Imagine a people in which exceptionalism is assumed, in which the founding ‘documents’ are held both in the highest esteem and are practiced carefully (though with much tradition built up around them). These people view themselves as chosen by God, blessed, intended to spread their blessings to the world. They’ve had magnificent leaders in the past, but in recent times, not so much. Sound familiar?
I refer, of course, to first-century Israel. Oppressed by centuries of foreign national occupation, they wait for the promised Messiah to come and liberate them. They are God’s people—and the temple, land, feasts, and Torah were given by Him. The Scripture promises that Israel will be vindicated, foreign nations removed, the land healed, God will come again to dwell in the temple, and the kingdom of David will be restored. Expectations are high for Messiah to come.
Then Jesus appears. But this Messiah—king—does not act like a King. His kingdom isn’t anything like they’ve come to expect, much less want. And to make matters worse, this King is proclaiming that He is going to die at the very hands of the oppressors they were hoping He would free them from—and this death will be His victory!
Instead of a (traditional) Kingdom here, He says his kingdom is not of this world.
Instead of a restored Jerusalem temple, He claims to be the temple.
Instead of a restored Torah, He claims to be the Word and can therefore interpret it.
Instead of strengthening Israel’s traditions, He centers the most important one—Passover—to be about Himself in the Lord’s supper.
Instead of freeing the land of foreign nations, He frees humanity from sin.
While I have attempted to lay some of the groundwork for Wright’s argument in previous posts, I want to touch on its impact on me before we resume the reading, so as my commentary continues, the reader can have this in mind. We must have the bigger picture to understand what Jesus did then, and how it might change us now.
I, along with the rest of the human race, are “Genesis 3” people. We are poisoned by the fall. Our thinking is fallen and corrupted. How we approach anything will be warped and twisted by sin.
Jesus walks into the first-century Jewish world and upends it. But He rarely does so by selecting between two existing positions because both are shaped by sin. Think of the disciples’ question, “who sinned: this man or his parents?” (John 9:2-3) Jesus’ answer is neither. Jesus doesn’t answer an either/or question with a two-dimensional answer but instead explodes into three-dimensional life. To put it in Pauline terms, he gives us a taste of new creation.
In the first century, there were three major groups, with Zealots sprinkled in. The Essenes separated themselves completely from culture, living out in the desert by themselves. The Pharisees argued for strict obedience to the Law. The Sadducees had (some) political authority and were more willing to work with the Romans. The Zealots wanted to fight the Romans and drive them out of Israel. Even within these groups, there were various interpretations and approaches.
Jesus is none of these. Because all of these are twisted and poisoned by sin.
Jesus didn’t come to help us live a better “Genesis 3” life. He came to show us what a “Genesis 2” life looks like—and that it is found only in Him. Post resurrection, He gives us a taste of what a Revelation 21-22 life looks like. He is taking us to the city, not back to the garden.
Seeing what the world is doing and emulating its methods is simply more “Genesis 3” thinking and acting.
This is why, at the end of Galatians, Paul writes, “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.” (Gal. 6:15) If I might put this in current terms, Paul is saying, “Stop thinking in terms of left or right, liberal or conservative, woke or non-woke… think and be new creation people!” In other words, stop the Genesis 3 thinking and be the Spirit-indwelt people who point towards the Revelation 21-22 destination.
One of Jesus’ temptations was receiving the kingdoms of the world via Satan’s way (Genesis 3!). The church has the same temptation. We do not need Christians taking the world’s way of doing things and trying to put a Christian “cover” over it. It would be like a Pharisee responding to a Sadducee by adding a few more traditions. We are to be neither. We are to be new creation.
One of my key take-aways from reading Wright is that I had misunderstood the purpose of the gospels. The gospels are the explanation of how you get from Second-temple Judaism to this strange New Testament people that seems similar and yet so very different from classical Israel (more descriptive than prescriptive). Understanding first-century expectations and then placing Jesus’ story alongside these beliefs results in an enormous shock—He’s taking their cherished beliefs and expectations and reshaping them around himself. Then I see the parallel to my own expectations and realize just how much my cherished beliefs and expectations are a result of a mix of enlightenment thinking, American exceptionalism, and incorrect Biblical interpretation—and my thinking must be reshaped! Reread the first paragraph and ponder how a Jesus-centered view might alter your thinking about your own country. I’ll give one brief example of what this might look like.
Have you ever wondered why Jesus has the disciples bring swords to the garden, prior to his arrest, only to rebuke them when one actually uses it (Lk. 22:36-38; 49-53)? He provides the lesson in his comment—he doesn’t need a sword to defend himself because he could call down legions of angels. While He could have provided the same lesson without having a physical sword present, the lesson clearly stayed with the disciples enough to be recorded in all four gospels!
Jesus is not bringing in His kingdom as a Genesis 3 person would expect—by the sword. The sword is to be put away—His kingdom comes by His death and resurrection. Jesus often spars with Pharisees and Sadducees (two of the major first-century groups); here we have a embodied lesson that the way of the Zealot is not how Jesus brings in His kingdom. Likewise, those who follow Him are to put away their swords. New creation life is one of peace, not of the sword. And resistance to the way of Jesus is not to be met with the sword!
Observe that the way the apostles appear to apply this, including the one who actually wielded the sword (Peter), is contained in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. New creation life is one that does not rebel with the sword against (ungodly) government! Which furthermore may suggest that revolution via arms is not the way of the Christian.
I am skeptical that making pulpit-pounding statements no longer popular in our culture is embodying a new creation life, especially when said in the spirit of in-your-face-take-that-world. Why are we so surprised when Genesis 3 people act consistently to Genesis 3? Screaming at blind people who keep bumping into objects is unkind. So much of what we in the church focus on are surface-level issues that don’t address the real problem. Like the first-century Jews, we want the kingdom, the temple, the land, when Jesus addresses the real problem—humanity is enslaved to sin—and then redefines what the kingdom, temple, and land look like. We need to be providing a positive image of new creation life in Christ, rather than constantly wagging our fingers at those enslaved for being slaves. Were you not once enslaved too (Titus 3:3-7)?
Reading Wright has raised questions in my mind, most which I don’t have answers to. But it challenges me to break out of my twenty-first-century-American-Christian expectations and ask the Spirit to help me see through new creation eyes. This requires the Spirit, the community, and the humility to admit when wrong. And a willingness to pay the cost, perhaps ultimate, of new creation life. Because that is what Jesus did for me.