudo-Tz?doq•im? were being rejected as apostate and turncoat Ko•han•ei? hâ-Rësh? a by the rest of the Jews.” Ribi Yehoshua was a leader in good standing among the religious Jews, which is proven by the fact that he was allowed to teach in the batei ha-kneset (“synagogues”).
Quotes from the entries “Perushim” and “Tzedoqim”:in the Netzarim glossaries there you also will find definitions of words you don’t understand]
Anders Branderud
Anders,
I appreciate your comments, but you fail to reference one of the most significant 1st century artifacts–the New Testament writings–which are available for all to read no matter their religious persuasion or lack of it. No one can comment on Jesus of Nazareth and his standing within his own people if these manuscripts are not taken seriously as historically informative.