Reading the scriptures for the second week of Advent, I'm torn, as usual, by the whole "fulfillment of prophesy" theme of Messianic claims made by and for Jesus. Earlier this week I was reflecting some on the concept of anointed persons -- of people of destiny. How does God act in history? And is it the same now as in the days leading up to Christ? Does He raise Judges to meet the situation? Does He endow dynasties to bring continuity in their claims of prerogative and duties of noblesse oblige. Does He act according to the aggregate force of myriad individuals motivated by Holy and other spirits. The readings for Advent 2 stress in some respects the dynastic person of Jesus, and in others His emergence from pre (actually proto) dynastic influence. Why proto? A sprout from the root of Jesse -- from the stump of a felled tree. Just as I have several trees in my yard with multiple trunk, all sprouted from the stumps of felled trees. Jesus as Plan B, conceived coincident with the Plan A (David himself Plan B, following Saul?) of dynastic and geographically concentrated Presence of the people through whom God makes testimony of Himself.
That was some awkward language above.... Sheesh. I'll let it stand, though. Perhaps it will introduce sufficiently this implication of 'shoot from the stump of Jesse,' (Isaiah 11:1) that more lucid voices will run with it. I'm certain many already have. But most the commentaries I've viewed simply ignore that language and see Jesus in light of Davidic lineage, not in light of "OK, the intention was good -- but the execution not so. Lets begin again according to the same intention, not the attempt to salvage a lost cause." implied by the literal metaphor (is that an oxymoron?).
Pauls emphasis was on the foreign heritage of David -- the gentile heritage in the roots. The scandalous heritage, in part. The Ruth and Rahab and Tamar part.
But what strikes me in the readings is the present insignificance of a nation whose promise was to be of earth shattering significance. If prophesies are indeed prescience, then in our time, witness the centrality of Jewish claims to a homeland in the Levant and to the origin through which peoples of the Book make their claims of God's favor and revelation. Jewish claims of significance in the face of evidence to the contrary have been vindicated. They've not vanished into the obscurity of assimilation. They've not been diminished as the relics of an object of anthropological patronizing interest. They are ascendant. People do bring tribute and come for judgment. The world predicted, indeed promised, has come to be. And Christianity is incidental, perhaps instrumental to the fulfillment. The argument that Christianity is central, itself the fulfillment -- is what evangelical and institutional Christianity is invested in. It's a weak argument, in my mind.
But this blog entry was started and titled to reflect on how reliable these 'Jesus fulfilled the promises made from the time of the patriarchs' claim are. When I read those claims and then read, in context, the prophesies referenced, I go "Huh!" How do they get that? I wonder what the rabbinical lore of the time was -- the scholars who said "We will know God's anointed by these signs" to which the Gospels and Apostles and Church Fathers responded by providing evidence that such indeed happened in Christ's person and the subsequent life of the Church. What did Jesus show those men as they walked toward Emmaus? Would that convince me, to hear his words? Or would his words seem equally a stretch and snare as those of Paul and the Evangelists?
Bottom line -- I hate this prophetic validation of Jesus's person and office. I hate the miraculous ones. Why, in the face of finding all this purported proof of Christ's divinity not only unconvincing, but repulsive, do I still cling to Christ being not only an anointed person, but the Divine person, God Incarnate? I want to believe. I wish it were true, for reasons I'm sure I'll share as (if) this blog continues. I'm not sure how. The best I can do is not dismiss the evidence presented by others equally eager to make it really be so. I share their eagerness, and find therein my validation. I wish I could share their conviction. I'm sure that convictions I share with others seem equally specious as that which I've dismissed. Why do we mine Christianity for this pearl of great price? And are we even seeking the same pearl? Jesus apostles sought imperial office. Is the pearl I seek of equal vaingloriousness? Does this all too human quest for vain ends produce through grace enduring ends? Speaking of ends, I fly off on the tangent of means. I'll ponder Psalm 72 in light of where this reflection has brought me. Maybe I've got a poem in me, that will make it by the deadline.
No comments:
Post a Comment