becoming

In chapter 1, Jesus and Israel, Lohfink attempts to bridge the connection between the first 2 petitions of the Lord’s prayer, with the re-gathering Israel:

What is really meant by the prayer, now so strange to us, that God sanctify his name? Once again the answer is given in the Old Testament, in Ezekiel 36. There it is said that the name of God has been desecrated by the dispersal of Israel among the nations. As a result of this, all the nations say: “So this is the people of God! This Yahweh must be a miserable God, if he is unable to preserve his own people from the loss of their land!” (cf. Ezek. 36:20).

Quoting from Ezek. 36:22-24, he continues:

The text clearly shows that God himself will sanctify his name. He will sanctify it by gathering Israel in the last days from all over the world, renewing it, and making it again into a holy people.

… “Sanctify your name” — this means, in other words, nothing other than “Gather and renew your people! Let it become anew the true people of God!” Jesus was obviously convinced that this eschatological gathering of the people by God had already begun now, just as the coming of the kindgom was now taking place. And Jesus was convinced that the gathering of the people and the coming of the kindgom were occurring through him. For when Jesus acted, God acted. Precisely this was Jesus’ mystery.

Lohfink further concludes (with reference to Matt 10:6) that Jesus did not envision a mission to the Gentiles. How then do the Gentiles achieve salvation? Not “become believers as a result of missionary activity; rather, the fascination emitted by the people of God draws them close.” To Lohfink, this explains why Jesus “turned so automatically to Israel alone” because “Jesus had to work in Israel, for only if the light of the reign of God shone in God’s people would it be possible for the nations to undertake the eschatological pilgrimage.” (19)

Knowing that Matt 11.8:11-12 was originally functioned as a threat directed again Israel, Lohfink draws the parable of the great banquet in Luke 14:16-24 to further describe the crisis of Israel and her failure. The Twelve functions “not only a sign promising salvation, but also a sign of judgement. At the last judgement they will testify against Israel if Israel does not repent.” (22)

—–

At this point, it is not clear as to what Israel should repent from? Lohfink seems to hint that Israel rejection of Jesus re-gathering of God’s people was indeed the issue. In light of this, are we to assume the death of Jesus simply as “God’s plan (to regather) went wrong”? Was Jesus’ mission a re-gathering of the Twelve to be light of the world through His death and resurrection, or were they just tragic consequences with which the Son of God perceived as one possible outcome? If the Jewish people had more or less rejected His call, how much of what He had called could still be considered as a regathering of Israel? Was it re-gathering, or re-constituting?

And to ask a hypothetical question — if Israel were to accept Jesus’ call, would the cross still be necessary?

Lohfink continues in the preface:

Not long ago there was a report in the newspapers that church agencies in Berlin had established a mobile unit, an automobile equipped with short-wave radio, in which a priest, a physician and a psychologist could be summoned immediately at any hour of the day or night. That sounds very up to date: the church, in a sense, at the front, modern technology in service of the reign of God. But in reality this ecclesiastical mobile unit is a highly questionable symnol of what the church has largely become in our society: a church which takes care of the individual, an institution which offers its wares to a group of individuals.

This conception corresponds exactly to the situation of our consumer society, which Gisbert Greshake recently compared to a large supermarket. Everyone moves around with a cart and picks out what he likes and needs. In the giant “Supermarket West Germany” there is among many other things a section which offers religious products to individuals. Responsibility for this section lies with the churches. Society is very anxious that this corner remain occupied; the stock should be complete  It seems to me that the mobile religious unit in Berlin is a perfect symbol of this supermarket-church, which takes care of individuals, provides for them, and leaves them in their anonymity.

Of course Lohfink was describing the German Catholic church in the early 80’s. It is rather interesting to recall how the late 19th century liberal theology had reduced church and salvation into individualistic and profoundly spiritualized/internalized forms. In such sense, a striking resemblance can be found easily among many Chinese churches today (yet their theologies are anything but liberal!). The supermarket analogy is simply dead on in today’s church. Hence it begs the question — if contradicting theologies can produce similar phenomenon, what’s the real driving force behind it?

I decided to re-read Lohfink’s book Jesus and Community. Here are some of the quotes from his book and at times, I will write down some questions and/or comments.

Preface:

It is not much of an exaggeration to say that Jesus could not have founded a church since there had long been one — God’s people, Israel. Jesus directed his efforts to Israel. He sought to gather it in view of the coming reign of God and to make it into the true people of God. What we now call church is nothing other than the community of those ready to live in the people of God, gathered by Jesus and sanctified by his death. From this perspective, it is foolish to look to the historical Jesus for a formal act of founding the church. But it is very meaningful to ask how Jesus gathered Israel and how he envisioned the community of the true Israel, because right here we reach the ultimately decisive question of what the church should look like today. (p. xi)

A question I have always been asking: if Jesus’ work is “merely” about the gathering of (the true) Israel, what makes his death and resurrection unique then? Any prophets (like John the baptist) can call God’s people to repent and return, why Jesus? How can we stress the continuation of Israel-Church, without undermining the work of the Messiah?