Showing posts with label Historical Jesus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Historical Jesus. Show all posts

Monday, September 29, 2014

Mark 13: Second Coming or Something Else?

The Last Judgment, Jean Cousin. Source
Growing up as a pastor's kid, I read the Bible a lot. Not because I was forced to, nor because I was a radically committed Christian; rather, it was simply the one book that was available at all times, and I tended to reach for the nearest book whenever I got bored. (It was particularly helpful in enduring long church services when I lost track of the sermon. Sorry, Mom and Dad.1)

Reading the Bible undirected is a tricky thing. Contrary to what a certain class of Christian might tell you, it's not always the case that any reasonably intelligent person can read the Bible in their own language and correctly understand the plain meaning of the text.2 Sometimes the Bible's authors used cryptic language and obscure cultural references to get their points across. And sometimes it's not even actually clear to the reader that the authors are being obscure: often, when Christians read the Bible, their perception of the text can be altered by what they already know, or think they know, about the Bible and Christianity.

All that is to say that sometimes, while reading my Bible in church because I was bored, I would come across things that confused, disturbed, or frightened me. One text that did all three was Mark chapter 13. Here it is in full:
As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!” Then Jesus asked him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.”

When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?” Then Jesus began to say to them, “Beware that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name and say, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray. When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birthpangs.

“As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them. And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations. When they bring you to trial and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say; but say whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

“But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; the one on the housetop must not go down or enter the house to take anything away; the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat. Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that it may not be in winter. For in those days there will be suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, no, and never will be. And if the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut short those days. And if anyone says to you at that time, ‘Look! Here is the Messiah!’ or ‘Look! There he is!’ —do not believe it. False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But be alert; I have already told you everything.

“But in those days, after that suffering,

the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light,
and the stars will be falling from heaven,
and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

“From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

“But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. Therefore, keep awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn, or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly. And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake.” (NRSV)
Here's what I found upsetting about this passage: it's clearly about the second coming of Jesus—we have a series of tribulations and catastrophes, and then a picture of Jesus riding on the clouds down to earth amid falling stars and darkened sun and moon. Trouble is, Jesus says very clearly that "this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place." So either (a) Jesus was wrong about when he was coming back and when the world was going to end, (b) the phrase "this generation will not pass away" doesn't mean what it clearly means, or (c) this passage is actually about something else altogether. Each of these options is its own particular flavor of disturbing and confusing, and the confluence of all three frightened me quite a bit when I encountered the Mark 13 on my own as a kid.

Christian interpretation in the last few centuries has typically either ignored this problem altogether or found some way to make answer (b) work. I've never found this approach satisfying; if you turn "generation" into a metaphor for the human race (the usual strategy for this interpretation) then Jesus is saying that, um, not all humans will be dead when the second coming happens. Which, I wasn't particularly worried about? And doesn't really seem necessary to say?

Approach (a) has been popular in a certain stream of New Testament scholarship since Albert Schweitzer wrote The Quest of the Historical Jesus in 1906. He believed that Jesus had predicted the imminent end of the world but was simply wrong, and that Jesus was therefore neither infallible nor divine. Schweitzer drew heavily on Mark 13 (and its parallels in Luke and Matthew) for his thesis, but also pointed out that the many of the first Christians seem to have expected the return of Christ within their lifetimes. (A different stream of New Testament scholarship has asserted that Jesus just didn't say this kind of stuff and that it was made up for him by later Christians.)

This approach has obvious drawbacks for orthodox Christians like me, but it's also not a particularly accurate vision of what's going on in Mark 13.

+   +   +


So what exactly is going on in Mark 13? In a lot of translations, you'll get section headings like this:

Mark 13:1-2 -- Jesus Predicts the Destruction of the Temple
Mark 13:3+ -- The Signs of the Times and the End of the Age (NKJV)

Mark 13:1-2 -- The Destruction of the Temple
Mark 13:3+ -- Signs of the End of the Age (NET)

Mark 13:1-2 -- Jesus Foretells Destruction of the Temple
Mark 13:3+ -- Signs of the Close of the Age (ESV)

You get the picture: it's as if the first two sentences of the chapter are about one thing—Jesus predicting the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem—and the rest of the chapter is about something entirely separate—the "signs of the end of the age."

Let's imagine for a moment that we don't have those headings to guide us (they're not in the original text, after all). How does the text read all together? I'll tell you how: it reads like an Old Testament prophet's pronouncement of warning and judgment on a city.

What we have in Mark 13 is not a prediction of a far-off event centuries in the future, which would have been very untimely and weird if Jesus had uttered it when Mark says he did. Remember, in Mark 13, Jesus has already ridden triumphant into Jerusalem with crowds adoring, and set himself in opposition to the Temple system by overturning tables and driving out the functionaries necessary to get things done there.3 When the disciples gesture at the buildings around them, they do so in Jerusalem, and they include the Temple. When Jesus says that no stone will be left on another, he refers to Jerusalem and the Temple. When the disciples ask when these things will happen, Jesus continues to refer to the Jerusalem and the Temple. He doesn't switch subjects suddenly to the "end times" as we think of them: he answers their question about the thing he just said would happen.

Destruction of Jerusalem, Ercole de Roberti. Source

What follows is a series of warnings about what it will look like when Jerusalem falls to the Romans:4
“Beware that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name and say, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray.
Jesus warns that there will be people claiming to be the messiah. That checks out: messianic claimants were a dime a dozen in this period.
When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birthpangs. 
The fall of Jerusalem will be preceded by various international conflicts and even natural disasters. Again, none of that is surprising; the Roman empire was a tumultuous place at times, and wars were common.
“As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them. And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations. When they bring you to trial and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say; but say whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 
Jesus' followers will be persecuted when Rome is besieging Jerusalem. This was an entirely reasonable prediction, given that Christians were a Jewish group that didn't want to fight Rome when nearly everyone else did.
“But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; the one on the housetop must not go down or enter the house to take anything away; the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat. Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that it may not be in winter. For in those days there will be suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, no, and never will be. And if the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut short those days. And if anyone says to you at that time, ‘Look! Here is the Messiah!’ or ‘Look! There he is!’ —do not believe it. False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But be alert; I have already told you everything.
When the destruction of the city actually comes, Jesus' followers are to run: this is not their fight. Don't go back for your coat; just get out of there! Because it's going to be real, real bad.

What happens next in the text is what confuses people; even if you've followed me to this point, it's hard for modern, American Christians to read the sun going dark and the son of man riding on the clouds as anything but end-times, judgment day stuff:
“But in those days, after that suffering, 
the sun will be darkened,and the moon will not give its light,and the stars will be falling from heaven,and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory. 
The thing is, these are direct Old Testament quotes, and they already refer to specific ideas that are quite separate from later Christian end-times thinking.

The thing about the sun and moon going dark and the stars falling is cribbed from Isaiah; it's standard symbolic language in the Old Testament prophets for "what's about to happen is terrible, and it is of cosmic theological significance." What it doesn't mean is that the stars will literally fall from the sky or the sun literally go dark. It didn't mean that in Isaiah, where it's referring to the fall of Babylon, and it doesn't mean that here when it's about the fall of Jerusalem. This is the kind of event that's so significant, wondrous, and terrible that it can't be properly expressed in ordinary, prosaic terms.

The thing about the son of man coming on the clouds is a quote from Daniel 7:13-14. In the original text, the son of man figure is coming on the clouds up into heaven, not down to earth. It takes place after a series of terrible struggles on earth, and it symbolizes the son of man figure being vindicated over his enemies after that struggle. It's not about Jesus descending to earth; it's about Jesus' vindication after a period of strife.

What do we get when we put these two symbols together? Jerusalem is judged and destroyed, and Jesus is vindicated.
Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
The "angels" here is simply the Greek word for "messenger." This sentence is about the early Christians, Jesus' messengers, spreading the good news to the ends of the earth, gathering people to sit down and feast in the kingdom of God.5

One of Jesus' key themes was condemning the xenophobic, the anti-Roman, revolutionary spirit of his day throughout his ministry. The Jewish people wanted to be free from Roman rule, and they wanted God to rule them instead. Jesus said that God's kingdom was already breaking in upon them, but that it wouldn't look like a violent revolution at all. He predicted that many would reject his message and choose the way of violence instead, which would soon lead to national calamity. Jesus is saying in Mark 13 that the day Jerusalem is destroyed will be the day my words come fully true, the day you will know that what I told you was right, and that you, my disciples, chose the right path. And when this happens, they'll know that their mission to gather people into the kingdom from the ends of the earth is blessed by God.

Mark 13 is not the second coming. It's something else.

+   +   +

American Christians often want to read the Bible as if it was written just for us. We want the Bible to tells us how to live our lives, so it's tempting to open it up and see a message that applies to us in each and every page, sentence, phrase, and word. But the Bible isn't like a handbook for life; it's not a map, or a book of rules. The Bible is stories. Some of the stories may have things we can pull out and apply to everyday life. Some may simply tell us what came before. All of the stories are connected, literally bound together, and, for Christians, all of them point us back to Jesus' life, ministry, message, and death.


1. But really, how mad could they be? I was reading the Bible. In church. That's pretty much a win, right there.

2. This idea is part of an interconnected web of ideas about reading the Bible called biblicism. Biblicist thinking is pervasive in American Christianity. I've written some things about it here. A list of the tenets of biblicism can be found here.

3. The combination of the term "money changers" with Jesus' oracle about "a den of robbers" has often led interpreters to see this action as being about unscrupulous vendors screwing people out of their money in God's house. In fact, the money changers were quite necessary: they made sure you didn't bring sacrilegious, pagan coins bearing Caesar's image into the Temple, and the money they changed for you could then be used to buy an unblemished animal. If you were coming from far away, the chances of getting an animal to the Temple without injury or blemish were slim, and then you'd have an animal you couldn't sacrifice. There was no cheating or robbing going on in the traditional sense.
Rather than being about condemning greed, Jesus' Temple action seems to be about condemning the religious authorities and systems of his day, in particular their exclusivity and revolutionary ambitions against Rome. The word lestai, often translated "robbers," is better translated as "bandit" or even "revolutionary," and has a much more political bent to it then the usual translation allows. Barabbas and the two criminals crucified with Jesus were all lestai. In any case, the Temple action is an extension of a major theme of Jesus' whole ministry: he sets up himself and his followers as an alternative to the Temple system throughout the gospels, most plainly in his claim to offer forgiveness of sins, which was thought to only be available through sacrifice at the Temple.

4. Note that many scholars consider this stuff to be later Christian interpolation, describing as it does a historical event in 70 AD: the destruction of the Temple and the sack of Jerusalem. Given that (a) the actual details Jesus offers don't look much like the real life Temple destruction—e.g., a warning to flee to the mountains would have been moot when, in 70 AD, the mountains around Jerusalem were all occupied by Roman forces—(b) there are prominent details about the actual sack of Jerusalem, like cannibalism in the city during the siege, that we know about from historical accounts but which are missing from the account in Mark, and (c) the nationalistic, revolutionary course Israel was on made it not terribly difficult to predict the destruction of the Temple and city anyway, I'm disinclined to see this chapter as a later invention. It reads like the words of a thoughtful and theologically creative man, who had drunk deeply of the Old Testament prophets, delivering a warning to his followers about the likely political future.

5. I'll footnote the commentary on the rest of the chapter, since this post is getting quite long, and the rest is of lesser importance to my main point.
“From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. 
Jesus uses the image of the fig tree putting forth leaves in season as a poetic way of wrapping up his description of the signs and warnings. Just like the fig tree growing leaves means summer is coming soon, so these signs (wars and rumors of war, false messiahs, famines) will alert you that things are about to get even worse. What Jesus has said here will not be forgotten.
“But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. Therefore, keep awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn, or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly. And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake.”
The exact time for this event has not been revealed to anyone. It's going to be unexpected, like the head of household leaving without telling his servants when he's coming back. Just like the servants need to be alert for his return, the disciples need to be alert for the coming catastrophe, so they can leave and continue the work of the kingdom.     

Monday, December 16, 2013

Does Jesus' Skin Color Really Matter? (Yes. Yes It Does.)

by Dave Mantel

First, this happened:


Then, this happened:



Then something like this:


And I saw people say things like (all sic):
"Jesus decendant from David, tribe of Juda, an Israelite, the Europian white people today are the Israelite migrants over the cacus mtns, hence cocasians, we can conclude he was white."

"Jesus may have been middle eastern but I'm pretty sure his father wasn't lol. So his skin color could have been anything."

"A divine entity. He no longer has a cultural heritage. Let's allow Jesus to save people instead of using Him to advance our own agendas"

"Jesus is NOT middle eastern. Jesus WAS middle eastern. For 30 some odd years 2000 years ago. Jesus IS the eternal God and heaven is his address. He is so hard to describe that those who have seen his true glory use only symbols: "white as snow", "pure light", "flaming fire". They all shuddered at his sight and felt as they were as good as dead. It's hilarious that we should all debate to describe someone who by his very essence is beyond any description." 
All of those just lived on ONE Facebook post. I haven't even started on the blog posts yet... anyway, as you can see, there's a pretty wide range of ideas here in opposition of the idea that the race of the historical Jesus matters. As it happens, James already posted a very helpful introduction to this "historical Jesus" a few weeks ago here on the blog. Read that HERE. But in case you don't want to do that, let me just share this tiny bit with you:
A minority of Christians think and read about the historical Jesus, but most of us avoid this question [of who the historical Jesus really was]. Some of us just don't care, basically saying "Christianity is what we have now. It doesn't matter exactly happened back in Jesus' day. What matters is my faith today." But many of us are genuinely afraid of what we might discover about the historical Jesus. What if we find evidence that Christianity just doesn't make sense? That Jesus wasn't who we thought he was, and our religion is just...silly?

These are things that can keep Christians away, but refusing to look at the historical Jesus is a little intellectually dishonest. We're essentially saying saying that the truth doesn't matter. What's more, though, if we avoid these big questions about the historical Jesus, we risk missing out on answers that can enrich and help our faith. 
So that's what we're dealing with right off—there is a large group of religious people who just do not care to know anything about the historical roots of Christianity—i.e., Jesus—and because of that, have mutated this religion into something other than what it started out as; in this case, transforming Jesus from a man who actually existed in space and time and history to some strange caricature in the name of timeless divinity. But why is it important that Jesus be a man tied down by such things as ethnicity and skin color? Isn't he beyond all of that now? I hear you asking those questions. And my answer to them is this: it's important because if we pluck out the bits of Jesus that we want to use today, leaving behind all the perceived uninteresting or irrelevant bits, we're creating a new, hollow religion based on something wholly unreal. White American Jesus is not the Jesus in the Bible, and thus (if you claim to believe the Bible) not God. He is a construct of our minds and our times, and an idol.

Secondly, by creating a god in our own image, placing him in our culture and time, we're missing out on so much of the actual richness and meaning to be found in the Bible. Reading scripture through 21st century, western eyes is difficult to begin with, but it is even harder when we are indoctrinated with the idea that the actual context of scripture is irrelevant because Jesus has transcended all of that.

"So Dave," you may ask, "what skin color did Jesus have? Just so I can be straight on the issue." And the answer to that question is: nobody actually knows! I know. Crazy.

I personally hold the idea that he probably looked like Sayid from LOST, but the Bible never mentions Jesus' skin color. We know he was Jewish, grew up in Egypt and Nazareth (the hood), but that's pretty much it. Is that important? It's super important.

Remember LOST?...Never mind. I don't want to talk about it.

It's important because, on the one hand, we have this historical context to place Jesus in—he had a family, friends, a home he grew up in, a place in history...he was a person. But he also transcends that. Theologians love these kinds of both/and situations. So Jesus was a person tied to an ethnicity, gender, skin color...but, being God, he also transcended those things for us—most clearly in scripture, through his words. The kinds of people Jesus taught us to be when he said, "Follow me," are the kinds of people who are beyond ethnicity, beyond culture, and beyond every other thing that divides. Yet, those things still make up who we are, just as they made up who Jesus is. It's amazing!

There's a cool paragraph at the end of a good article that appeared in the Atlantic this week on this very subject, which reads like this:
Within the church, eschewing a Jesus who looks more like a Scandinavian supermodel than the sinless Son of God in the scriptures is critical to maintaining a faith in which all can give praise to one who became like them in an effort to save them from sins like racism and prejudice. It's important for Christians who want to expand the church, too, in allowing the creation of communities that are able to worship a Jesus who builds bridges rather than barriers. And it is essential to enabling those who bear the name of Christ to look forward to that day when, according to the book of Revelation, those "from every nation, tribe, people, and language" can worship God together.

Monday, December 2, 2013

The Historical Jesus & The Divine Messiah

by James Davisson

A few months ago, a big controversy blew up over an interview in which a Fox News reporter repeatedly asked a Muslim scholar why he had written a book about Jesus, as if this were the most utterly baffling thing! His response was basically "because I'm a scholar of religion and because Jesus is an interesting religious figure," which most people seemed to think should have been good enough.

All this talk got me interested in the book this guy wrote, which I read some reviews of and which sounded like a pretty middle-of-the-road book about "the historical Jesus." And it got me thinking about the value of the historical Jesus for Christians; what can thinking about and reading about the historical Jesus do for us? 

What does "the historical Jesus" even mean?

It's basically the answer to a BIG problem Christians don't think about too often, either because it's too scary or because it seems irrelevant to us. The problem is this: Christianity is a religion. It focuses on worshiping Jesus as God and celebrating his death and resurrection.

But, if you think about it, there's a HUGE question to be asked about this religion: did the historical person, Jesus—who lived and breathed and taught and healed in first-century Palestine—intend to start a religion? If so, how do we know? If not, what were his intentions? It all boils down to this: who exactly was Jesus, what did he want, and what was it like in the world he lived in?

Was Jesus white? Did he have a beard?
Was he constantly glowing? We may never know.

Why should anyone care?

A minority of Christians think and read about the historical Jesus, but most of us avoid this question. Some of us just don't care, basically saying "Christianity is what we have now. It doesn't matter exactly happened back in Jesus' day. What matters is my faith today." But many of us are genuinely afraid of what we might discover about the historical Jesus. What if we find evidence that Christianity just doesn't make sense? That Jesus wasn't who we thought he was, and our religion is just...silly?

These are things that can keep Christians away, but refusing to look at the historical Jesus is a little intellectually dishonest. We're essentially saying saying that the truth doesn't matter.

What's more, though, if we avoid these big questions about the historical Jesus, we risk missing out on answers that can enrich and help our faith. 

But James, I'm not a Christian.

So, what, the person whose life started the world's most practiced religion is totally irrelevant to you? There are literally billions of people currently affiliated with this guy, and tons more who were formally associated with this guy (RIP dead people). If thinking about who he really was a little bit seems completely boring and worthless to you, you need to grow a little curiosity, man. Is all I'm saying. 

Okay, prove it. Prove that this is interesting and important.

Word. I'll try.

Real talk: Jesus' heart got up to some wacky stuff in its day.

Topic: How could Jesus be the Messiah?

A big problem that comes up a lot for Christians is that Jesus was not the Messiah the Jews expected. I've actually heard this occasionally from  Jewish friends: "James, Jesus just doesn't fit the profile for the Jewish Messiah."

Putting aside for now the question of what modern Jews expect from a Messiah, let's talk about the Jews of the Jesus' time, the first century CE. The Jews of Jesus' day were expecting a descendant of king David to come to Jerusalem, defeat the Romans, and set up a kingdom of God on earth. This is what we learn in church, and this is what has long been believed in scholarly circles.

So Jesus failed to come through on most of that. He didn't defeat the Romans, he didn't set up a new kingdom: nothing. Let's set those issues aside for the moment; I may come back to them in another post, because they're interesting. The biggest problem with Jesus being the Messiah is actually that Christians believe he was God. Not only that, but we even believe that Jesus himself thought he was God and that he even claimed to be God. Everyone knows the Jews were, are, and always will be absolute monotheists. The Jews of Jesus' day only believed in one God, and he wasn't some person who walked around and talked to people, but an all-powerful cosmological figure! So it's a big problem for Christians to think that Jesus told people he was God. Wouldn't his fellow Jews just have called him crazy? Why would anyone follow this guy? It all sounds made up and weird.

There are two traditional approaches to this specific problem with the historical Jesus, which I'll call "the problem of the divine Messiah."


Would God really flash the sign of the horns in a portrait?
There's no way God is into metal. Therefore Jesus isn't God. QED.

THE PROBLEM OF THE DIVINE MESSIAH

The Skeptical Approach:

Skeptics and scholars often resolve this problem by saying that Jesus never claimed to be God. They say that Jesus' divinity and claims to be divine were invented by later Christians.

What's missing in this approach is a compelling historical reason for Christians to have come up with the idea that Jesus was God on their own. Without a supernatural event like the Resurrection (which a skeptic would naturally exclude), Christians don't seem to have had any reason to come up with the notion that Jesus was God. It would have been sheer madness for them to have imagined it on their own. And an argument that ends up implying that early Christians were all simply crazy is not particularly satisfying.

The Christian Approach:

Christians have generally said something like "God doesn't play by human rules! Just because the Jews of Jesus' day weren't expecting it, doesn't mean that Jesus couldn't have been God."

What's missing in the Christian approach is a compelling non-religious reason to buy this answer. If you're not starting from a place where you know God exists and can do amazing things, there isn't any reason to buy the idea that God just thought up a crazy, unexpected scheme to come to earth and die. And while it's okay to only have religious reasons to believe religious ideas, it is undeniably helpful and powerful to have logical, historical information that backs up your religious beliefs.

So both approaches leave something to be desired.

+  +  +

The Historical Jesus Approach:

I want to talk about two scholars, one Jewish, one Christian, who, in looking at the historical Jesus and his context, have come up with some much more compelling responses to the problem of the divine Messiah.


(1) Daniel Boyarin: The Idea of the Messiah in the 1st Century

One sneaky and excellent way to tackle this problem is to question the basic premise. Daniel Boyarin, in his book The Jewish Gospels, argues that it's just not true that the Jews of Jesus' day weren't expecting a divine Messiah.

Boyarin shows that there were actually many competing ideas about the Messiah in the first century CE. In order to prove, then, that the historical Jesus could have thought of himself and spoken of himself as God, we only need to know that some Jews of Jesus' day believed that the Messiah would be God.

In other words: if at least some Jews expected the Messiah to also be God, they might not have reacted to Jesus as completely crazy when he claimed to be both the Messiah and God. And early Christians, in turn, would not have had to come up with the idea out of thin air after Jesus' death, because it would already have been both a part of Jesus' ministry and the culture around them.

Boyarin spends several chapters giving the reader insight into 1st-century Jewish readings of Daniel 7, a text in which Daniel sees a vision of someone described as "an Ancient of Days" transfer his power and glory to someone who looked like a "Son of Man." Almost all first-century Jews took this chapter to be a picture of the relationship between God and the Messiah. And Boyarin argues persuasively that many of them would have interpreted it to mean that the Messiah would share not only God's power and glory, but also God's divinity.

Boyarin backs this idea up with analysis of a 1st-century Jewish text, 1 Enoch, in which someone called a Son of Man (= the Messiah) sits on God's throne and exercises God's authority:
"And he sat on the throne of his glory, and the sum of judgement was given unto the Son of Man, and he caused the sinners to pass away and be destroyed from off the face of the earth, and those who have led the world astray." (Enoch 69:27)
In The Jewish Gospels, Daniel Boyarin shows that the problem of the divine Messiah is not actually a problem at all. He argues that it would have been totally possible for a Jew, like Jesus, in first-century Palestine to claim to be both the Messiah and God without all of his fellow Jews assuming he was simply insane. They might think he was a liar, a blasphemer, and someone intending to lead them astray, but only because they did not believe his claim, rather than that the claim itself was impossible.

+  +  +


 (2) NT Wright: Jesus as Divine Redeemer, New Temple

In his book, The Challenge of Jesus, NT Wright goes a step further than Boyarin: not only was it possible for someone to make a claim to be both God and Messiah, but it is extremely likely that Jesus thought of himself this way.

Wright starts by discussing an image that's all over the Hebrew Bible: after the exile of the Jewish people, God would return in person to Jerusalem and restore justice to his people. This idea can be found in a range of books, from Isaiah and Ezekiel to Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, all the way to Psalms.

The problem was, Wright says, that until this actually happened, the exile wasn't really done for the Jews; they had returned physically to Israel, yes, but they were still an oppressed, occupied people until God returned to Jerusalem. The spiritual exile, in which God had not yet restored them to their rightful place as God's beloved people, wasn't over yet. This was a terrible situation, and Jews prayed and hoped fervently for the end of this spiritual exile.

Wright then goes on to show how, on every step of his journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, Jesus saw himself and portrayed himself in the role of God returning to Jerusalem to wipe the slate clean and end Israel's exile, once and for all. One amazing example to me was the story of the prodigal son; I'll quote Wright here:
"Among the dozens of things people regularly and often rightly say about this parable, one thing is missed by virtually everybody, though I submit that it would have been blindingly obvious to most first-century Jewish listeners. A story about a scoundrel young son who goes off into a far pagan country and is then astonishingly welcomed back home is—of course!—the story of exile and restoration [that is, the son is a metaphor for the Jewish people]. And Jesus told the story to make the point that the return from exile was happening in and through his own work. The parable was not a general illustration of the timeless truth of God's forgiveness for the sinner, though of course it can be tranlsated into that. It was a sharp-edged context-specific message about what was happening in Jesus' ministry." (The Challenge of Jesus, 41-42)
Jesus saw his own coming to Jerusalem as acting out God's ending the spiritual exile of his people. It makes sense to say that he saw himself and portrayed himself as God.

Wright also makes a powerful case for Jesus claiming God's authority and power for himself, through a discussion of the main symbols of God's power on earth (Temple, Torah) and the things God's character was thought to be composed of (Spirit, Glory, Wisdom). Jesus ends up claiming the power of each of these elements of God's power for himself.

To me, the most interesting of these was this: Jesus thought of himself as replacing the Temple, the primary symbol of God on earth in first-century Judaism. Wright shows that Jesus actually thought of himself as the new Temple. The most obvious one is this: the major function of the Temple in Judaism was that it was where you went to get your sins forgiven. Jesus, controversially, claimed the power to forgive sins for himself!

NT Wright shows us that Jesus had a well-thought-out theology of who he was and what he was sent to do. He shows that Jesus felt called to enact God's promise to return to Jerusalem and restore Israel to her rightful place, though in a way that Jews at his time did not expect. We can see ample evidence of this throughout the gospels if we look for it. I would encourage readers to check out The Challenge of Jesus for more persuasive arguments.

Conclusion:

The historical Jesus was someone who claimed to be God. This is true, and it doesn't mean that he, or his followers, were crazy. This is something to really think about, friends.

Jesus might or might not have set out with the intention of starting a new religion, but examining in detail who he was and what he did and thought need not be a scary proposition for those of us who practice the religion that came after him. In doing so, we can certainly learn something that will impact the way we live and think about our faith. I know examining this question and others about the historical Jesus through books like the The Jewish Gospels and The Challenge of Jesus has renewed and invigorated my faith, rather than weakening or killing it. What might it do to yours?


Sources:
Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels
NT Wright, The Challenge of Jesus

Photo Sources:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jezus_-_actor.JPG
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Le_Sacre_Coeur_de_Jesus_%28HS85-10-32787%29.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1135_Mosaikikone_mit_Christus_dem_Barmherzigen_Bodemuseum_anagoria.JPG

http://andyrossagency.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/jewishgospels.jpg
http://vialogue.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/challenge-of-jesus.jpg?w=594