Paradoxical Fulfillment

[Drew]

Post 1 in a short series:

I suggest that certain scriptural sub-narratives can and should be interpreted such that expectations generated by the controlling narrative turn out to be satisfied (in the sub-narrativeo) in a specifically paradoxical manner. More particularly, while expectations can legitimately be seen to be fulfilled, they are not fulfilled in the manner most familiar with the controlling narrative would expect. Of course, this position is vulnerable to the critique that a fulfillment that can be characterized as paradoxical is not really a fulfillment at all. So, the objector might continue, interpretations of a certain sub-narrative that have this paradoxical character are to be rejected and more straightforward interpretations sought. After all, paradoxical fulfillment is awfully close to non-fulfillment.

While I have some sympathies to such a concern, and while it is clearly possible to push the paradoxical fulfillment line too far, I suggest it is has rich explanatory power. I think a very strong case can be made that paradoxical fulfillment was deeply ingrained in the mind of Paul is consistently argued for in the book of Romans. I suggest that, even if we did not have Paul to help us, we can see many of the the actions and sayings of Jesus as signifying His fulfillment of the controlling Israel narrative in a manner that is deeply paradoxical, yet ultimately true to the overarching story.

Consider an interpretation A of a text T that is asserted to constitute a paradoxical fulfillment of expectations E generated by a controlling narrative N. One possible mode of paradoxical fulfillment is one where A manifests the same formal or structural features as characterise E, yet effectively slots different content into that structure than is manifested by E.

Post 2 to follow...

 

[Drew]

Post 2 in a short series:

A good example of this template of paradoxical fulfillment involves the question of how Jesus putatively fulfilled Messianic expectations related to the Temple and to relations with the pagan nations. I suggest that it is relatively self-evident that at least two things were generally accepted of any Messiah who might appear in the Israel story: He would cleanse and / or rebuild the temple and he would attain victory over Israel’s pagan oppressors.

Did Jesus do these things? Yes, but not at all as expected. Consider the example of the King David in light of the expectation that the Messiah would be the “son†of David. David defeated the enemies of the people in military combat and initiated the building of the temple (although it was ultimately constructed by his son Solomon). Jesus indeed followed the pattern of this Messianic vocation – He was deeply concerned with temple matters and He did indeed do battle with Israel’s enemies. However, on both counts, His way of fulfilling expectation was not at all what was expected.

First, in respect to the temple, Jesus effectively passed judgment on it, condemned it (as exemplified by the symbolic judgement implied by his scourging of the moneychangers) and announced its imminent destruction. At a first analysis, this seems to be precisely the opposite of the Messianic vocation to be the temple-builder. And yet, Jesus indeed builds the true temple:

Jesus answered them, " Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Final post in series to follow....

 

[Drew]

Final post in short series:

Second, consider the expectation that the Messiah would defeat the enemies of Israel. For the first century Jew, this could only mean one thing – defeat of pagan Rome by military means. Again, at a first analysis, the cross seems to suggest that Jesus lost the battle and it was He who was defeated by Rome on the cross. And yet, Jesus was never intending to fulfill the mainstream expectation. Instead his battle on the cross was not with Rome, but with the powers and principalities that are the true enemy of Israel of which Rome was only a particular manifestation. And Paul declares that Jesus won this victory:

having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us;
and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,...

In summary, Jesus’ actions can be seen, in retrospect, as indeed consistent with the Messianic vocation – the true temple is built (the believer in whom the Holy Spirit) dwell and sin – the real enemy of Israel - is defeated on the cross.

 

[Joe67]

Drew,

The religious desires of the flesh and of the mind are always painting a picture of God's promises that are pleasing to us and desired to make us wise.

Like the disciples, our Lord brings us through fiery trials whereby he purges these desires and then he retrains us as he did the disciples. Jesus sent out the disciples to tell us about the operations of the Spirit of suffering, to give us fellowship in Jesus' sufferings for His body's sake, the church.

All must go through this same disappointment to be gathered unto the victory; that no flesh should glory in his presence, that we should glory only in the Lord.

Joe