We are in the midst of a study of N.T. Wright’s book, Simply Jesus. In our previous study we considered the need of the return of God to his people (Malachi 3:1) and a new Exodus out of the state the Jews had placed themselves by rebelling against their Creator God and having him cast them out of the Land of Promise. A New Covenant had become necessary (Jeremiah 31:31), because the people of God broke the Mosaic Covenant,[1] and the Jews were at the time of their release from Babylon under Ezra and Nehemiah, without a covenant between them and God.
In their then present state, they were technically dead to God, as far as a covenantal relationship with him was concerned. The scriptures, therefore, demanded a new Exodus out of that present state of death (Ephesians 2:1-3). By its very nature, the mention of a New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31) demands the demise and ineffectiveness of the old, Mosaic Covenant. It culminated in failure with the Babylonian captivity. Therefore, if the scripture is true that God refuses to cast off his people (Jeremiah 31:37), vis-à-vis due to the Covenant God made with Abraham, the scripture also demands the return of God (Malachi 3:1) to his people to make all things right (Malachi 3:2-4) and establish the New Covenant with his people (Jeremiah 31:31). Thus, all things will be put right and be established, when the Lord returns to them. Nevertheless, the return of God will not be a very comfortable event (Malachi 3:2). Israel couldn’t endure the Lord’s Presence the first time (Exodus 20:18-19), and there is no reason to believe, she would be received more amicably upon the Lord’s return (Malachi 3:2).
Nevertheless, according to the scriptures, God promised to return to his people (Malachi 3:1), while the second Temple stood (Haggai 2:9). If the Temple was destroyed for the second time in AD 70, then, either the word of God failed, or God returned to his people, but they didn’t realize it. How we solve this problem is a testimony to our faith in God’s word.
Clearly, there wasn’t a second event, like what occurred during the dedication of the first Temple (1Kings 8:10), from the rebuilding of the Temple of God under Ezra and Nehemiah to the time it was destroyed by Titus in AD 70. Therefore, if God did, in fact, return to his people, it was under a guise, whereby it was possible for some folks to miss the event entirely, or at least it was possible for the Jews to deny that, what did occur, was God returning to his people.
During the first century AD, Rome assumed direct authority over the Jews. A Roman governor, rather than a client king or local ruler, ruled the Judean province. Moreover, hope for home rule among the Jews ran high at this time with the rise of the zealot community and due to the fact that Daniel’s prophecy was nearly fulfilled (Daniel 9:24-27; cp. Luke 23:51). These two forces, the oppression of Rome and Jewish nationalism, are two of the elements of Dr. Wright’s perfect storm in his book, Simply Jesus, vis-à-vis the cold front of Roman oppression clashed with the high-pressure system of Jewish patriotism, and into this stormy weather system entered the hurricane of the Presence of God, in the person of Jesus (John 1:1, 14; cp. Malachi 3:1).
Keep in mind, however, that Malachi promised the return of God wouldn’t be a peaceful event for God’s people (Malachi 3:1-2). As a whole, the Jewish state didn’t recognize or refused to believe the return of God occurred in the person of Jesus (John 1:1, 14; cp, John 1:9-11). As a result, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Temple (Matthew 23:37-38; 24:1-2). Indeed, the “abomination that brings desolation” would stand in the Temple (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15), but not as a signal of redemption, but as a prelude to destruction. “Heaven and Earth,” vis-à-vis the place where heaven meets earth—the Temple of Jerusalem, “would pass away” (Matthew 24:35), and it would be replaced with Jesus. He would be the Place, where heaven and earth meet (John 1:1, 14; cp. Matthew 24:30; Daniel 7:13-14).
Nothing remotely like this was ever imagined or prayed for by any Jew prior to the first century AD. Yet, judgment came. Jesus warned about its coming (Matthew 7:26-27; Luke 4:24-27; 13:1-5). In other words, Jesus was not promising a Messianic rescue of his people from the Roman oppressor. Instead, he was promising a rescue from death, itself. With the Mosaic Covenant broken, there was no covenantal relationship with God, vis-à-vis no spiritual life. It was necessary, then, for Jesus to die and be raised from the dead. Just as Israel’s history was repeated in parts of Jesus’ life, so Israel must be resurrected with Jesus from the grave of their making (cp. Romans 6:4-11).
___________________________________________
[1] There are two types of covenants mentioned in scripture, bilateral and unilateral. The Mosaic Covenant is an example of a bilateral covenant, whereby both God and man had specific responsibilities. Both were required to keep their part of the Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant demanded obedience from Israel, especially when it came to worship. They had to worship the God of Israel exclusively, but they did not. Instead, they desired to be like the nations around them, they began to worship their gods in place of the God of Israel.
An example of a unilateral covenant is that which God made with Abraham in Genesis 15. While it is true that Abraham prepared the sacrifices, God alone walked through them, showing that only he could break that Covenant. It was impossible for Abraham or any of his descendants to break it, for God alone took the responsibility of it. The New Covenant, under Jesus, is that kind of covenant. It cannot be broken by mankind. Therefore, it’s an eternal Covenant.
Smoodock's Blog 