Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§14.4 The Character of Discipleship
The shift in the terms of discussion from a gospel versus law confrontation
100 to an inner-Jewish debate is welcome, but the issues require further clarification
— on two points in particular. First, we need to remind ourselves of the
important link between law-keeping and covenant identity: certain obligations
were perceived as fundamental to Israel's identity as God's covenant people (including
Sabbath and food laws); they functioned in effect as test cases of covenant
loyalty; to be observant on these matters was to keep the covenant. 101 We
have already noted Jesus' awareness of the divisive 'down-side' of such concerns
in the corollary so often drawn, that those who failed such tests were disloyal to
the covenant, were 'sinners'. 102 And since Jesus himself was evidently criticised
for the way he (and/or his disciples) conducted himself on two of these test cases
(Sabbath and eating), the relevance of this dimension to what was at stake in
these controversies is obvious.
Second, we also need to recall that the law was the standard of right and
wrong, the measure of righteousness, of justice. What was at stake in Jesus' controversies
regarding the law was not matters of scholastic definition and dispute
but the right relations between God and his people, and among his people. We
have already noted the importance of this dimension in Jesus' kingdom preaching,
particularly in the theme of eschatological reversal (§ 12.4c). It was even
clearer in the priority he gave in his mission to preaching good news to the poor
and warnings he gave to the unconcerned wealthy (§13.4). That is why I have entitled
this section 'Hungering for what is right', rather than 'Jesus and the law'.
The title is obviously drawn from Matthew's fourth beatitude (Matt. 5.6), not because
I am particularly confident that Matthew's form can be traced back to Jesus
himself, 103 but because Matthew's version probably captures well Jesus' own
priorities on the subject.
The importance of both these further dimensions to the traditional terms of
points of opposition between Jesus and the Pharisees' (Sanders, Jesus 264); similarly Rowland,
Christian Origins 156-59. The point is pushed still harder by Vermes, Religion 11-45; Flusser
likewise argues that 'Jesus is never shown in conflict with current practice of the law' (Jesus
58-66). Several Jewish scholars have described Jesus as a Pharisee; see Hagner, Jewish Reclamation
231-32; see also H. Falk, Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus
(New York: Paulist, 1979). For the debate on possible parallels between or even influences
from Hillel to Jesus see Charlesworth and Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus Part One.
100. Or what Strecker denotes as 'the Pauline-Lutheran model' (Theology 246-47).
101. See above, §9.5d. It is Holmen, Jesus (referred to above, chapter 9 n. 56) who puts
the issue in terms of covenant loyalty; by bringing the covenant into view he revitalizes the
tired debate as to whether Jesus radicalized or relaxed Torah observance (Torahverschärfung
vs. Torahentschärfung) (Jesus 338-39).
102. See above, §13.5.
103. The passage is cited above in § 12.4c.
565