Part 5–Jesus
Jesus enjoys a sparkling reputation in the modern West. Images of the good shepherd abound. Even troubled times in ages past whose sense of woe produced a plethora of images depicting the great and fearsome judge worked to ameliorate that image with one of the merciful Lord. There are, relative to the number of works, very few depictions of a judgemental or angry Jesus, the chasing of the money exchangers from the Temple being the most popular. In our day of social justice, eco-justice, and liberation theology, Jesus is muchly portrayed as the brave and good soul opening the door to or leading the charge for the welfare of the downtrodden and undefended. But if we were to transport Jesus from the first century to the present, and “set him loose” upon the world, how would we react, how would his churches react? Dostoyevsky attempted to examine that with his Grand Inquisitor, and Jesus fared not well. I think that were Jesus here today, he would still be dragged before the courts, both of church and state, and while that would not in the Western world end in his execution, it would lead to his excommunication, his being silenced, fined, and possibly imprisoned. The powers that be would not take kindly to being challenged by his free spirit. They that hold to the letter of the law—in any form—would not be well disposed to one who went always to the heart of the matter, the heart of the individual. Jesus is the eternal radical in the prime sense of the term. He seizes the issue by the root; he confronts the person at the core. That agility for intimacy is threatening, institutionally, personally. He might do well as a pastor of a small flock; he would never become a bishop or prime minister.
What did Jesus do? He associated with sinners and with people considered ritually unclean (tax collectors, adulterers, lepers, et al.). He disregarded Mosaic injunctions, putting himself above the Law (picking grain on the Sabbath, healing on the Sabbath, disputing teachings on divorce, etc.). He condemned as hypocritical them that were widely accredited as being most assiduous in the keeping of the Law (Pharisees, scribes). He often proceeded as would a prophet. He addressed topics of faith and morals with authority without giving any basis for his authority. If he did not assert himself to be above God’s priests and prophets, if he did not set himself on equal footing with God, his words and acts allowed for some such inferences to be made. He forgave sins. He worked signs (miracles, wonders) that attested to his audience his authority and the validity of his claims. While these things certainly endeared him not to them wanting to uphold the Law and cult, he offered everyone from scribes to zealots the greatest challenge in his actions concerning the Temple. He treated it as his own. He cleared it of them exchanging coinage. He most boldly claimed power over it in stating he could destroy it and in three days rebuild it.
To speak against the Temple was a most severe matter. It was the very heart of cult, the seat of God’s presence. To defile it was sacrilege, to speak against it was blasphemy, to act against it would cause a riot, and a riot would put the Roman occupiers on the move, possibly even into the Temple precincts, furthering the desecration. Jesus was not engaging in a thought provoking challenge. This was something that spun between blasphemy and revolution. It jeopardized the status quo, the cult, and the nation.
A prophet who claimed to speak for God, but spoke contrary to the Law or failed to have his words fulfilled was judged to be a “false prophet”. According to the Law, the false prophet was to be executed. We in the West live in secularized times. We certainly condemn acts against holy sites, but we need look to the Middle East of today to find something of the intense passion for cult, place and prophet that Judaism lived in Jesus’ day. We need to consider that on these things in Jesus’ day was hinged the very life of Judaism.
The gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus have him condemned for blasphemy. While the blasphemy reported there is equating himself with God, it is most probably the above personal confrontation with and identification with the sacred Temple that constitute the root of the charge, theologically and politically. The gospels record the use of the titles Son of Man and Messiah, and the reference to sitting at God’s right hand as the grounds of condemnation. They, however, would not have merited the charge of blasphemy. They are items of Christian polemics, situated there to make a theological point, not a historical or judicial record. Son of Man, a title from the prophet Daniel referring to an agent from God to initiate and oversee the end times, was sufficiently amorphous to be innocuous. Messiah and sitting at God’s right were terms applied to the sovereign. Josephus, the great Jewish historian of the day, references others using these terms without any charge against them. He also records threats to the Temple and its integrity are considered and executed as capital offences. The fact that tampering, in word or deed, with the Temple could also tilt the subterranean volatility of the occupation into full revolt would seem to be the reason the Jewish authorities want the challenger stopped. Until Rome entered the land, the various factions were often in open conflict. Rome brought a relative truce to these internecine bellicosities. The Sanhedrin and its allies, cognizant of Rome’s modus operandi in the face of civil unrest, wanted to hold that peace. John’s Gospel provides an ironic summary of the crisis. The high priest is depicted as unwittingly becoming a prophet. He claims that given Jesus’ growing popularity, he may well get the masses to follow him, and where he would lead them may be unknown, but Rome would not be pleased with considerable movement among the masses, and would undoubtedly intervene, even to the point of destroying the Temple and the nation. Thus, it would be better that one man be sacrificed for the sake of saving them all.
The gospels have Jesus arrested and condemned by the “rulers”, variably noted as priests, scribes, and Sanhedrin. They wanted to deal with him as quickly and quietly as possible, seemingly because of his popularity with the masses whose emotional volatility they understood. They needed to involve Rome, because the right to execute had been removed from their prerogatives. Rome delayed. The masses got involved. The “rulers” needed to insure their compliance and stirred them in their direction. Rome, threatened by the “rulers” with not taking the situation at hand seriously enough, not comprehending that this was potentially something more than a religious issue, relented. The masses, in accord with the Law that required all the people to take responsibility for an execution, give their assent with the required legal formulary “his blood upon us”. In accord with the Law, Jesus was condemned by all. In accord with grace, he died praying for the forgiveness of all.
As to how the masses could move from toddling after Jesus to clamouring for his execution, we need look no further than our own political realities. Democracy, indeed, politics in general, is more and more an exercise in public relations than an intelligent consideration of facts. [I am admittedly a Hamiltonian awaiting the arrival of a philosopher-king. Unfortunately, they who are adept on one side of that hyphenated title are usually not so on the other. Just as reality and hope, the antipodes of our existence, must be equipoised lest one ossify the other, so also it needs be said of the poles of politics. The heterosis of practice and vision occurs at the via media.] The demos are termed the masses precisely because they can be easily turned about by a shrewd hand. We acknowledge this innate frailty daily when we recite in the confession “we, like sheep”.
The destruction of the Temple and the nation in 70AD were considered by both Christians and Jews to be the divine attainder for the Jesus event. Jews saw it as judgement for the heresy of Christianity; Christians saw it as the recompense for Judaism’s rejection of God’s revelation in Jesus.
The various components of Christian scripture evolved over the span of more than half a century. The earliest works are the epistles or letters of Paul (approximately 50 to 65AD), the latest work is John’s Revelation (approximately 100AD). In between these sit the four gospels and Acts. Each preaches Jesus as Christ, but each also reflects its intended audience and the times.