The Jesus Story in Jewish Context

A Summary of N. T. Wright's The New Testament and the People of God

Part I – Wright’s Prolegomena

Wright begins his mammoth work by defining the “critical realist epistemology” in which his study will be conducted. Wright rejects enlightenment positivism, writing off its claim to “neutral” or “objective” history as a naïve “figment of post-Enlightenment imagination” (p. 15). Positivism tends to peel away the historical skin of the biblical narratives, discarding the historical husks in pursuit of “timeless truths” and “universal principles”. All that is either culturally conditioned, historically implausible (according to Hume’s empirical standards), or deemed theologically motivated by the early church is discarded. The narratives simply become vehicles for abstract, objective truths. History becomes secondary – and practically unnecessary – to the pursuit of empirical objective truth.

Postmodernism has exposed this hubris for the fallacy that it is, but in the process, has often undermined the historical backdrop through a subjective phenomenalism which ultimately undermines public discourse. For some postmodern scholars, the ability of texts to communicate historical reality is questionable, at best, impossible, at worst.

The postmodern is right in many ways. It is true that all texts are culturally conditioned, written from a limited perspective, and biased by the worldview of the author. This does not negate Scripture’s relevance, but instead, calls for careful analysis. All initial observations should be challenged by critical reflection; nevertheless it is possible to grasp something of reality in and through the text. In his book, Wright seeks to integrate the pre-modern emphasis on the authority and historical validity of the text while simultaneously holding to the social, political, and historical particularities in which the text was written.

As an alternative to positivism and postmodernism, Wright argues for a “critical realist epistemology”. Since all knowledge is limited by one’s point of view, interpreted through one’s worldview, and encountered within a community (p. 36), the fantasy of a detached, objective, neutral observer is exposed for the impossibility that it is. “Intellectual honesty consists not in forcing an impossible neutrality, but in admitting that neutrality is not possible” (p. 89). Because of this, all history is interpreted history. All historical literature is written within a cultural context, biased by the author’s worldview and subject to the author’s limited perspective. This is just as true for the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament as it is for any document.

According to Wright, truth is primarily related through stories. Stories are not simply illustrative material, but “are a basic constituent of human life” (p. 38). This is important in studying the New Testament documents, for all Jewish writings are built upon the Jewish story of the covenant god.[1] “Human writing is best conceived as the articulation of worldviews, or, better still, the telling of stories which bring worldviews into articulation.” (p. 65, emphasis his).

The controversy between first-century Judaism and first-century Christianity was not about abstract theological differences but, at its most fundamental level, was “about different tellings of the story of Israel’s god, his people, and his world” (p.76, emphasis his). Paul’s theology consists, not in the abandonment of Israel’s story, but in expressing Israel’s story redrawn around Jesus (p. 79).

Wright’s hope is to present a hypothesis that explains all the relevant data simply and consistently in light of the Jewish story in which Jesus lived his life and Christianity had its birth. The Jewish story is a theological story providing a worldview expressed in stories that address the basic questions of human existence (p. 123). The stories also provide cultural symbols that express the worldview and give a sense of how one is to live in the world. Both the Jewish and Christian story uniquely claim to be telling a story about the creator and his world, a story in the public domain, that is relevant for all creation. This is not unusual, for “all worldviews… claim to be public and comprehensive” (p. 137).

With this philosophical foundation, Wright proceeds to describe the Judaism from within which Christianity was birthed (Part II) and early Christianity as the world within people remembered and wrote about Jesus (Part III).

Part II – First Century Judaism within the Greco-Roman World

In order to understand Christianity, one must understand both the Judaism from which it was birthed and the Greco-Roman world – the dominant cultural milieu in which Judaism had its being.

First-century Judaism must be understood in light of the social upheavals that stemmed from its attempt to preserve its identity in the midst of pagan influence and oppression. Israel’s core beliefs of creational monotheism, election, and eschatology, understood in a covenantal context, are foundational to understanding the major external threats and internal problems that plagued first-century Judaism. It is this backdrop of political turbulence that provides the starting-point for understanding first-century Judaism.

Faithful Jews sought to preserve their own traditional Jewish identity in the midst of an often-hostile climate. This was important, for when god acted to redeem his people, “those who would benefit would be those who had… kept the covenant boundaries intact, whereas those who had led Israel astray and had gone after foreign gods would forfeit their right to be considered part of the people of the true god” (p. 168). The hope of Israel was not for “post mortem disembodied bliss, but for a national liberation that would fulfill the expectations aroused by the memory, and regular celebration, of the exodus, and, nearer at hand, of the Maccabaean victory” (p. 170).

The Maccabaean revolt set the stage for all future hope of the restoration of the people of God from exile. Through “[f]idelity to Torah, readiness for martyrdom, resistance to compromise, and resolute military or para-military action” (p. 170), god would redeem his people from exile to gentile nations. With the Maccabaean revolt lingering in Israel’s memory, first century Judaism produced a number of revolt movements (Wright lists a whole series of movements, p. 170ff.).

There was no monolithic Judaism, but instead, there were different Judaisms. Not all were agreed on how to respond to the current crisis, although there are some general points of agreement among all Jewish groups. All agreed that under Roman occupation, they remained in exile. All agreed that Israel’s sin had led to exile. All looked forward to a restoration of Israel leading to liberation from exile. After Cyrus’ decree, Israel had never risen to the stature that she once possessed. Both the Tabernacle and Solomon’s Temple had been visited by the Shekinah glory. This had not happened in the second temple. While under foreign domination and with no sign of God’s Shekinah, the Jews still viewed themselves as in exile, in need of restoration by God. For this reason, the Pharisees committed to strict purity with hope for a reconstituted and restored Israel.

Israel believed in one creator god, who had created all that exists. As the elect of the one god, the fate of the nations was bound up with that of Israel. “Israel’s exile was still in progress” (p. 269). Since Israel was in exile because of her own sins, God’s forgiveness would mean her restoration would be complete and her exile ended.

Four symbols which brought the Jewish “worldview into visible and tangible reality” (p. 224) were the Temple, the Land, the Torah, and Jewish ethnicity. These key symbols “anchored the first-century Jewish worldview in everyday life” (p. 224). They represented and preserved the Jewish identity, which was under constant threat. Three badges, in particular, “marked the Jew out from the pagan: circumcision, Sabbath, and the kosher laws, which regulated what food could be eaten, how it was to be killed and cooked, and with whom one might share it” (p. 237). These “works of Torah” have been misunderstood by traditional Protestant distortions of first-century Judaism:

Debates about sabbath and purity, therefore, occupied an immense amount of time and effort in the discussions of the learned, as we know from the Mishnah and Talmud. This was not, it should be stressed, because Jews in general or Pharisees in particular were concerned merely for outward ritual or ceremony, nor because they were attempting to earn their salvation (within some sub-Christian scheme!) by virtuous living. It was because they were concerned for the divine Torah, and were therefore anxious to maintain their god-given distinctiveness over against the pagan nations, particularly those who were oppressing them. Their whole raison-d'être as a nation depended on it. ...it was Torah, and particularly the special badges of sabbath and purity, that demarcated the covenant people, and that therefore provided litmus tests of covenant loyalty and signs of covenant hope. ...the 'works of Torah' were not a legalist's ladder, up which one climbed to earn the divine favour, but were the badges that one wore as the marks of identity (pp. 237, 238).

It was devout concern for Torah that spurred faithful Jews to maintain their distinctiveness over against the pagan nations. Those who were not faithful to the national symbols or badges of separation “were traitors to the national symbols, to the national hope, to the covenant god” (p. 238, cf. p. 334). When the “kingdom of God” finally arrived, the Torah would be fulfilled, the Temple rebuilt, the Land cleansed and faithful Jews rewarded (p. 302). All the symbols of Israel would be vindicated and established.

Part III – First Century Christianity

In order to rightly understand first-century Christianity, one must account for the Jewishness of Christianity and its break with Judaism (p. 344).

Christianity rapidly spread in spite of the growing threat of persecution. Christianity, though unique in many ways, was born out of Judaism. The Christians reinterpreted Jewish symbols of Temple, Torah, Land in light of Jesus (p. 366 - 68). Israel’s story was told in the form of Jesus’ story (p. 401). The kingdom “was based upon Jesus rather than upon a restoration of Jewish national and ethnic primacy” (p. 442).

No new Temple would replace Herod’s, since the real and final replacement was Jesus and his people. No intensified Torah would define this community, since its sole definition was its Jesus-belief. No Land claimed its allegiance, and no Holy City could function for it as Jerusalem did for mainline Jews; Land had now been transposed into World… Racial identity was irrelevant; the story of this new community was traced back to Adam, not just to Abraham. (p. 451)

In light of these things, it is easy to see why faithful Jews would view the Christian faith, not simply as a new take on Judaism, but as the utter destruction of all they held dear.

Early Christianity, like first-century Judaism, was by no means a monolithic movement. Yet, in spite of the wide diversity in early Christianity, the early Christians were united in viewing Israel’s story as having reached its climax in Jesus (p. 456).

The Question of God

The New Testament “is a Jewish book, telling Jewish-style stories, yet telling them for the world. It is a book of the world, retelling the story of the world as the story of Israel, and the story of Israel as the story of Jesus, in order to subvert the world’s stories, and to lay before the world the claim of Jesus to be its sovereign” (p. 469).

At the root of everything is the question and meaning of the word “god”:  “Who precisely is this god of whom the Jewish scriptures had spoken, the god who made himself known to Abraham, Moses, David and the prophets? Which community (of the two in question, at least) is speaking truly, or at least more truly, about this god?” (p. 472)

The New Testament documents “articulate and invite their hearers to share a new worldview which carries at its heart a new view of ‘god’, and even a proposal for a way of saying ‘God’” (p. 472).

Personal Significance

This book and its follow-up, Jesus and the Victory of God, have drastically changed the way I read the New Testament documents. I will highlight two areas.

First, understanding the “works of the law” as referring to Jewish identity markers sheds much light on passages often used to attack so-called “works-righteousness”. Too often, devout first-century Jews are pictured as caught up in their own self-righteousness achieved through “works of Torah”. This is to misread the Scriptures by forsaking the Jewish setting which is their context.

The ‘works of Torah’ were not a legalist’s ladder, up which one climbed to earn the divine favour, but were the badges that one wore as the marks of identity, of belonging to the chosen people in the present, and hence the all-important signs, to oneself and one’s neighbours, that one belonged to the company who would be vindicated when the covenant god acted to redeem his people. They were the present signs of future vindication. This was how ‘the works of Torah’ functioned within the belief, and the hope of Jews and particularly of Pharisees. (p.238)

Failing to note this leads to a distorted caricature of first-century Judaism, having little or no basis in reality, and resulting in a distortion of the Gospel message.

Second, if Wright is right, many scholars have grossly misunderstood the apocalyptic hope of Israel. Israel did not hope for an end to the space-time universe, but to an end of her exile under foreign domination (pp. 299, 333). Salvation must be understood in light of the Jewish hope which would result in blessing to the nations. Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God would be rooted in this expectation. His language concerning salvation, forgiveness, and justification must be first understood in light of the Jewish hope – the restoration of Israel, the deliverance from exile, and the establishment of God’s kingdom.

I have a newfound joy in reading the Gospels. With each read, the Jewishness of the Gospels (and the New Testament on the whole) is more striking and more important. I now purposefully try to take into account the history, customs, symbols, and desires of the Jewish people, which distinguished them from other nations. Instead of looking for “universal principles” or “absolute truths”, I now look for the contours of God’s movement in and through a particular people, Israel, leading to blessing for the world.

© Richard J. Vincent, 2003