Stanton and Dunn on the Kingdom

Abba & Imperial Theology

I'm currently reading through The Historical Jesus in Context, making sure that I emerse myself in primary sources. It's a fascinating read, and one that I readily recommend. Check out this quote...

Jews of the time, including Jesus, and the early Christians who cherished his memory, found in their God a father and king immeasurably greater than Rome’s ruler of the world. To announce God’s kingdom, God’s reign, was to remind oneself and one’s fellow Jews that it is God an not the emperor who truly reigns, to call upon the divine Father is to place oneself under a protection far greater than the reach of Rome. This is not to say that Jewish understandings of God as father originated under Roman influence; it is quite clear that the divine Father appears in much earlier texts. Rather, the resistance inspired by Roman rule and the accommodations it required enhanced the urgency of calls upon the Father and maker of all.[1]

D'Angelo continues with a smackeral of quotes from Jewish and Gentile sources concerning Fatherhood and the Emperor. Very informative...

[1] Mary Rose D’Angelo “Abba and Father: Imperial Theology in the Contexts of Jesus and the Gospels” in The Historical Jesus in Context eds. A. J. Levine, D. C. Allison Jr. and J. D. Crossan (Princeton University Press, 2006) pg. 66.

See also: M.R. D’ANGELO, "Abba and ‘Father’: Imperial Theology and the Jesus Traditions", JBL 111 (1992) 611-630.

Concrete Kingdom!

Jesus stands out as one who performs miracles of healing and proclaims good news to the poor as he travels throughout Israel in fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecies. Implicitly we are prepared for the insight that this is how God's kingly rule of Israel in the end time operates concretely and is experienced right now, through the ministry of Jesus. Something new and different is occurring in the prophetic work of Jesus. Everyone, including the Baptists, is challenged to accept the truth that God is the ultimate agent at work in Jesus' words and actions, however much the events contradict one's preconceived ideas of what the end time would be like for Israel.[1]

The kingdom of God could not be suffering violent opposition as Jesus speaks if it had not taken on concrete, visible form in the words and deeds of Jesus. The very idea of the kingdom of God suffering from such violence is an astounding notion, foreign to the OT, the intertestamental literature, and the rest of the NT. The idea implies that what is in essence transcendent, eternal, invisible, and almighty - God's kingly rule - has somehow become immanent, temporal, visible, and vulnerable in Jesus' ministry. While the present kingdom appeared in a basically positive context in Matt 11:11b//Luke 7:28b, its context in Matt 11:12-13//Luke 16:16 is darker and more troubling.[2]

[1] Meier, A Marginal Jew II, pg. 401 [2] Meier, A Marginal Jew II, pg. 403

Jesus or Jesus?

O r J e s u s ?

With all the various scholars writing about Jesus, and thus the varied and many portraits of Jesus being produced, students often struggle to know which Jesus they must follow. I've heard it asked many times. Once during a lecture with Jimmy Dunn a student stood up desperate: "Can you help us Professor Dunn, we're a bit lost as to which Jesus of scholarship we should be following in our Churches." I sat back in amazement at the question. Churches should follow the biblical Jesus, I thought to myself. The one revealed in scripture. That's who Churches should follow! But this is too naive and misses the point and force of the question.

Michael Bird has a good insight about The Big Tent Revival Jesus and The California Jesus. Of course the critiques are short and incomplete but the point they raise is necessary. There are some sloppy views of Jesus out there, and we must bring them back into line. This is not to suggest that a fundamentalist agenda be adopted but it is to suggest that once the evidence is appropriately assessed and weighed, theories should give way to conclusions and the church should move forward. I am convinced that George Caird hit the nail square on the head when he penned Jesus and the Jewish Nation where it states right at the beginning:

Anyone who believes that in the life and teaching of Christ, God has given a unique revelation of his character and purpose is committed by this belief, whether he likes it or not, whether he admits it or not, to the quest of the historical Jesus. Without the Jesus of history the Christ of faith is merely a docetic figure, a figment of pious imagination. The Christian religion claims to be founded on historic fact, on events which happened sub Pontio Pilato; and having appealed to history, by history it must be justified.[1]

Listen carefully to these words. They will save us much confusion and prejudice. But alas, having appealed to history, scholars still present a variety of views that leave us dazed and confused as students trying to find and follow Jesus in a post-modern world. Is there any hope? Tom Wright thinks there is, and I concur! His article, The Historical Jesus & Christian Theology has been a welcome correction to much superficial and unhelpful research into Jesus of Nazareth. Although this is the narrow path, the harder road of painful and careful historical research within the boundaries of the worldview of 2nd Temple Judaism and how it then relates to the Imperial worldview and then how Jesus either agree with parts, didn't agree with other parts or how he somehow agreed yet challenged other aspects of its various outworkings. This is the task at hand. If not, then Scot McKnight may be right in his assessment:

As I perceive the theological scene today, we have far too many who want to agree that in Jesus Christ, that is, in history, God has acted definitively for the salvation of all people, far too many who think we do have a faith in history, but who for various reasons are unwilling to subject history to a careful examination because it might tip their boat of faith. I am contending that such people believe in faith, not in Jesus, not in what God did for salvation in Jesus, but in faith. Their creed then is: "I believe in faith, faith in the Christian interpretation of life.[2]

Christians need to take responsibility for what they believe and why they believe it and then study the scriptures to see if it is so. Scot McKnight's book The Jesus Creed and Tom Wright's book The Challenge of Jesus are important starting blocks for those wanting to engaged Jesus appropriately. I cannot recommend these two books more highly. Even Wright's little picture book, The Original Jesus, merits mentioning as it is a solid little introduction to the issues at hand. We must answer Jesus' lasting question: WHO DO YOU SAY THAT I AM? For in answering that question, we will have determined much of our destiny and means of arriving at that destination. As Schweitzer announced:

He comes to us as One unknown without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: 'Follow thou me!' and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.[3]

Reading and studying the gospels, having fellowship with this UNKNOWN ONE, will lead us to the realization of Who He is... For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the perfect one comes, the partial will come to an end. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. For now we see in a mirror, enigmatically, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.

catch ya on the flip side...

[1] G. B. Caird, Jesus and the Jewish Nation, pg. 3.

[2] Scot McKnight, "The Hermeneutics of Confessing Jesus Christ as Lord" Ex Audito.

[3] Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, pg. 415

Exile?

Michael Bird has a little snippet on the Continuing Exile view which is brief but helpful. Wright and others, notably Craig Evans, have done much to show that many Jews in the 1st century thoughts of themselves as still in exile. The term exile conjures up social, political and religious images of judgment, captivity, banishment, displacement, uprootedness, alienation and deportation.

In the Hebrew narrative exile constitutes a major plot line in the story of God's people, weaving itself through almost every major account from Genesis to Malachi. It could be suggested that "exile" is the story of the Hebrew scriptures. Some of the more well known expressions of exile are found in stories such as Adam and Eve’s banishment from the garden of Eden, Abraham’s journey to the land of Canaan, Joseph’s deportation to Egypt, Moses’ wandering in the wilderness, David’s escape from Saul’s paranoia, and the most established of them all: Israel’s exilic experiences in Assyria and Babylon.

The theme of exile, however, does not function in isolation. In the two most important expressions for the study of the NT—the stories of Adam and Eve’s banishment and the deportation of the Israelites to Babylon—exile, which is always a result of rejection [rejecting YHWH, his purposes & provision], is accompanied by the hope that YHWH will liberate and restore his people, and ultimately the whole earth [See Romans 8].

“Exile”, could then be seen thematically as a multi-threaded image running through the scriptural narrative, both Hebrew and Christian, with an actual, concrete referent –i.e., multi-dimensional alienation from YHWH, others, self, et. al. due to rebellion – beginning with Adam and Eve being cast out of the Garden, the various other images of Exile and climaxing in the people of Israel being sent into exile. It seems to me, if one allows this, then a multitude of ideas and narrative events recorded in our meta-story can be drawn together to make a probable & coherent picture story which amounts to history.

Thus, when Jesus arrives on the scene and the people of Israel are still under foreign rule and oppression, YHWH has not been pronounced "KING", the revolutionary cry "NO KING BUT YHWH" is still being proclaimed but paganism reigns - it makes sense to think that Israel's exile wasn't over. Isaiah 52 makes this explicit:

Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion! Put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city; for the uncircumcised and the unclean shall enter you no more.

Shake yourself from the dust, rise up, O captive Jerusalem; loose the bonds from your neck, O captive daughter Zion!

For thus says the Lord: You were sold for nothing, and you shall be redeemed without money. For thus says the Lord God: Long ago, my people went down into Egypt to reside there as aliens; the Assyrian, too, has oppressed them without cause. Now therefore what am I doing here, says the Lord, seeing that my people are taken away without cause? Their rulers howl, says the Lord, and continually, all day long, my name is despised. Therefore my people shall know my name; therefore in that day they shall know that it is I who speak; here am I.

How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace, who brings good news, who announces salvation, who says to Zion, "Your God reigns."

Listen! Your sentinels lift up their voices, together they sing for joy; for in plain sight they see the return of the Lord to Zion.

Break forth together into singing, you ruins of Jerusalem; for the Lord has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem.

The Lord has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.

Depart, depart, go out from there! Touch no unclean thing; go out from the midst of it, purify yourselves, you who carry the vessels of the Lord.

For you shall not go out in haste, and you shall not go in flight; for the Lord will go before you, and the God of Israel will be your rear guard.

Israel was in "Bondage" and YHWH would liberate/save/free his people. That was part and parcel of the aims and intentions of Jesus of Nazareth. Although I certainly wouldn't follow all the conclusions and arguments presented by Cornelis Bennema, his article The Sword of the Messiah and the Concept of Liberation in the Fourth Gospel, does seem to be asking the right questions. Questions like, What was Jesus’ concept of liberation? Whom and from whom did he liberate? How did Jesus accomplish his goal? Were Jesus and his followers quietists or activists? These are important questions and set within the right context will provide fruitful discourse on Jesus' aims & intentions. Aims and intentions that included liberating Israel from oppression to Rome [though ultimately opposing the Satan, as Wright has argued?]. Would that be the end of exile? When YHWH is King, i.e., when Jesus is on the throne ruling and reigning [through his people?], when there is a re:creation with resurrection and restoration. Will that be the final end of exile? And has that begun with the proleptic act of Jesus being raised from the dead?

Questions invade my mind...

Rome vs. Jesus

Jeffery Gibson allerts me to a fantastic article that I had missed, The Gospel of Rome vs. The Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is an article by Marianne P. Bonz of Harvard university on the early Christian response to the theological challenge posed by "the gospel of Rome" promulgated in the Imperial Cult. From the companion Web Site tothe PBS Frontline Series From Jesus to Christ.

I'm also very excited by the prospects of Philip Harland's new blog. See his post Honouring the Emperor. His website seems very helpful as well, especially his short intro article on Imperial Cults. Those interested in New Testament studies will have to familiarise themselves with this sort of thing as it seems to be the norm given the Fresh Perspective on this issue. Hopefully time will permit more blogging of reflections and thoughts later...

take care, ciao

Caird, the Cross and Politics

Caird rightly declares that it is a fact that Jesus died on a Roman cross. This also rightly leads to the pivotal question of why? Why would the Roma, the vast and powerful entity which ruled with an iron fist care about a Jewish prophet enough to not only silence him, but do so in a way that would declare in no uncertain terms that Rome was the supreme authority here, and any challenge to that would be met with serious and dire consequence. To Rome, Jesus was a Lestes [Revolutionary]. Granted, he wasn't the usual type who picked up weapons and gathered a movement for violent resistance, but nonetheless Jesus did oppose Rome at significant points. Points which Rome could not, would not, tolerate.

Notice how Caird builds towards understanding the teachings of Jesus in connection with events so as to explain the fact of the crucifixion. It appears to me from a cursory reading of the relevant literature that scholars have for too long either chosen a poor selection of "sayings" and neglected key events, or they have focussed to narrowly on events, and neglected key teachings. Using the criterion of historical plausibility, teachings which give actions meaning and purpose should be seriously considered as authentic material [See The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria. By Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Westminster John Rnox, 2002, but see also Criteria for Authenticity in Historical Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals JSNTSup 191; Sheffield Academic Press, 2000]. Scholars should, as Wright has noted several times in NTPG and JVG propose an historical hypothesis which is to be tested by the various exegetical and historical details.

Ergo, if Jesus was crucified by Rome, if the titulus is accurate and represents what Jesus claimed, then we have reason to believe that within Jesus' teachings there were elements that either a) bothered Rome/Jewish leadership or b) threatened Rome. We have reason to believe that the threat that Jesus posed, warranted more than just a thrashing [as other supposed messianic claimants or irritants had received]. Jesus' presence, teaching and challenge warranted the death penalty. What in his teaching might have achieved such a response? I propose that when looking at the Jesus traditions, and analysing their authenticity and plausibility - teachings which explain this particular aspect of his cruel demise at the hands of a ruthless empire should be considered authentic. And this is exactly what J.P. Meier has noted in the first volume of his epic, A Marginal Jew.

Caird's questions persist:

If Jesus had no interest in politics, why go to Jerusalem at all? Why not be content to train his disciples in the calm of the Galilean hills? Why this headlong clash with authority? And at the last, when he is aware that treachery is afoot, why not simply slip away quietly, under cover of darkness, to a place where his enemies could not get at him?[1]

One wonders if Jesus had a political agenda. One wonders if Jesus' political agenda lead him to face Rome in Jerusalem. One wonders if Jesus' mission to Jerusalem, firmly rooted in his ministry and movements in Galilee, was compelled by a vision of protest against Rome in such a manner that his death [and way of dying?] would speak volumes about what kind of empire Rome had really established compared with the empire Jesus was already establishing. One wonders...

In his essay Rome's Victory and God's Honour, Bruce Longenecker makes the insightful claim that:

In the Johannine passion narrative "the Jews" are asked by Pilate, 'Shall I crucify your King?' - a question that, in the context of a fiercely nationalistic Passover celebration, goes directly to the heart of Jewish hopes for the dissolution or Roman reign over them. Their famous reply, 'we have no king but Caesar' (Jn 19:15) is suggestive of a disavowal of the kingship of their GOD and their resignation to Rome's imperial lordship.[2]

Jesus specifically answered, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” [Jn 18:36] If Jesus had been the sort of revolutionary that Rome was accustomed to, then fighting would definitely have been on the agenda. But this is just another one of those important clues that not only is Jesus different, but his kingdom is different. The dichotomy between physical and spiritual has no place or bearing on the text for that is a western imposition. Rather, Jesus is suggesting that his kingdom on earth is not like other kingdoms on this earth. It is a kingdom on earth, as it is in heaven.

Richard Hays is on the right track, but deals with this not in the context of Jesus’ ministry but within the community of John’s disciples, that:

In response to Pilate’s claim to have power to crucify him, Jesus pointedly asserts that Pilate actually has no power over him; God has merely granted Pilate a temporary and limited authority in order that God’s own purpose might be fulfilled. The whole dialogue subverts Roman claims of sovereignty and subordinates Roman power to the power of God.[3]

IF this is an accurate portrait, then part of Jesus' political agenda was to recall the people of Israel [as well as the Gentiles] back to her GOD. Nationally, Israel must 'embrace and entrust' [traditionally: repent and believe] the KING, Jesus [as YHWH's earthly representative]. Caird's words again ring in my thoughts:

One answer of course is that he exposed himself to certain danger because he believed he was fulfilling the scriptures. But apart from attributing to Jesus a one-dimensional understanding of this world and his role in it, such an answer does not account for much information in the Gospels which relates to Jesus’ concern for the Jewish nation. If he found himself at the end embroiled in political crisis which resulted in his execution on the order of a Roman governor, it was not because he avoided politics. It was because for him politics and theology were inseparable.

In going to Jerusalem, in protesting prophetically against the temple, in making messianic claims, Jesus sets himself up as counter-imperial. Jesus exposes the corruption of the empire and its methods by embracing Israel’s consequences of rejecting her GOD and facing justly the punishment handed out by Rome. Rome had made all these claims about bringing peace and prosperity, but at such a brutal cost? The way Jesus was proposing was highly subversive.

[1] Caird, New Testament Theology, pg. 357 [2] Longenecker, "Rome’s Victory and God’s Honour" in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins, pg. 95 [3] Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, pg. 148

Caird on Politics and Jesus

The late and brilliant New Testament scholar, George B. Caird [Teacher of so many excellent present day biblical scholars it's surreal...] had much to say on my topic of research, namely Jesus and the Politics of Israel and Empire. Although Caird's emphasis lay on the politics of Israel, he had much to say that would equally apply to the politics of Roma. Below is a smackle of quotes from Caird's book New Testament Theology completed and edited by L. D. Hurst.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recalling our warning that we should begin where the evidence is least subject to doubt, we turn to the one undoubted fact in the history of Jesus: He was crucified. Apart from those few on the lunatic fringe who have denied that Jesus actually existed, nobody in our time has attempted to deny that Jesus died on a Roman cross. But can we accept a fact without also asking why?[1]

If the cross is central to the story, the controversies which led up to it must be equally central. Here the points of disagreement between Jesus and the authorities would, if recoverable, constitute an entry into the material which might bring us close to the centre of Jesus’ message.[2]

We now return to our main question: why was Jesus crucified? And here we face an inexorable fact about the Gospels, namely that Jesus’ teaching has within it a strong political element. It has, of course, been crusted over by centuries of piety which has distinguished between religious concerns and politics; and this is the format which all New Testament Theologies have implicitly employed in their consideration of the teaching of Jesus.[3]

If Jesus had no interest in politics, why go to Jerusalem at all? Why not be content to train his disciples in the calm of the Galilean hills? Why this headlong clash with authority? And at the last, when he is aware that treachery is afoot, why not simply slip away quietly, under cover of darkness, to a place where his enemies could not get at him?[4]

Such questions require an answer. One answer f course is that he exposed himself to certain danger because he believed he was fulfilling the scriptures. But apart from attributing to Jesus a one-dimensional understanding of this world and his role in it, such an answer does not account for much information in the Gospels which relates to Jesus’ concern for the Jewish nation. If he found himself at the end embroiled in political crisis which resulted in his execution on the order of a Roman governor, it was not because he avoided politics. It was because for him politics and theology were inseparable.[5]

Pontius Pilate was the representative of the Roman Emperor, much as the Governor General represented the Crown in a British dominion during the first half of the twentieth century, with a local parliament carrying on day-to-day affairs.[6]

A prima facie case therefore exists for claiming that Jesus was crucified for political reasons, not simply because of any concern for individual souls in the hereafter. He addressed an equally great question: What does it mean fr the nation of Israel to b the holy people of God in the world as it is? Ultimately of course the individual and the national will not be unrelated. To claim that Jesus was embroiled in the politics of first-century Judaism hardly sends into limbo his many sayings which reflect his concern for the individual, and any approach to the teaching of Jesus which is unable to integrate such a concern is to be resoundingly rejected. But it is also true that the nineteenth-century picture of Jesus as the Saviour of individual souls only, that his exclusive concern was the relationship of individuals to their Maker, leaves out of account too much Gospel material, with too many crucial questions left unanswered.[7]

[1] Caird, New Testament Theology, pg. 353 [2] Caird, New Testament Theology, pg. 354 [3] Caird, New Testament Theology, pg. 356 [4] Caird, New Testament Theology, pg. 357 [5] Caird, New Testament Theology, pg. 357 [6] Caird, New Testament Theology, pg. 358 [7] Caird, New Testament Theology, pg. 359

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Caird has done here is remind us both of an important criterion in historical Jesus research, and also a solid indicator as to the mission and message of Jesus. An apolitical Jesus would make little historical sense. Politics plays an important role in Judaism, see the latest post by Seth Sanders for a good example. So much so that Sanders says:

Israelite writers thought a lot about empire, comparing Israel to the succession of men who, in trampling through their small country, claimed to be carrying a mission to rule the world. They thought about how they were and weren't like their imperial rulers. Empire was imprinted on their consciousness... The prayer [Pslam 89:21ff.] reverses this triumph, mourning how God has let David's dominance be shattered--God's covenant, it seems, did not faithfully endure. The psalm is almost an incantation, summoning God to pony up, demonstrate his vaunted faith, and restore his side of the bargain. The prayer dares God to be a real imperial ruler

This is an astounding claim. More thoughts later on Caird's comments...

The Liberator: a prophet like Moses or Elijah

a brief response to my nemesis...

No proposal in scholarship is written in a vacuum and my proposal of Jesus’ counter-imperial empire is no different. So in my response to Eddie’s fine comments, I must note that I am building on the works of those who are before me and who know more than me. In their studies of Jesus’ prophetic role both Ben Witherington and Scot McKnight have alluded to features of Jesus mission and message that beg the question: “What sort of a prophetic figure might Jesus have been?”

[1] Witherington proposes the meta-question of “what role did Jesus see himself playing in the drama of God’s people?”[2] He then goes on to propose that Jesus was an Elijah type prophet but also notes that no single category could ever encapsulate such a complex figure as Jesus. McKnight categorises the various prophetic traditions and then compares them with what we know about Jesus’ prophetic ministry. Based on a comparative analysis he concludes that Jesus was no classical or even pre-classical prophet but rather his ministry shares many features with that of Moses, and even Joshua.[3]

What’s the deal with Elijah and Moses? Both of these prophetic figures sought to liberate Israel from either oppression or false gods, or both. They were liberation prophets leading the people of Israel out of bondage to foreign rule and oppression. It was never YHWH’s intention to keep the people of Israel under bondage forever. They had suffered the consequences of their unfaithfulness and now YHWH would return to Zion’s people and once again embrace her.

I find it interesting to note that the transfiguration narratives [which are an historical anomaly] connect Jesus, Moses and Elijah together. Luke even has the opaque reference to an “exodus” which would be accomplished at Jerusalem. It appears that the gospel writers had already made this connection with the identity of Jesus. So scholarship is possibly on the right track in it’s identification of Jesus with such liberation figures.

Yes Jesus probably believed that there is "no king but YHWH", but the question is, what kind of king did he believe YHWH was, and how did he envision YHWH carrying out his reign? In other words, what shape was the kingdom of God to take in the present and in the future? I see no evidence within Jesus sayings that his followers had to bring Caesar down. What he did do was re-commission those within God’s people who accepted the call to drop their agenda’s for Israel and follow him as the Messiah from God, to continue Israel’s purpose, but now heightened to discipling the nations. Through this, all humanity would come to serve the one king, YHWH.

But this leads us back to our former question. What sort of prophetic figure might Jesus have been, and what role did he see himself playing in the drama of God’s people? It is my contention, following Wright’s exile thesis, that Jesus saw himself as the one would liberate Israel from foreign rule and oppression. I would agree that there is no evidence that suggests that Jesus envisioned his disciples wanting to “take Caesar down.” But given the nature of Jesus’ kingdom message, and the Mosaic backdrop, one is struck that although Jesus never spoke directly against Caesar, by claiming allegiance to himself that even redefined filial allegiance, he was drawing/pulling people away from the leadership of Caesar and Rome [with all her rituals, rules and categories] and into the Kingdom of YHWH, right here on earth celebrated in community, table fellowship and allegiance to Jesus. It was a subversive kingdom that operated on the laws of love and liberty.

I am not sure what “discipling all nations” means but the evidence is clear that although Jesus did focus on Israel, he often called and directed his own disciples to proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom to those outside Israel. Especially to those with an allegiance to Rome. One example from Jesus will suffice from Matthew 8:5-13.

The story is told of a centurion, i.e. Roman commander, who comes to Jesus and “appeals” to him. The issue is the vitality of a servant. Jesus is willing to cross over into a pagan’s home, the home of an army officer who controls the discipline in that area. An officer who makes sure that people pay tax, an officer who pledges allegiance to ROME and her gods, especially the emperor. Knowing the rules of authority and how Jewish people don’t enter pagan homes, the centurion asks for another way and recognises Jesus’ unique ability to heal from afar. A Roman soldier, the perfect symbol of allegiance to Rome, is asking YHWH’s representative for help. Rome’s gods and the emperor have failed to provide vitality and hope for life. All Rome’s benefits come to naught when faced with the enemy of death. And once again Jesus proves victorious in this manner by doing what Rome cannot do. By healing both a cultural barrier and physical ailment. The Empire of Rome is confronted with the Empire of YHWH and Rome is shown to be impotent. This subversive act of healing confronts the populace with the question of who is able? Who is able to heal and restore? Who is able to conquer death and sin? Who is able to do this? Only the one with true authority. Not those who steal or force authority, but those who submit to the true authority found in Jesus. Here Jesus is bringing liberty to the oppressed. Rome claimed to bring health and wholeness to her empire and yet here, one of her most allegiant persons is asking Jesus for help, in an almost desperate state. Yes, Jesus’ mission and message was “to the house of Israel”. But clearly Jesus had a mission and message that extended far beyond the borders of Israel. A mission to liberate not only Israel from Rome, but also Rome from Rome [and if Wright is anyone to go by this meant liberation from the satan as well!].

Once again with crucifixion, it was not only revolutionaries who were crucified, but all manner of people who committed crimes. Yes these crimes were against Roman Imperial order, but not all were designed to overthrow or undermine it. It is likely, however, that in the context of Jesus ministry with the various symbols and stories he was evoking, that the saying would have been heard by those gathering around him, against the context of Roman power to suppress Jewish revolution.

With regards to crucifixion I think the point that I’m making is that Jesus was crucified as a lestes or Brigand which has the direct connotation of revolutionary. Although there is no direct saying or logion in the gospels to suggest this, I think historically the case is quite simple. John 19:12, a very historically plausible logion notes that the leadership tell Pilate, “if you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar’s!” Luke makes note that they also claimed that “We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king.” Wright notes that “Pilate recognised that Jesus was not the ordinary sort of revolutionary leader, a lestes or brigand.”

[4]

It makes good historical sense, that taken within the larger context of Jesus’ mission and message, the charges laid against him, and the fact that Pilate recognised some sort of claimant here, that Jesus mission and message was covertly subverting the imperial regime. Jesus was not like Judas the Galilean in method, but he was like him in position of not wanting Rome to rule Israel anymore. YHWH’s people must be liberated from the oppressor, just like Moses liberated Israel from Pharaoh. But the means of liberation were ontologically opposed to that of violence and military revolution. This would be a revolution based on allegiance to Jesus and his alternative teachings.

Now, when you write that: If indeed, to pick up ones cross does suggest embrace the revolution (which I am not convinced of yet), then the reshaping that Jesus did to the means of that revolution, turns it more into social protest than active resistance or opposition (what ever form the latter takes).

I can perfectly agree. But is it not a superficial distinction to suppose that a social protest is active resistance to the opposition? Such analytical distinctions seem hard to justify in the first century mindset. Social protest was politically volatile and explosive. Rome did not take to kindly to anyone just saying anything or doing anything. However, politics and social protest are tied to theological convictions. In the first century one would be hard pressed to have one without the other. Jesus’ conviction that it was him who was to lead Israel [evidenced by the re-gathering of the twelve and the reaching out to the gentiles] out of Exile is a politically charged activity. There was much protest against Rome, and the revolutionary movements seem to have plagued Rome for sometime during the 1st century. Why did they protest “No King by YHWH!” ?

The principal goal of these revolutionaries was to overthrow Herodian and Roman domination of Palestine. In addition to fighting the Romans, these revolutionaries attacked the mansions of the aristocracy and the royal residences. This undoubtedly reveals the frustration of years of social inequality. In response, Varus, legate of Syria, dispatched two legions (6,000 troops each) and four regiments of cavalry (500 each). This was in addition to the troops already in Judea and the auxiliary troops provided by the city-states and client kings in the area. In spite of this military might these messianic movements were difficult to subdue.

Because of the lack of sources it is difficult to identify any messianic movements between the revolts and those surrounding the First Jewish Revolt (except, of course, the followers of Jesus).[5] With regard to the First Jewish Revolt, Josephus notes two messianic movements that bear mentioning. The first is Menahem, son of Judas, the Galilean, who

took his followers and marched off to Masada. There he broke open king Herod’s arsenal and armed other brigands, in addition to his own group. With these men as his bodyguards, he returned to Jerusalem as a king, and becoming a leader of the insurrection, he organized the siege of the palace.[6]

Thus, I think the case can be made. The cross, an image of martyrdom was sealed since the Maccabean revolt. Martyrdom, dying as a protest, was massive. In fact, many would rather die than submit to slavery.

With ropes he lowered [over the cliffs] the toughest of his men in large baskets until they reached the mouths of the caves; they then slaughtered the brigands and their families, and threw firebrands at those who resisted. . . . Not a one of them voluntarily surrendered and of those brought out forcibly, many preferred death to captivity.[7]

An old man who had been caught inside one of the caves with his wife and seven children . . . stood at the entrance and cut down each of his sons as they came to the mouth of the cave, and then his wife. After throwing their dead bodies down the steep slope, he threw himself down too, thus submitting to death rather than slavery.[8]

Josephus tells us that they would rather die than submit to imperial rule. Jesus uses the image of the cross as a counter-imperial call to oppose Rome by embracing allegiance to Jesus as the true king which would in fact most likely mean walking the same road and ending up in the same place that Jesus ended up in. The cross is a politically charged image of domination. To embrace that, in allegiance to Jesus is to deny it it’s power of imperial agency.

I think the aim should be, not to find out whether Jesus had an opinion on Caesar and his reign (which he no doubt did), but whether this formed part of his mission to the Jews. It may be seen, against a thorough knowledge of his 1st Century context, that what he was saying and doing was indeed “revolutionary” (not literally) within his context and that it did have definite and dramatic implications for the future of Caesar’s Empire. But, it may not be (and I don’t think it was) that he encouraged or instructed active rebellion against it (as opposed to more passive protest or perhaps subversion which I think he did). Jesus focused not on Israel’s political situation (other than to discourage zealous nationalism, and perhaps nationalism altogether), but on her then current failure in fulfilling their purpose of being a light to the nations (Mt. 5-7).

If the exile, or even “bondage” thesis is correct

[9]

then we have cause to believe that Jesus’ mission to the Jews did incorporate a subversive challenge to Rome and her imperial dogma. The motif of exile together with its expression in the interpretive traditions in early Judaism constitutes an important background for understanding Jesus and the origins of Christianity. With reference to Jesus, much discussion has taken place about the relationship between Jesus’ understanding of his mission and the alleged despair or feeling of exile experienced in popular Jewish social groups, especially among peasants who endured not only Roman occupation and a burdensome tax load, but also the corruption of the temple crew.

According to Wright, Jesus understood himself to be the Messiah who had come to liberate Israel from its continuing state of exile (“the present evil age”) and bring it into a state of restoration (“the age to come”). He came as a messiah who not only represented the people of Yahweh by taking on himself the suffering of the nation in the tradition of the Jewish martyrs and the wrath of disobedient Israel but also enacted their liberation from exile by intentionally dying in order to achieve victory over Satan, who constituted the true enemy of Israel. The result is a renewal of the covenant, the forgiveness of sins, the coming of the kingdom of God and the fulfillment of Israel’s original mission to be a servant people who are a light to the world.

Other scholars have pointed to specific points of contact between Jewish exile theology and the teaching and actions of Jesus. For example, C. A. Evans argues that at least five features justify a connection: Jesus’ appointment of the Twelve, which may suggest the reconstitution of the twelve tribes of Israel; the request for a sign from heaven (Mk 8:11–13), which may reflect the signs promised by messianic pretenders; Jesus’ appeal to Isaiah 56:7 during the demonstration in the temple (Mt 21:12–13 par.), which, when the oracle of Isaiah 56:1–8 is in view, indicates that Jesus chastises the religious leaders for neglecting to live up to the eschatological expectation; Jesus’ allusion to Zechariah 2:6 (Heb v. 10) in Mark 13:27, which recalls the gathering of God’s people; and Jesus’ criticism of the Jewish religious leaders (Mt 11:21–23 par.), which appears to threaten judgment of exile.

I don’t think this amounts to active rebellion against Rome unless of course by that we mean the refusal to bow down to Caesar, the refusal to partake of imperial festivals which gave honour that was due only to YHWH to pagan idols, or if it meant compromising the teachings of Jesus in any way, shape or form. The testimony of the early Jesus Liberation Movement is that they would, as many of the Jewish forefathers had done, rather die than submit to another King named Caesar.

Ergo, I think your objection has merit only if we discuss this within the context of violent revolution. But given my stance and understanding of Matt 5 and other key texts and exemplary activities of Jesus, I cannot justify that as an accurate description of Jesus. Despite Brandon’s lament to the contrary, the Zealot hypothesis has no merit in history. Jesus was opposed to military violence and the view that Rome needed to be physically attacked in order to be subdued. Jesus had a much tidier mission and message. A much more dangerous agenda. One that would outlast any kingdom built on force and domination. A kingdom built on liberty and love in allegiance to Jesus and his teachings.

EndNotes

[1]

Witherington, Jesus the Seer, pg. 246. See Scot McKnight “Jesus and Prophetic Actions” BBR 10.2 (2000) 197-232.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Although, McKnight’s case for a prophet like Joshua seems to be pushing the evidence beyond what it can handle.

[4] Wright, JVG, pg. 546.

[5] P. W. Barnett, “The Jewish Sign Prophets—a.d. 40–70—Their Intentions and Origin,” NTS 27 (1981) 679–97[5]. R. A. Horsley “Popular Messianic Movements Around the Time of Jesus,” CBQ 46 (1984) 471–95.

[6] J.W. 2.17.8; cf. 2.17.5

[7] J.W. 1.16.4

[8] Ant. 14.15.5

[9] C. A. Evans, “Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel,” in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. C. C. Newman (IVP, 1999) 77–100.

Why is the Cross counter-imperial?

In the comments, my sparring partner, Eddie poses this question:

Could you perhaps flesh out why 'picking up the cross' would be understood as counter-imperial? Could it not equally be understood as resignation, acceptance of Roman power of them.

It seems to me that while this remains within the realms of the possible, given the context of Jesus' teaching and announcement, it remains unlikely. As I hope to demonstrate in the near future, Jesus saw his mission and message as one announcing the return and reign of YHWH over the regathered people of YHWH.

The evidence which we will survey suggests that Jesus' attitude to the Romans was much like that described in Josephus with the speech of Eleazar ben Yair, commander of the defendants of Masada, noted their determination:

Long since, my brave men, we determined neither to serve the Romans nor any other except YHWH, for he alone is humanity's true LORD; and now the time is come which bids us verify that resolution by our actions. (J.W. 7.8.6 §323)

This attitude presumably expresses a violent revolutionary tendency. Jesus however, would probably share the sentiment and conviction of YHWH being the only that there is "No King but YHWH" and that YHWH is the only rightful LORD, but would shy away from violent revolt (Matt 5:9; 39; 43-44).

However, the more important question beckons us, why did people go to the cross? What was the general reason for the Romans crucifying people? The usual tactic of the Romans was to crucify those who had "an invincible passion for liberty and take God for their only leader and lord" (Ant 18.1.6 §23). [It appears their willingness to die for their way of life was an integral part of their ideology, connected with a belief in recompense in the world to come (JW 1.33.1 §650; cf. Ant 17.6.1 §152; JW 1.16.2 §311).] Romans crucified those who defied Imperial Authority in either word or deed. They made it a habit to crucify the lestai [Bandits/Brigands]. More often, however, Josephus describes the rebels as plain criminals. The Barabbas released on the crowds request at the time of Jesus’ trial was, according to Mark, "among the rebels who had committed murder in the insurrection" (Mark 15:7; cf. Luke 23:19). However, John calls him a bandit (Gk lestes; John 18:40).

The connection seems clear then: those who incited revolt against the authority of Rome were crucified. Thus, Jesus' use of the image pick up your cross, suggests 'embrace' the revolution. Given Jesus' teachings on being peace-makers, loving enemies, turning the other cheek and the specific command not to antistenai [resist] evil [See discussion in JVG, pg. 291], it seems axiomatic that the revolution he was proposing was not one of military instigation or violence.

So to conclude, Tom Wright is possibly correct in his parody:

Jesus was more like a politician on the campaign trail than a schoolmaster; more like a composer/conductor than a violin teacher; more like a subversive playwrite than an actor. He was a herald, the bringer of an urgent message that could not wait, could not become the stuff of academic debate. He was issuing a public announcment, like someone driving through a town with a loudhailer. he was issuing a public warning, like a man with a red flag heading off an imminent railway disaster. he was issuing a public invitation, like someone setting up a new political party and summoning all and sundry to sign up and help create a new world. [Wright, JVG, pg. 172]

Jesus was setting up a KINGDOM/EMPIRE that was directly opposed to that of the Roman emperor. His was one of authentic peace via a renewed covenant with YHWH through himself. Jesus was the reality of which Caesar was merely the parody. If the earth is YHWH's and everything in it, (Ps 24:1) if the gospel is for all nations [Mk 13:10], then there can be no other KING but YHWH - and that is exactly what Jesus was claiming.

However, this argument must now be substantiated with arguments for the historicity of the key passages we have made mention of. But I think it can be done and it already arouses interest due to the criterion of historical plausibility [Jews regularly had something to say about Roman oppression] and the fact that Rome finally destroyed this alternative vision by doing what they did to all those who proposed a renascence of sovereignty to YHWH or to Messianic claimants. They crucified them and publicly humiliated that vision and agenda. That's what Pseudo-Quintillian, Declamations, 274 notes:

Whenever we crucify the condemned, the most crowded roads are chosen, where the most people can see and be moved by this terror. For penalties relate not so much to retribution as to their exemplary effect.

Does that satisfy the objector?

The Counter Imperial Cross

In our traditions - Luke 14:25-33, Luke 9:23-24, Matt 10:34-39, Matt 16:24-25, Mark 8:34-35, GThom 101, cf. John 12:25 - there is the notion of Jesus calling disciples who will carry their cross and follow him. Many arguments have been made for the historicity of this logion based on multiple attestation and the historicity is accepted by Crossan [The Historical Jesus, pg. 353] and J. P. Meier [A Marginal Jew, III, pg. 64-66]. We follow Meier's reasoning in accepting the logion based on the shocking imagery and the multiple attestation. Meier also notes the parallel of Epictetus, [Discourses 2.2.20] as support of a wide propagation of the crucifixion image in the early Roman period. This is also accepted by Wright who states that:

Crucifixion was a powerful symbol throughout the Roman world. It was not just a means of liquidating undesirables; it did so with the maximum degradation and humiliation. It said, loud and clear: we are in charge here; your are our property; we can do what we like with you. It insisted, coldly and brutally, on the absolute sovereignty of Rome, and of Caesar. It told an implicit story, of the uselessness of rebel recalcitrance and the ruthlessness of imperial power. It said in particular: this is what happens to rebel leaders. Crucifixion was a symbolic act with a clear and frightening meaning. [Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, pg. 543]

Given this apt description and its symbolic value in the socio-historical context, Jesus must have been summoning disciples to a counter imperial allegiance. An allegiance to the Empire of YHWH. Jesus was appealing for a conversion of allegiance from the Roman Empire and everything else, to himself. In affect, it appears as if Jesus was asking them to become apostates of their faith and to rather embrace him as their true King.

But this begs the more important question of why Jesus would use such an image? This piece of the data must fit into our overall hypothesis, which I think many in the "Third Quest" have yet to do. Following Wright (JVG) and Trocmé (Jesus and the Non-Violent Revolution) Jesus was posing a revolution [although that's a slippery word) but not the sort Reimarus had in mind. Jesus' revolution was one of non-violence, of going the road of passive resistance. According to Trocmé's analysis, his portrait is of a vigorous revolutionary capable of saving the world without using violence. It was a road of defeating the love of power [Rome and the Satan] with the power of love. It was a road marked by non-compromise to the gods of this world. Augustus had set himself up as LORD and SAVIOUR but Jesus was challenging that very understanding. Emperors like Tiberius and those that would follow, were not the true LORD and SAVIOUR. They were tyrants who wanted to use Power to control the populace. But to follow Jesus in accepting him as their true Kyrios, meant that they would follow a path that would almost certainly lead to their death, as it finally did with Jesus.

To follow Jesus is to accept a path that will lead to pain and suffering and probably death. As Keener says, the demands of the kingdom are so offensive to a world alredy convinced of its rightness that they provoke tht world's hostility. [Keener, Matthew, pg. 329]. Keener goes on to suggest that the whole context of Jesus' ministry, and language may even indicate that Jesus' mission would inaugurate the messainic woes, the ultimate tribulation for his followers.

So in our tradition about picking up one's cross, and embracing Jesus as Master, the convert is being called to embrace a vocation that is implicitly counter-imperial - it is bearing a cross. The way of the cross is the way of revolting against Rome and her oppresive idealogy and praxis. It is the way of submitting to another King, named Jesus.

thoughts?