Jesus and Israel's Tradition of Judgement and Restoration

Jesus and Israel's Tradition of Judgement and Restoration. By Steven M. Bryan. SNTSMS 117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, xv + 278 pp., $60.00.

Jesus and Israel's Traditions of Judgement and Restoration is a work that began as a Ph.D. thesis for the author's study at Cambridge University. Dr. Bryan is now Dean of Studies and Instructor of New Testament at the Ethiopian Graduate School of Theology where he has been involved in theological education since 1992.

This work attempts to break new ground in the often asked question of the degree to which Jesus' eschatology can be considered "realized." Bryan does this by considering "Jesus' expectations regarding key constitutional features of the eschaton: the shape of the people of God, purity, Land and Temple" (p. i). The work is divided into seven chapters. Following the introduction, Bryan attempts to examine the eschatological views of Jesus in terms of national restoration, the Scriptures of Israel, the restoration traditions of Israel, the purity of Israel, and the eschatological temple.

Bryan begins with two "guiding principles." These are that Jesus must be seen within first-century Palestinian Judaism (hardly controversial at this stage in Jesus research) and that the intentions of Jesus are substantially accessible (more controversial, though here Bryan cites the seminal The Aims of Jesus by Meyer). After setting out these principles Bryan attempts to answer the question "What were Jesus' intentions in relation to key constitutional features of the eschaton as anticipated by Jewish restorationism?" (p. 3).

N. T. Wright has argued strongly that Jesus' mission was to bring restoration to the new Israel. This restoration was, according to Wright, the "Victory of God." Bryan argues that while Wright is essentially correct in many ways, he has allowed the other half of Jesus' message (i.e. judgment) to recede almost completely (p. 4). Jesus, Bryan argues, must be seen as bringing both a message of restoration and judgment. Bryan has other differences with Wright; the most significant is that while Wright has proven the hope for restoration within Second Temple Judaism, he has not shown that just because one hopes for restoration this necessarily means the exile is ongoing.

Two questions become immediately apparent when one argues that Jesus brought both judgment and restoration. First, what is the evidence for understanding Jesus' mission as including both of these factors? Second, how does one relieve the tension between a message of judgment and a message of restoration?

Bryan offers a good deal of evidence for the judgment strand of Jesus' teaching. He points out the prophetic criticism inherent in many of the parables. Bryan, who is willing to admit that there are allegorical elements in Jesus' parables, chooses to focus primarily on two parabolic themes: the vineyard and the great banquet. Bryan argues that these two motifs may be the most indicative of a national dimension in Jesus' pronouncement of judgment. He rightly points out that these images could serve as both symbols of judgment and restoration, thus postulating that the wideness of the diversity in the vineyard and banquet motif may require referential inconsistency. Jesus, argues Bryan, believed that God has the right to determine who is the true Israel. As a result, Jesus calls for both national and individual repentance.

Bryan may push the envelope a little when he sees Jesus' table fellowship as an acted parable, perhaps stretching the limits of parabolic license. It must be pointed out, however, that his work here is solid, although he misses the excellent A New Vision for Israel, where Scot McKnight's work on table fellowship is very enlightening (in his defense, Bryan does cite McKnight elsewhere). From an evangelical standpoint, it is interesting to see that Bryan defends the idea that Jesus may have told the same parable in several different ways, thus accounting for different versions in the Synoptics. Bryan also argues for a dependence of Thomas on the Synoptics, rather than the other way around.

Using several pieces of evidence, Bryan goes on to argue that while the Jewish expectation was likely a restoration of Israel and a judgment of the Gentiles, in reality Jesus anticipated not just a restoration of Israel, but a judgment as well. How is it possible that Jesus is bringing both restoration and judgment? Bryan argues that Jesus presented the traditions, both of judgment and restoration, in unconventional ways.

As an example of this unconventionally, Bryan sees the temple action of Jesus as a (now widely accepted) parabolic action. He sees this not as an attack on one area of temple function or practice, but as directed against the operation of the temple as a whole, thus an act of judgment. When the temple has been destroyed one must realize that a better temple either has or will come, thus an act of restoration.

While there are the inevitable areas of disagreement, these are minor. The book is full of good analysis and helpful information relating to the work and mission of Jesus. This review has only touched the surface of this clearly written and well-organized work. Those who are Jesus scholars or who would like a fresh look at the question of the restoration of Israel will want to give it careful attention.