I noticed something interesting in the Psalms of Solomon this week that I had not noticed before. Here's the text if you want to read it.
The Psalms of Solomon, by the way (not the Song of Solomon), is a late first century BC Jewish work that is largely a reaction to the take over of Jerusalem by the Romans (63BC). Particularly humilitating-infuriating was when the Roman general Pompey went into the Jerusalem temple and even entered the Holy of Holies.
By far the main thing I gain from this work is its sense of the Lord Messiah in chapters 17-18. Clearly the Messiah for this writer is a human, Jewish political figure who will drive the Romans out of Jerusalem. Traditionally, it has been considered the work of a Pharisee, although we really don't have enough evidence to say.
The writing was not found at Qumran, which suggests to some that it was not Essene. However, in my opinion, its theology would fit just fine with broader Essenism (as opposed to Qumran Essenism). The comment about oath taking seemed significant in this regard.
All that is background. The tidbit I noticed this week that I have not noticed before is the way it talks about the "righteous" and "sinners." What struck me was its comment about how fasting and the equivalent of repentance atone for the unintentional sins of the righteous (3:8).
Here were the thoughts about this comment in the context of the Psalms of Solomon:
1. Notice that the righteous have sins--but they do not change the overall designation of "righteous." The key is the attitude/orientation of the person. This person does not intentionally sin against God and others, and is repentant when s/he does sin.
2. The sinner, on the other hand, would seem to be a) the Gentile outside of Israel who violates Israel and b) the person who flagrantly and intentionally does wrong in Israel (like the Hasmonean priests).
What does this have to do with anything?
With some significant modifications in relation to Christ and the Gentiles, it seems to me a fair analogy for the NT perpective on sin.
1. The righteous are those who have put their trust in what God has done through Jesus Christ. They may sin unintentionally, but they do not sin "with a high hand." If they were to fail in this regard, they would immediately repent. They do not willfully do that which they know goes against God's known will. They are considered righteous despite unintentional sin.
2. Sinners are those who willfully and intentionally violate God's will, whether Jew or non-Jew, but primarily referring to those who have not trusted in God's work in Christ.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It is interesting to me that it is only the "righteous" that are concerned with distinctions of "righteousness and unrighteousness"...Jesus seemed not to focus on "his own righteousness" ("Don't call me good, there is only one "good")....and the people he ministered to were not condemned (or labeled) as "unrighteous" (even though, according to the "tradition", they were)....but exorted to "put away sin" or "go and sin no more".... It is only "love" that keeps a person within the bounds/boundaries of and around "community", which is what righteousness is all about...and it is a "dance" of sorts (so sorry for the "Wesleyans!), to learn how we should use our gifts within community without stepping on other's toes!
I need Angie to point out the section of the Discipline of The Wesleyan church forbidding dancing..what was that paragraph reference again Angie?
Keith, point well taken, as I'd assumed certain rules would be rules of Wesleyanism...and the metaphorical/literal understandings of "dance" was what I was referring to....Understanding the metaphorical, which is interpretive, is how we understand "reality" and that plays out in our life...as what is important....not understanding that "reality" is interpretive (models in our head), leads one toward dogmatism, absolutism or scientism (and certainly miscommunication!).(But, you know all that...)
Questions for Ken...there is a Smithsonian seminar on the Dead Sea Scrolls...and it mentioned that the Essene (Qunram) were the presupposed fore-runners of Christianity.(?) It also stated that John the Baptist was possibly from the Essene sect... So, how are the Pharisees "related" to the Essene sect, except through Judiasm? And what implications does that have on understanding the "message of Jesus"? And how did the sects affect Jesus' message? And since Paul was a Pharisee, how was Paul's understanding of the "gospel" affected (since he seems to be dismissive of his identity with Pharisaism in Corinthians)? If you have resources b/c the answers would be too lengthy for the blog, that would be helpful, too...
The relationship between the Essenes, John the Baptist, and early Christianity is a somewhat speculative one. There are a lot of parallels, any one of which could be random. But there are a lot of them.
The Essenes and the Pharisees were not friendly with each other. The Essenes were stricter and labeled them "followers of smooth things." I wonder if the two came from similar origins but split around the year 150BC, with the Pharisees siding with the Maccabeans over and against an Essene known in the scrolls as the Teacher of Righteousness.
It seems to me that Jesus would not have made a good Essene, because he seems to have flaunted purity issues. On the other hand, I wonder if many in Jerusalem Christianity were Essenes.
As far as Paul, I've wondered if Pharisee-Essene conflicts stand as part of the background of his tensions with the Jerusalem church.
But all these things are speculative, unprovable. I was looking at a book this morning called The Library of Qumran by Helmut Stegemann that deals with these issues.
There are no certain answers here, only speculations.
Post a Comment