Did Jesus have the authority to establish a New Covenant? Did Jesus have the authority to change how God’s people would worship God? What authority did Jesus have on earth?
I posit that Jesus had “all authority in Heaven and Earth” and that Jesus was the Son of Man, that Jesus healed the sick, resurrected the dead, and preached the good news to the poor, that Jesus was the fulfillment of the law and the prophecies, and thus he had the authority to change the dynamic between god and his people.
I can’t find anything here I disagree with. Maybe I would ask why Jesus established a New Covenant. Is the implication that there was something wrong with the old one? Seems like for God to be God, this would have to be part of the plan the whole time.
EDIT: To the authority question, I believe that Jesus had the authority to establish a New Covenant if it can be understood in terms of the Old one- that is, if His New Covenant can be understood without saying the Old was inferior or in err.
Jesus had no special powers. He was a Jewish radical, the only thing he established was his own death, from which he did not return.
The only reason the resurrected from the dead thing came about was because at the time, it was a political insult to the roman empire. Think of how the romans felt when they killed a slave, only to have him supposedly come back to life. Some god bringing back the people the romans kill is a political tactic… meant to undermine the roman power.
It was Matthew and the europeans who created a new convenant… but sabotaging the gospels in a ‘unification’ process, which basically meant going through and editing things so they would all match up.
There is no way Mark would have referred to Jesus as ‘the son of god’, it was a phrase that didn’t appear till much later… he likely wrote ‘the son of man’ referring to his place as a humble revolutionary.
Jesus did not have the authority, nor did he establish a new Covenant. If anything, he renewed the Covenant by obedience to it. By living the Covenant in love, allowing the promises of God to occur within his life, it became renewed. But this renewal process occurs every time when people allow God to fulfill his promises in their lives.
He didn’t change the way God’s people should worship, but he worshiped in truth and spirit, becoming the only temple that God ever wanted – the human soul. The Temple of Solomon and even the Tabernacle of Moses were a compromise, just as the position a King of Israel was a compromise, but at the same time they were allegories for the status of the righteous in the renewed Covenant.
He had the authority of the Son of Man, the reconciled Son of Adam. Christians see in him the realisation of the vision of Daniel, where one resembling a son of man reached the ancient of days and received eternal glory.
“Indeed, you are not far away from the realm of God.†Jesus is the reconciled Son of Man, who can heal and resurrect, and bring a message for the poor that is binding. The baptism of Christ is a reconciliatory baptism that washes away the separation between God and man – you only have to believe it and step in.
“an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” was replaced by “return evil for evil to noone” kinds of things.
Circumsition and animal sacrifices were also no-longer nessisary under the new-covenant, werent they?
Dan wants a 3rd covenant:
“Do whats best for self and the species,
and not judge yourself and others but simply seek to understand them.”
Ive tried to be as logical as possable about bible laws but sertain things i just hate about it now! Now i feel that it causes un-natural judgements and laws for natural facts of life / desires of the species that God suposedly created.
I was born into a strict religion and all the way from my childhood up it was like my mind got fed this sertain kind of crap that i cant even describe what it does and means but… its not natural. For so long in my life i was judging myself and others and… its just hard to take sometimes when i look back at God-damned religion. Do you know it feels to have to answer to someone you dont even know for all things you ever did? And feeling like you are not your own property? I did not feel human. I was not natural and not thinking the pure and simple truth. There was just so much judgement and…
The Old Covenant is based on ritual which, because we are as we are, has become perverted so nothing can be renewed leading to inner change.
The New Covenant through the help of the Spirit replacing the inner psycho/spiritual results of perversion provided the possibility for “understanding.” Jesus was always battling the Pharisees over that one: understanding vs. appearance.
Of course offering the possibility for understanding doesn’t immediately translate into understanding. More often it is either ignored, rejected, or interpreted from an earth perspective, and when believed by others, creates an “expert.”
I believe that it was the purpose of Christianity coming from “understanding” to help in its preservation for mankind. Of course once it began devolving into Christendom, its essence had to remain, if it still is, underground and available only for those who have become disappointed with Christendom sensing the presence of something behind it yet unknown but capable of providung the deeply human experience of “meaning.”
“Why” exactly! If a New Covenant was established, I agree that it had to have been part of the plan. Moreover, if we examine the old testament scriptures in enough detail, we can observe that there were prophecies of the establishment of a new covenant. In fact, overall, it could be argued that the establishment of the covenant with Moses was the establishment of a new covenant separate that from Abraham and/or Noah. Though, understandably, this is not the typical thought on this matter. But, it could be argued.
In many ways, I never think of the New Covenant as “new” because it is a bit misleading. I favor to look at it as the final stage in a multiple part agreement between god and his people.
Let us review a few things:
(1) There are several men that testify they were personal witnesses of Jesus walking among them after his death on the cross and subsequent entombment.
(2) These men testified that there were hundreds of others that saw Jesus after his death on the cross and the entombment.
(3) There were thousands of witnesses to the miracles of Jesus.
(4) There is no evidence of the Jewish people casting doubt on the veracity of the “miracles” of Jesus. They only cast doubt on whether or not those miracles are of godly source or a demonic source.
(5) The dedication of the men that documented their accounts of Jesus was strong enough that they were willing to be crucified for it…
(6) There is no reason for me to doubt the accounts of men with such dedication to the veracity of their testaments.
Who testified to this account? Where is this documented? I also don’t see the importance of a slave coming back to life being that big a deal to the Romans. Moreover, I would think that more Jews would have been on board but their dedication to their god prevented this. There is no evidence for this at all…
Perhaps if you even had a rudimentary grasp of the bible you would understand the reference of the Son of Man to Daniel’s Messiah. Humble revolutionary indeed!
[size=150]BOB[/size], seeing as how you have a much stronger grasp of the bible, at this stage I would ask you to cite specific verses in the bible that demonstrate the limit of Jesus’ authority. Remember Matthew 28:18-20? All authority in Heaven and Earth has been given to Jesus… He did change the way people worship God… they go through Jesus now. No one goes to the father except through Jesus.
If Jesus had the authority of the Son of Man, and he claimed that all authority in Heaven and Earth was his I think it makes a pretty good case that he had the authority to establish that no one went to the father except through him…
It might be well to remember that the biblical words are not literal understanding. They may not be entirely accurate having been written 100’s of years after the life of Jesus. What is important is our individual understanding of the many messages brought in both the OT and NT. To be sure, there will never be perfect agreement as to what the words mean, because each of us will see differently from our life experience.
Whether Jesus established a new covenant or had the authority to do so is really beside the point.
As a non-religious person I can still whole heartedly agree that none will glimpse that which we call God unless he understands the message brought by Jesus of Nazareth. I’ll have to agree with Bob that there was no new covenant because Jesus wasn’t appealing to the structure and ritual, but the spirit and understanding that allowed us to ‘be’ in all that is.
From my POV, there is no old or new, no covenant to be ‘kept’, there is only awareness and understanding of our spiritual nature. That was what Jesus asked of us.
I’m not overly religious, but I also can’t seem to discredit christianity… there is something inside that says ‘hey… hold on a sec here’ but I’ve studied the bible… critically. All the real historical evidence points to the fact that Matthew forged and changed parts of the gospel of Mark for whatever reason. Mark never once mentions a virgin birth… it’s only later that Matthew throws it in there. Mark was a horrible gramatisist… but he was ambititious and smart. His gospel is not a dry run of history… but a parabole of several things, including the racism that existed at the time.
The bible has been rewritten and ‘edited for unity’ so many times, and resurrected from these dead languages… to truly understand the bible you have to delve into history using some common sense. You can’t just read it. you have to study history… and think to yourself ‘hey… which of this BS is likely unadulterated’
It’s foggy at best… but it’s a hell of a lot clearer than reading the shitshow we see as the final product today, after years of European institutionalism and control of the matter.
I know that this is a bit complicated, especially as Christians have been acting for centuries as though the Jews were superseded by the “New Covenantâ€. The fact is that no such Covenant could be reliable if the old one wasn’t. If God did more than “renew†the Covenant, his word is not worth anything.
The “Good News†that Jesus goes around telling people is that God does keep his Covenant and his promises, and proceeds to show them what he means. He tells people that they have to rid themselves of a false opinion. The King that God chooses, as against the King that Israel chose, “… comes to you gentle and riding on a donkey…â€, not as a warlord. The Son of Man is the redeemed Son of Adam, re-establishing mankind to the role it should have as the crown of creation.
He tells them, “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you shall find rest for your souls.†He is said to have washed his disciples feet as a sign of the new order. He sets a child before them and says that only those who change and become like little children will ever enter the kingdom of heaven. “Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.†He said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and give his life as a ransom for many.â€
It is by humbling himself to become an instrument of the will of God that the promises of prophecy come about. This, therefore, is his calling to all who want to follow him, “follow humbly like little children and the will of God and his Realm will be effective in your midst.†It isn’t about forcing Gods hand, like the Pharisees tried to do. It isn’t about uprising, or hiding in the desert, ritually cleansing oneself. It is about doing the will of God.
It is the resurrected Christ who speaks the words of Matth. 28:18-20 and John 14 through his followers. In this context that you have to understand what is being said. He is the ignition spark of the fire he wanted to start spreading and he is the example that we have to follow. But the Covenant is the same one, except that the chasm that separated believers from God has been moved. The last representative sacrifice has been made and bride and bridegroom are united – be there!
Evidence suggests that the letters of Paul were written in circa 45 - 60 A.D. We are talking about being within 15 years of the death of Christ. The teachings of Paul clearly portray much of the historical accounts of Jesus and of the early Christian doctrine that was preached in those days. In fact, Paul outlines in Phillipians 2:6-11 that Jesus was in nature God. The book of Acts is dated as early as A.D. 62 and it has a lot of the early church history included.
There is certainly enough historical evidence (Old_Gobbo) to suggest that detracters had an interest in keeping things in in line. Any blatant lies would have made it out and out newsworthy? Why? Because of the fast spread of Christianity, because of the threat it posed to Jews and to Rome.
Tentative, the gospels may not be entirely accurate, but you would be hard pressed to find anything that has such a plethora of documents to support its historical accounts. Simply put, this stuff was not invented myth hundreds of years later…
Old_Gobbo, you have studied the bible critically? For someone who has a critical understanding of the bible you seem to miss a lot of its simple points. Moreover, if you wouldn’t mind, when you find the time, please point to some of the evidence that you have used to critically come to the conclusion that “all the real historical evidence points to the fact that Matthew forged and changed parts of the gospel of Mark…” I am very interested to learn this. I do agree with you that one must look at the bible from a historical perspective to appreciate it a better light. I just happen to disagree with your “insights”.
If the “new†covenant of Jer.31,31-34 has come into being with Christ, and the vision of Hebrews is true, we must first of all ask what this would have as consequences for Christians, since God doesn’t look at the externals, but sees into the heart of men. The vision of Hebrews pre-empts reality. “I will put my Law in their minds and write it on their hearts.†“No longer will a man teach his neighbour, or his brother, saying ‘Know the Lord…’ because they will all know me…†This still has to be fulfilled since Christians are still evangelising and the gulf between Christians and Jews is still wide.
If it were true, then I would have to assume that it was over and we would have no hope. But Paul confirms in Romans 11 that the Covenant is unconditional – for a very good reason: If the Jews were not fit to keep their Covenant, can Christianity seriously ever expect to be fit? Or, if we are forgiven, why should God forgive Christians and not Jews? There has been no superseding and the 2000 year record of Christianity proves that conclusively.
To give the writer of Hebrews the benefit of the doubt, when he spoke of the Mosaic Covenant as “becoming old†(“obsolete,†ESV), and being “near vanishing away†(i.e., ready to disappear), he may have expressed the matter in terms of the current Jewish practice. Since the vast majority of the Jewish community had rejected Jesus, the writer assumes that they continued to rely upon the Levitical system for justification. But any religious Jew will tell you that the Law of Moses is not a means of justification, but an expression of faith.
The writer of Hebrews seems to be pointing to the Jewish economy (civil and sacerdotal) which was on the verge of passing away. This eventuality would be realized in the downfall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 – which seems to have been imminent when this letter was written. Many scholars assume this to be the significance of the writer using the present tense in Hebrews 8:13. The vision of Hebrews may be that Jeremiah pointed out that nothing is eternal, and that change is on it’s way – not that it has happened.
Daniel B. Wallace wrote: “When Jeremiah spoke of the coming of a ‘new’ covenant, he implied that the covenant ‘made with the fathers’ was the ‘old’ one. ‘New’ suggests something ‘old.’ Now it is a well-known fact that anything ‘old’ is near to the point of passing away. Even the prophet Jeremiah, then, hinted that the Jewish covenant would not abide perpetually.â€
(Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics, Zondervan, 1996, p. 523).
This is very clearly a vision of consolation for Hebrew Christians who saw themselves uprooted. At the same time, the writer of Hebrews was at a disadvantage of being between the historical occurrences and couldn’t see how things would develop. He is calling upon a mystical vision to explain that the upheaval that Jews were experiencing was necessary, because the temple had only been a shadow of the heavenly reality. Building upon Daniel, he saw Christ as the heavenly High Priest, who had completed the sacrifice. The new covenant was on it’s way.
I believe Jesus battled the Pharisees on the faith issue. Their “faith†was that God would change their reality. Jesus said that “faith†would change their reality. Their understanding of scripture was good, and they were embarrassingly accurate in obeying the commandments, but their behaviour didn’t show faith in God’s word, rather they seemed to believe that they had to force God’s hand, which was what they piety was all about. Standing on the street corner in their ceremonial dress and praying openly (with many words) was their “witness†to the less pious. But, like much of what is passed as “witness†today, it is more something that the pious do for themselves, witnessing against the people and stepping into the shoes of an accuser – or adversary.
I believe that we are agreed that Christianity isn’t what it should be, but neither is Judaism or Islam. What I attempt to do is find the dialogue between the three and discover where real “witness†can take place. To me the issues haven’t changed, they have just been buried by the dust of the ages and fundamentalism of all kinds dominate the scene. That is why the community of believers and the mystical communion with God must find their way back to the Semitic origins.
Hi DoL,
Jesus is telling his followers that a militant uprising in the face of overwhelming odds leads to death and suffering on all sides. The superior way to oppose such overwhelming odds is to remain strong in the sight of oppression and invite the enemy to go too far, and thus make his barbarity apparent.
It is a stance of moral supremacy that even if it fails, puts the wind up the oppressors and strengthens the resolution of our fellow sufferer. It is also a stance of faith, being assured that doing good to oppressors is like “heaping glowing coals upon their head” - figuratively speaking of course.
Yes, there are many documents to support historical accounts, but it isn’t a question of unfolding historical accuracy, but how each document explains what is meant by what is said, and the possible questionable changes in meaning that ocurred over time. The mythical or allegorical issue simply can’t be known. Some of the later ‘myths’ may have started as an allegorical story (they used metaphor even back then) that later became ‘gospel truth’ mythology. The veracity of the gospels is uncertain from any perspective. One simply chooses to believe or not.
It is all quite beside the point. Jesus needed no authority to bring his message. All the prophesy and later words ascribed to his life as fulfillment of prophesy are questionable. It is really no different than listening to a commentator telling us what the president meant by what he just said in a speech to the nation. The commentator may be right, or he may have shaded his comments to ‘fit’ his own particular views. To suggest authenticity given the the different writers, the myriad translations, the Nicean judgements declaring what was and wasn’t ‘gospel’, is a real stretch.
Each is free to believe as they will, but to claim biblical accuracy is is the province of belief. IMO, that the message Jesus brought survived the bible is absolutely amazing. His message is clear in spite of the writings, not because of them.
