Any foray into this minefield is likely to cause explosions. But a response is necessary because the import of this article is to suggest that we cannot understand Jesus unless we get rid of the crust of New Testament anti-Jewish bias that necessarily is there as “Christianity” developed with rampant anti-Semitism. Orthodoxy, and an apostolic witness that formed it, is entirely suspect, then, from the beginning. This may in fact not be the implication of the article, but it seems to be.
In regard to Jesus in a Jewish context, what I would expect to learn is that all the branches of the tree of “Judaism” that existed in Jesus’ day were joined by a new branch that grew out of the assertion that, in fact, Jesus was the hoped for Messiah! Thus, instead of a “Christianity” as a new “ism,” this new, tender branch grew, drawing many of those from distinct parties or having blends of belief to the conviction that the death and resurrection of Jesus meant, “Rejoice, the promises have been fulfilled! Come, join to celebrate!”
What falls out of the picture, thanks in part to the history of New Testament studies for many years this last century, is that the agent for this change is indeed a Jewish Jesus with Jewish disciples. Much that was familiar to all Jews was affirmed; much was not: “You have heard that it was said … . But I say unto you … .” Jesus spoke with authority in these and all matters. His death and resurrection made the biggest impression of all. The Good News of all this could be summed up in the assertion that this Jewish man was the hoped for Messiah — a very different Messiah than any had expected and yet very like what the Scriptures foretold and foreshadowed.
A good example of this affirmation and negation can be seen in Jesus’ teaching, Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the land. Kenneth Bailey points out in Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (IVP, 2008, p 72) that this word for land does indeed refer to the land of Israel/Palestine, the land of promise, and the Beatitude itself to numerous referents in the Hebrew Scriptures; he cites three verses from Psalm 37 (vss. 9, 11, 29). But he points out the emphasis is also on the meek and not necessarily the descendants of Jacob — an important point in regard to today’s issues of ‘whose’ land it is in Israel/Palestine, for example. Could speaking from the pulpit of “the truth” of this teaching of the Jewish Jesus be anti-Semitic?
An even deeper issue regards the tendency to consider the New Testament not as apostolic witness to the Jewish Jesus confirmed, for the most part, by Jewish apostles and eyewitnesses but a much later Gentile construct almost entirely. However, the foundation for this way of thinking is poor Biblical scholarship, as Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans, 2006) decisively indicates. Is a challenge by “Jewish Christians” (first century believers that Jesus is the Messiah) to other forms of “Judaism” (in the first century) bound to be “anti-Semitic”? Is “the faith once delivered” bound to be “anti-Semitic”?
Alas, when any in the church go outside of Scripture, or misuse certain verses that indicate conflict during the apostolic era, to engage in anti-Semitic speech, to aver, for example, that “the Jews” (as opposed to all of us) “killed Christ” — or worse, should somehow be quarantined, deprived of their rights, be harmed or in any way be considered as an affront to others — it is, to use Biblical language, an abomination.
Let us be clear, however, that to be true to “Jesus in a Jewish Context” is to be deeply orthodox in faith and practice. That was true in regard to the apostolic witness to Jesus nearly 2000 years ago, it is true today, and will be true always.
Robert R. Von Oeyen is pastor of Bethany Church in Staunton, Va.
