arrival

God was in a pickle (not really but let's go with it for the moment). God had promised to act decisively in and through Israel to redeem creation. Unfortunately Israel was not being very cooperative. As we discussed two weeks ago Israel, because of the trauma it had endured over the 500 or so years before the birth of Jesus, had essentially withdrawn from the wider world. Its primary goal was survival and not the redemption of the world. So what was God to do? The solution was to call forth one from the midst of Israel who would act on Israel's behalf…a messiah who would fulfill Israel's calling of world-wide redemption. Scripture tells us that this messiah was born into the lower middle class in rural area of occupied Judea. His parents named him Jesus. What is fascinating however is that each of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) treat Jesus' arrival, ministry and death in very different ways. Today we will look at his arrival.

In the oldest of the Gospel narratives, Mark, we first meet Jesus on the occasion of his baptism. There are no birth stories. There are no shepherds or angels. John the Baptist is doing his thing (baptizing Jews for the remission of sins), Jesus shows up, gets baptized and begins his ministry. Mark then shows Jesus as the teacher whose life is to be imitated. 

In the Gospel of Matthew we find a Jesus who is the fulfillment of the promises to Israel. This is made clear in that Jesus' genealogy in this Gospel places him in the lineage of both Abraham and David (as the prophets had declared), has him born of a virgin (again as prophets had declared), and then named Jesus (meaning God saves). An angel even tells Joseph that Jesus will save God's people from their sins. Thus Jesus is the one who will do for Israel, and for the world, what God had promised.

Luke expands upon this image of the work of Jesus by linking Jesus not only into the people of Israel but to all of humanity. Luke does this by offering us a genealogy which stretches all the way back to Adam. In other words Jesus will not only create a new Israel, as in Matthew, but will create a new humanity altogether. Luke, more than the other Gospels attempts to locate Jesus' birth in both specific historical moments (when Herod the Great still ruled) but also in specific places (Bethlehem, the city of David).
His account is by far the longest and most complex. In it we have shepherds, angels, people proclaiming Jesus as messiah even before he is born as well as Mary's wonderful song which we call the Magnificat. Much of this birth narrative is intended to lay the groundwork for Jesus' ministry in which the entire world is turned upside down (rich brought low, poor exalted, etc.) as it is being made new.

Finally in the Gospel of John we see the beginnings of Christ reaching even further back than Adam. In the Gospel of John we discover that Jesus was the eternal Word, the co-creator with God and the Spirit. We learn that the Word then became flesh (incarnate) in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. It is this Jesus of Nazareth who knows the Father and has come to reveal the Father and the Father's will to the world. In this sense then there is no birth story, because Jesus is eternal with the Father. Jesus' first appearance in the Gospel of John is when John the Baptist points him out and declares that Jesus is the "Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world." Thus the Gospel of John declares that as Jesus begins his ministry it should be obvious to anyone with spiritual eyes, that he is the one who will save the world.

So who is this Jesus? It is a question with which the church has been struggling for the past two thousand years. Often the church has settled for simplistic and comfortable answers. As we move down this road to redemption I hope we will be willing to be open to the wide variety of images the scriptures offer us that we might embrace Jesus in all of his fullness and complexity as the one who loved and saved the world.

born into a roman world

I have often found it interesting that Rome appears to play such a minor role in the Gospels. It is only occasionally that we run across clear references to Rome, Romans and their impact an influence on the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth. Luke sets Jesus' birth in the context of a census ordered by Caesar Augustus (63 B.C.E. – 14 C.E.). Matthew tells us a story about Jesus and a Roman Centurion (a Roman soldier who commanded 80 other men and had won this honor by his bravery in battle). All of the gospels remind us that Roman power was critical in the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. These minor references could make one assume that the relationship between Jesus, Judea and Rome was minimal at best; that it had little or no impact upon his ministry. Such an assumption would be a mistake because the Roman presence significantly impacts Jesus' mission and message in three areas.

The first was economic. As we read about Jesus' ministry, one of things that becomes apparent is that there were a great deal of poor everywhere that Jesus went. Jesus tells stories about day laborers, about fields and vineyards and about the poor in general. These stories are not simply drawn out of thin air. They reflected the living conditions within first century Judea which were brought about by the emergence of Roman domination. Prior to the Romans extending their control to Judea, the Jewish Empire under the Maccabees (the Jewish leaders who had given short lived freedom to the Jewish people from 163 B.C. to 64 B.C.) had experienced not only freedom but expansion. The state had expanded to almost the size of the original David Empire. This meant that Jews had displaced others from their homes and cities. With the coming the Romans, those lands were returned to their original owners, thus driving many Jews into landlessness and poverty. In addition Roman tax policy forced many small land owners to sell their property to larger and more wealth farmers.
The second was political. The Roman Empire was an interesting phenomenon. Unlike many of its predecessors it was willing to allow minor "kings" to rule areas under their sway as long as those "king" not only offered their allegiance to Rome but were give their titles by the Roman Senate. This is why kings such as Herod the Great (who ruled for 37 years) could rule as long as he did. However what was clear was that though they were referred to as "kings" they were in fact no more than vassals of Caesar. Caesar was the king and the Lord of the Roman Empire. Caesar (whichever one was in power) would brook no other individual who claimed to be the Lord or king of a people independent from his rule. This understanding did not sit well with the Jews. The Jews like many other dominated people desired freedom above all else. For this freedom they looked to the coming kingly messiah. As we read the Jesus stories we will encounter the pressure put upon Jesus to assume this role. We will witness the people wanting to make him King as well as his ultimate conviction and execution for claiming to be King of the Jews.

Finally there was cultural influence. Jesus was living and working in a time of great cultural transition. Just as there is American cultural imperialism in the world today so too there was Roman cultural imperialism in the first century. This imperialism was seen in the construction or reconstruction of towns in Judea in order that they reflect Roman culture (Roman baths, stadiums and Temples). These towns and what they represented caused further divisions among the Jews as to what it meant to be a faithful follower of God. The temptation was to become a Jew in name and not in practice, in order to be accepted by those in power. We witness these factors playing a role in Jesus' two meetings with Roman Centurions, Jesus' dealings with tax collectors (who had to associate with the Roman authorities) and much of his religious teaching. Thus the Road to Redemption does not exist in a vacuum but instead ran right through the Roman Empire.

the jewish context 1

 Jesus was a Jew. That statement is one that ought to cause most of us 21st Century Christians to stop and take notice. It ought to do so because across the centuries the church has often tried to remove Jesus from his Jewish roots. We have pretended that Jesus existed in some sort of religious neutral territory with the Jews on one side and the Romans on the other. This could not be farther from the truth. Jesus was born a Jew. He grew up as a Jew. He lived and worked within a Jewish context. Finally he envisioned his mission and ministry as an extension of God's work through the Jewish people as laid out in the Jewish scriptures.

The Jewish community of the First Century within Judea was fragmented into a wide variety of religious/political denominations. These divisions were complicated even more by geographical divisions within Judea itself (an example is that the Galileans were considered by Jews in Jerusalem to be low class rebels who were always advocating for political independence). The Jewish community into which Jesus was born then was not a monolithic religious community, but a highly fractured faith family. In order to help make sense of Jesus' interaction with this fractured family we will take a few moments to find out who the players were.

Pharisees: the Pharisees were a populist/democratic movement. The Pharisees (and we are not sure where the name comes from) were a logical outgrowth of the struggle for Judaism to maintain its traditions after the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians in 587 B.C. The issue for the Jews was how to remain faithful without the rituals of the Temple. Jews did so by congregating in small worshipping, praying and learning communities eventually called synagogues. After the restoration of Israel and the rebuilding of the Second Temple in 515 B.C. these communities did not vanish. Instead they became the gathering and learning centers for the poor and middle class. Their focus was on following the Law (both written and oral) and not on Temple ritual. Again we need to note that the Pharisees were subdivided into a wide variety of sects and never spoke with a single voice. One of their sayings was, "A learned illegitimate child (mamzer) takes precedence over an ignorant High Priest."
Sadducees: The Sadducees in general were conservative, aristocratic monarchists. They were responsible for upkeep of the Temple, administration of the state as well as international relations, collecting Jewish taxes to support the Temple and the priesthood, equipping and leading the Jewish Army, regulating relations with the Romans and mediating domestic disputes. Theologically they focused only on the written Torah (they did not believe in the writings or the work of the prophets), did not believe in eternal life and taught that human beings had complete free will. Because of their association with the Second Temple (which had been built with foreign funds) and the Romans they were always slightly suspect to many Jews. They looked down on the Pharisees and members of the early Jesus movement.

Herodians: the Herodians were a minor political party associated with the family and lineage of Herod the Great. It is possible that the Herodians wanted to maintain the concept of theocracy (a Jewish king over Judea insisting on the keeping of Jewish laws) and the idea that somehow Herod the Great had actually been the Messiah. In the Gospels they are usually mentioned with the Pharisees, though they are distinct.

The existence of each of these groups (along with the Essenes who are not mentioned in the Gospels) demonstrates the fractured nature of Second Temple Judaism in the time of Jesus. It also makes it clear why Jesus' mission and ministry would be viewed with suspicion by a wide variety of Jewish groups even while being lauded by the populous.

the jewish context part 2

As we discussed last week Jesus was being born into a Jewish world that was divided in any number of ways. It was divided on the basis of class, wealth, political allegiance and religious orientation. The community in Judea was therefore not a monolithic Jewish nation in which all of God's people got along or even had the same political or social aims for their nation. The divisions within the Jews of the Second Temple Period were much deeper and more antagonistic that anything we experience today. While we can pull together as "Americans" they could not and ultimately would not pull together even in the face of ultimate national annihilation. The divisions were simply too deep.

One of the places where these divisions were too deep was the concept of the messiah. While we take it for granted that the scriptures speak clearly of a messiah and we have been led to believe that all Jews were expecting a messiah to save them, this is not quite true. The idea of a messiah as we conceive it was not actually a clearly defined Old Testament concept. The only Old Testament use of the term as would recognize it is in relation to Cyrus the Great of Persia. Isaiah refers to Cyrus as the messiah because Cyrus not only allowed the Jews to return home from Babylon but helped them rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. While there are references to leadership figures in the Torah and in the books of Isaiah, Haggai and Zechariah they are leadership figures who rule after God has completed God's work of defeating the enemies of God's people. The main focus of the scriptures was always on God's actions of restoration rather than those of human agency.

Where did the idea of messiah as we know it come from? The idea first begins to take shape in the period between the last of the prophets and coming of Jesus. During this time there arose three great figures in the Jewish religious writing. There was the Davidic King, the ideal priest and the final great prophet. Each of these three persons was to play a role in the restoration of the Jewish nation. This can be seen clearly in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in early Christianity where Jesus plays all three roles. 
The Davidic messianic concept began to gain prominence when the Maccabees gained the kingship, thus displacing the Davidic lineage as well as during the time of Roman rule. This was so because many Jews believed that God would raise up the new Davidic king in order to throw out the imposter kings. In addition, books written during this period, such as the Psalms of Solomon, IV Ezra and the Syrian Apocalypse of Baruch focused solely on the Davidic king as the savior of the people. These newer writings thus allowed Jews and later the Christians to return to their older scriptures and find numerous "references" to this messianic figure.

Were the people of Jesus' day actually looking for a messiah? The answer is yes and no. There were many who believed in the concept of the messiah and thus were ready to follow anyone who would claim the title. The Book of Acts mentions Theudas and Judas the Galilean as two would-be messiahs. Josephus mentions others. The most famous Jewish messiah/rebel was Bar Kokhba who led the final Jewish rebellion from 132-136 BCE. There were however many Jews of Jesus' day and beyond who had no need of a messiah. These Jews were more than content to fight a war of independence without a messiah (any old leader would do), to follow a Jewish King (such as Herod had been), to get along with the Romans or to live in religious isolation (the Dead Sea Scroll sect). While much rabbinic literature and popular imagination sought a king like messiah, the Jewish people were not of one mind on the subject.

What this meant for Jesus was that just as he was entering a religiously and politically divided nation, he was also entering a nation divided on the person and role of the king/prophet/priest/messiah. We will witness the impact of these divisions on Jesus' ministry as he juggles the hopes, dreams, fears and expectations of the people with his own vision of ministry.