Theology has often struggled to reconcile the "eye for an eye" morality of the Tanakh, the Old Testament, with the "Love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" morality of the New. Did G-d change His mind? In the past, my solution has been simple: they cannot be reconciled. Indeed Christians frequently mix Old and New Testament morality rather eclectically, something the liberals (who might prefer an extreme surrender to evil theology) have tended to be quick to point out. To them, Jesus is only the man who forgives adulterers, not the man who yells at pharisees. Yet the issue remains: the Tanakh demands death for adulterers; Jesus rescued one who was lined up for exactly that punishment.
I think now that this conflict actually can be resolved somewhat harmoniously by looking at the very differing conditions of Moses and Joshua on the one hand, and Jesus on the other. G-d didn't change, but circumstances sure did.
While of course the germ theory of disease was not known then, the Tanakh can be thought of as kind of operating on a "germ theory of evil." In other words, you have to nip the contagion right in the bud and quarantine those affected, either by exiling them or in more extreme cases killing them. Evil has to be opposed vigorously and violently, or else it will surely spread and cause even more suffering.This was regarded as a communal obligation: both an obligation of the community and an obligation of the individual towards it.
And of course this theory is quite right: we see all the time how evil spreads through families and communities, the sins of the fathers do indeed rebound onto the sons and daughters. When you look at prison populations, virtually all of them have extensive family histories of violence, drug and alcohol abuse and other disorders. Sure, all of us have our family issues, but prisoners often have profoundly crippling ones.
Evil does spread like a disease. And the Tanakh's approach to that disease is like the approach to gangrene: when the finger gets gangrene, you chop it off to save the hand. But this chopping is not something that is left up to the individual, it is a responsibility of the community. When a crime calls for stoning to death, everyone is supposed to throw the stones. Not just one person. In some cases like idolatry, it specifies that even the closest next of kin of the condemned is to throw a stone; in fact they have to throw the first one.
But you have to ask the question: who was in charge of that community, that ancient Jewish society? Moses and Joshua. Who was in charge of them? G-d. This was, at least ideally, a society almost unique in human history. One in which G-d was in charge, when G-d was recognized as the authority.
What was the situation in Jesus' time? That disease control horse has long bolted the corral. The population was thoroughly infected. The disease was rampant and uncontrolled. The Hebrews had failed to live up to the opportunity to be a holy people led by G-d. The real people of G-d were not in charge of that society, they were refugees in it. Judea had been taken over by the Romans, a violent pagan torturing empire that watched people suffer and die for entertainment. The Jewish establishment had carved themselves out a niche of comfort and wealth and didn't have to give a damn. They made rules without caring what burdens they placed on the people. The Temple might not have had pagan idols in it as in times past, but it was still a corrupt institution run by self-serving elites.
Satan was in charge of the Earth. Satan was the authority. In that context, the communal authority authorized by G-d, which was required for much of Old Testament morality, didn't exist anymore. Sure the Sanhedrin existed, under Roman rule, and was about as representative of the "community" as today's elites are of the American populace. All of the individual obligations still existed: you were still supposed to not lie, covet or kill, and Jesus never once contradicted any of that with the possible exception of Sabbath observance. And you could argue that Sabbath observance was a communal obligation too. That community as an extension of divine rule functionally no longer existed.
What did Jesus change? Communal obligations. Stoning adulterers is a communal obligation, not an individual one. The COMMUNITY was supposed to put that person to death, not the individual. The community prosecutes thieves (if someone takes away your coat, give them your cloak.) The community prosecutes assault (turn the other cheek.) If a Roman slaps you, are you going to take it up with the Romans which are the authority in place? They will probably beat you for your pains.
So in Moses' time, G-d was in charge, of that community at least. In Jesus' time, Satan ruled the Earth. And still does.
Jesus evidences a point of view of the people of G-d as refugees in the world. Outcasts. The offscourings of the Earth. The dregs, in the eyes of the world.
If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.
If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own.
As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.
That is why the world hates you.
~John 15:18-19
This is the world of Jesus, and this is our world. Now, for a long time in Europe people sought to establish "Christendom," people in early America did too, and this no doubt had many good effects along with some not-so-great ones. But ultimately, this is the Day of Satan, and I don't believe that anything we do is going to change that until the end.
I really feel like this understanding is the resolution for me for the conflict between the Tanakh and the New Testament. While I believe that the idea that anyone other than G-d was G-d is contrary to the Torah (and it is,) I have often felt drawn to what Jesus taught regardless, and tried to figure out a resolution between conflicting Christian and Torah morality, and I believe this is it. I was a Christian for some years, and I often felt drawn to the refugee motifs in the New Testament that were largely lacking in the Old. We ARE refugees and outcasts in the world. Satan is "the prince of this world" as the Gospel of John says. These ideas are not present in the Tanakh because the Tanakh was written in a time when the rulership of G-d was either already established (Moses, Joshua) or was trying to be re-established. Well that horse had fled to Alaska by the time Jesus was born.
So then does that mean that I now accept the New Testament, despite its many differences from the Old, as being from G-d? Yes. Does that mean that Jesus was the Son of G-d? Quite possibly, whatever that exactly means. Some of these expressions are rather lacking in explanations. A prophet? Quite possibly.
Do I believe that he is the same as G-d? No, and there are many quotes in the gospels which indicate he didn't believe that, either. He always defers to his Father. If that is functionally the same as deferring to himself, that is a peculiar way of deferring. You defer to the other. Jesus defers to the Father. Jesus was a man.
However he was a man that seems to have had a revelation from G-d for these satanically-dominated times. We are not in charge of this world. Satan is.
Conservatives often fight for the establishment of at least some degree of holy authority over the United States, and that is both well-meant and probably would be good in its effects. But just like Christendom in Medieval Europe, it is a stopgap against a satanic world and often the forces that are supposed to be fighting on our side wind up fighting on theirs. Corruption in the Church, you just have to look at the Catholic Church to see how that works. Politicians who run on "family values" who wind up grabbing for the shiny baubles that Satan hangs down to lure the weak. That doesn't mean we stop trying, it means we understand our position. We are refugees and outcasts trying to seize back authority for G-d, and we are going to lose in that effort more often than win until G-d decides to wrap the whole thing up.
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world,
but people loved darkness instead of light
because their deeds were evil.
~John 3:19
No comments:
Post a Comment