Some more sketchy notes on the Synoptic narrative for my teaching at St Johns Nottingham before moving on—rather hesitantly—to John’s Gospel.
The story told about Jesus and the coming kingdom of God in the Synoptic Gospels does not stand on its own; it is not a self-contained narrative. It is an integral part of the story of first century Israel and second temple Judaism. The connections with the historical frame are established in a number of ways, but most importantly through the reworking of, let’s say, five principal Old Testament themes relating to the clash between Israel and the nations:
- prophecies of national disaster in the form of invasion and the destruction of Jerusalem: Jesus’ references to a “judgment of Gehenna”, for example, evoke Jeremiah’s depiction of the siege of Jerusalem;
- the restoration of Israel after the punishment of exile: Isaiah’s messenger proclaims good news (euangelizomenos) of salvation, saying to Zion, “Your God reigns”—or as the Aramaic Targum has it, “The kingdom of your God has been revealed” (Is. 52:7 LXX and Targum);
- the role of the “servant of the Lord” in the rescue and restoration of Israel: Jesus has been “chosen” and anointed with the Spirit (“This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased”) in order to fulfil YHWH’s eschatological purposes;
- the foreseen establishment of Israel’s king as ruler over the nations as the decisive geopolitical justification of YHWH: Psalm 110, in particular, is used to affirm the future rule of Jesus over Israel in the context of its clash with the nations;
- the vindication of the persecuted saints of the Most High, symbolically represented by “one like a son of man”: the story about Antiochus Epiphanes’ war against the people of the saints of the Most, told symbolically in Daniel 7, accounts for the connection between suffering and kingdom.
These themes have a historical frame of reference and are deployed in the New Testament likewise to account for historical developments and outcomes. They should not be spiritualised or translated into theological abstractions. A skeletal Synoptic narrative can then be expounded:
- Having been marked out by the Spirit as YHWH’s beloved servant, Jesus proclaims the good news of the coming kingdom of God, which is both judgment—in the form of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple—and régime change.
- The preaching of this good news is closely associated with the exorcisms and healings: they foreshadow or anticipate this future event. The healings, for example, are interpreted by reference to Isaiah’s “kingdom” narrative (Matt. 8:16-17; Lk. 4:17-21).
- The parables are the hallmark of a prophet who challenges a stubborn and rebellious people. When God addresses Ezekiel as “Son of man” and tells him to prophesy against the Negeb, the prophet complains, “Ah, Lord GOD! They are saying of me, ‘Is he not a maker of parables?’” (Ezek. 20:45–49).
- Jesus’ teaching and actions—notably eating with tax collectors and sinners—anticipate a coming “eschatological reversal”: the overthrow or exclusion of those currently with power and authority, the elevation or inclusion of those currently marginalized and disenfranchised. The folk story of the rich man and Lazarus makes the point graphically.
- Jesus sends out messengers throughout Israel initially to proclaim the same message about the kingdom of God and to cast out demons and heal the sick; later they will declare amongst the nations what God is doing vis-à-vis his people in the tumultuous period leading up to the Jewish war.
- The entry into Jerusalem and the incident in the temple powerfully dramatise the impending catastrophe and régime change. The cursing of the fig tree is a prophetic action symbolising the coming destruction of fruitless Israel.
- In the apocalyptic discourse Jesus sets out the narrative for the historical fulfilment of the kingdom expectation within a generation: the community of disciples will endure considerable hardship as they pursue their mission in the coming years, but if they remain faithful to their calling, the catastrophe of God’s judgment of Jerusalem will mean for them deliverance and vindication.
- The authorities in Jerusalem reject the “Son” who was sent to get fruit from the vineyard. Jesus is executed but is raised from the dead, as vindication, as the beginning of renewal for the people of God, and ultimately as a new creation. He also comes to be seated at the right hand of God, having been given supreme authority to judge and rule.
These themes have a historical frame of reference and are deployed in the New Testament likewise to account for historical developments and outcomes. They should not be spiritualised or translated into theological abstractions.
I agree with your overall point about historical outcomes of these events, but while that is true, I also see a “theological abstraction” having taken place too, which, I think you yourself even point out when you stated:
Jesus is executed but is raised from the dead, as vindication, as the beginning of renewal for the people of God, and ultimately as a new creation.
Aren’t the “renewal” and “new creation” theological abstractions? A spiritual/covenantal position in Christ?
@Rich:
Rich, why should “spiritual” and “covenantal” denote abstractions? The renewed people of God under Christ as Lord or in Christ experiences the Spirit quite concretely, and the new covenant is the grounds for being a renewed people. These things determine the manner or means by which, or the conditions under which, the community fulfils the historical-eschatological purpose. Isn’t it western theology that has turned “spiritual” into an abstract notion?
@Andrew Perriman:
Andrew,
These things determine the manner or means by which, or the conditions under which, the community fulfils the historical-eschatological purpose.
Because “These things” are abstracts. Sure they are manifested outwardly in historical events — the community fulfils the historical-eschatological purpose — but the “things” themselves are abstracts. One can’t see, feel or touch whether or not any given person is “in Christ”. Maybe it’s just our terminology.
@Andrew Perriman:
Andrew,
have you read “The Four” by Leithart?
Recent comments