The Road to Redemption: The Struggle Over the Nature of Jesus (Part 2)

    So who was/is Jesus? That was the question which confronted the early church. As we looked at last week the Biblical titles given to Jesus (Lord, messiah, Son of Man, Son of God, Word, rabbi, savior) were all functional titles. They spoke to what Jesus did and what he accomplished. They did not speak to his inherent nature. As the church moved further away from its Hebraic roots and moved into the Greco-Roman world the desire to know about the metaphysical nature of Jesus began to grow. Over the centuries there were a number of contending belief systems about Jesus. Ultimately however the church decided that there could be only one Orthodox position. Today we will take a quick look at some of the contenders for the coveted prize of Orthodoxy.

    Manichaeism was a tradition built upon the work of the prophet Mani (216-276 CE) who lived in Persia and was of Parthian descent. He believed that Jesus was merely one in a line of prophets (including Zoroaster and Buddha) and that he Mani, was the final prophet and the "Comforter" which Jesus had promised his disciples. Mani's view of the universe was that it was composed of two competing sources (good and evil) and that Jesus had been sent to enlighten humans to the good. The Manichean church had apostles, bishops and presbyters. It was finally extinguished in the Roman Empire around 390 CE though it survived in the east for more than 1,000 years. Augustine was originally a member of this church.

    Docetism was the belief that Jesus was never actually physically real. His body was an illusion as was his crucifixion. This belief developed out of a concern for and a rejection of the possibility that God could become flesh. Docetism believed that the body as inherently evil and that only the spirit was good. This belief was proven by the fact that bodies wither and die while the spirit remains. These movements began around 70 CE but mainly died out within a hundred years…though we can see remnants of them in movements such as Christian Science.

    Gnosticism was a movement that gained ground as Christianity spread out from mainly Jewish areas. The core belief of the Gnostics (derived from the Greek word gnosis…or knowledge) was that the physical was evil and the spiritual good. The goal of life was to discover the correct knowledge which would allow one to escape this physical world. Jesus was seen as the teacher who brought this knowledge. There are many Gnostic scriptures which present Jesus in this light. This school of thought became prevalent among the Germanic tribes which conquered the Roman Empire and still exists today.

    Arianism was based on the works of Bishop Arius who lived from 250-336 CE. Arius believed that Jesus was neither God nor man. Jesus was instead a semi-divine being. By being a semi-divine being Jesus was able to be obedient to God and not fall prey to the temptations of the world. The battle over Arius' beliefs lasted for more than 200 years and was the greatest threat to Trinitarian beliefs. You can see remnants of this belief in the theology of Jehovah's Witnesses.

    Apollinarianism was the belief that while Jesus had a fully human body his reasoning was taken over by the Spirit of God. This school was founded by Apollinaris of Laodicea who argued that Arius was wrong in that Jesus had divinity within him (he was after all "The Word") while at the same time arguing that the Trinitarians had to be wrong because you couldn't have two natures (human and divine) integrated in one person. While being declared a heresy in 381 this view continues to be expressed by Christians around the world.

    As you can see the church spent hundreds of years wrestling with the nature of Jesus. Next week we will take a look at the victor (at least in terms of the Western Church) and what it means for us.

    

The Road to Redemption: The Struggle Over the Nature of Jesus (Part 1)

    So who was Jesus? Was he really God? Was he sort of like God? If he was God or like God was he also human in a way you or I would recognize? Do the answers to these questions actually matter? The answer to the last question is "far more than you or I could possibly imagine." The historic reality was that those questions mattered so much that people were excommunicated and even executed if they believed in the "wrong" answers. Why was that? Well, let's find out.

     In the beginning (so to speak) of the Jesus movement (which was originally called "The Way" meaning it was a movement and not a religion) no one really cared about the "nature" of Jesus. What mattered was that Jesus had accomplished something on the cross. As we looked at over the past several weeks Jesus' followers believed that by his death and resurrection the power of sin and the powers of this world had been overcome. Death was defeated and resurrection awaited all who followed the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth. Even those letters of Paul which appear to focus on the "nature" of Jesus (Romans and Philippians) do so only in a passing and cursory way. This functional view of Jesus proved to be sufficient for a considerable period of time. However as the church became more organized (in the third and fourth centuries) two very distinct groups began to not only wonder about the nature of Jesus but began to vehemently disagree about that nature as well.

    The first of these two groups were the monastics. These were the monks and hermits who had withdrawn from the Greco-Roman world in order to live lives of solitude and self-sacrifice. They began to wonder how it was that anyone other than God could save humanity. In other words, how could an ordinary Jew, even a really, really good Jew save humanity by dying on the cross? They concluded that a human being could not do so, and therefore (reading John's Gospel and inferring from some of Paul's letters) they argued that Jesus must somehow be fundamentally God. The monastics, because of their informal power in the early church began to push the church to clarify its position.

    The second group that began to discuss this issue consisted of the bishops of the early church. Long before there was any sense of a "Roman" church with Cardinals and a Pope, there were bishops. While initially the bishops (those priests who oversaw a number of congregations) were elected by and were accountable to the people, they slowly gained enough power to be able to do as they pleased and to set doctrinal beliefs for the congregations they oversaw. As discussions about the nature of Jesus increased in frequency and complexity, the bishops disagreed with each other and this led to divisions within the church.

    Eventually these discussions led to the creation of two different schools of thought about Jesus. The first was the Antiochene (from the church of Antioch, in Syria) and the second was Alexandrian (from the church at Alexandria, Egypt). The difference between the two was significant. The Antiochene School emphasized Jesus' humanity. They saw salvation as coming from the perfect obedience of the perfect man. The incarnation in this sense was the power of God present in the perfect man that allowed Jesus to be faithful. The Alexandrian School emphasized the divinity of Jesus. Salvation was accomplished because the perfect God/man gave his life for the world. The incarnation here meant that God was fully and completely present in Jesus.

    Needless to say the subtleties of these two schools can be, and often are lost, on most of us today. What is fascinating however is that the issues at the heart of this discussion are still with us. While the majority of churches have ultimately agreed with the Alexandrian school (meaning they are considered to be theologically orthodox) many others have not. Latter Day Saints, Jehovah Witnesses, United Pentecostals and others follow some form of the Antiochene School. Next week we will look at the variety of ways people talked about Jesus and the following week how this issue was resolved.

    

What Happened on the Cross (Theologically Speaking)

    Over the past several weeks we have looked at the trial, death and resurrection of Jesus. There is one last issue concerning the death of Jesus at which we need to look and that is the church's understanding of how Jesus accomplished our salvation on the cross. The word which has been used to describe the outcome of Jesus' death is atonement. A simple definition of atonement would be "making amends for a wrong that has been done for the purpose of repairing a relationship. " As we discussed last week what makes this story a bit strange is that God, in the person of Jesus, made amends for the sins of humanity, because we could not ultimately make amends for ourselves. A struggle for the church has been to explain "the how" of this process in a way that made sense to people in different times and places. We will look at four different ways in which atonement is described. These are Ransom, Christus Victor, Substitutionary and Moral Influence (listed in the order they were adopted by the church).

The Ransom theory of atonement was the earliest and most widely held theory of how humanity was reconciled to God. It is partially based on Mark 10:45 : "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many"; and 1 Timothy 2:5-6, "There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men…". This theory implies that Adam and Eve, by their actions in the garden sold humanity to Satan. Justice required that a ransom be paid to Satan for our salvation. Jesus paid the ransom with his death, but God raised him from the dead thus tricking Satan and insuring eternal life for all.

Christus Victor is a theory which though related to the Ransom theory has some important differences. Christus Victor (or Christ the victor) puts forth the idea that in Jesus God defeated the powers and principalities of this world. The powers did their worst in killing Jesus, God's only Son, but in raising Jesus from the dead God defeats sin and death, thus liberating humanity. Because sin and death have been defeated human beings can once again live as God-centered moral agents. The main difference between the Christus Victor and Ransom theories is that Christus Victor does not see Jesus' work as a transaction between God and Satan (paying a ransom) but as a dramatic victory over the forces of evil.

Substitutionary atonement reflects the ancient sacrificial system employed by Jews at the Temple in Jerusalem. This theory is based on the scriptures in the Gospel of John which speak of Jesus as "the Lamb of God" as well as those in Hebrews which specifically speak of Jesus as the perfect sacrifice. This model works in the following fashion. Human beings sin and are thus deserving of death. The only way in which people can be saved is through a blood sacrifice. While the Temple sacrifices had been sufficient for temporary forgiveness, humans were always likely to sin again and thus be libel for punishment. In Christ however, we have the perfect sacrifice (because Jesus is the perfect man) and this brings about perfect, lasting forgiveness based in a renewed relationship with God.

The Moral Influence theory, while not as dependent on Jesus' death as the other three theories has still been influential across the entire history of the church. This theory claims that Jesus, through his teachings, his examples and ultimately his death on behalf of the world, provided a clear example of the life that God wishes humans to lead. The Holy Spirit then took that example and made it possible for the human beings to align their lives to Jesus' examples. This matters, according to Moral Influence because judgment will be based on the content of our character and not on a particular set of beliefs. In a sense then Jesus' death did not "accomplish" something specific, but instead offered us a perfect example of one who would "lay down his life for his friends."

The gift of scripture is that it offers us a wide variety of ways in which we can understand how Jesus saved and transformed us. The challenge for us is to live into the new life we have been given.

The Road to Redemption – Why the Cross

    Why the cross? That has long been an issue for Christians. Surely, we ask, there had to be an easier way for God to make forgiveness of sins and human renewal possible? Perhaps God could have continued to use the sacrificial system of the Temple (God tried this but people never seemed to change). Maybe God could have started over and the world would have learned its lesson (tried that with Noah and Noah started all over by making wine and getting drunk). Maybe God could have simply forgiven humanity (not sure how many times God forgave and we humans went right back to our same old ways of living). So again, why the cross? I believe the answer can be found in D. M. Baillie's book God Was in Christ. By following Baillie's argument I hope it will become clearer why God chose the horror of the cross as the instrument of God's reconciling and renewing work in the world.

    The first part of Baillie's argument is that sin is real, cannot be ignored and must be dealt with. This is so first because sin is not simply people doing somewhat bad things but that sin is instead the orientation of human hearts that leads them to death dealing ways thus destroying the good that God has created. Sin robs persons of their opportunity to be fully human, and enjoy the blessings that God offers in this world. Sin must also be dealt with because sin's destruction of humanity and creation causes great pain to God who loves the whole world. God's love for the world is so great that God desires nothing more than for human beings to live in right relationship with Gods self, one another and with creation. Thus in order to save humanity from death and into life something has to be done about sin.

    The second part of the argument concerns what must be done. For Baillie this is a costly self-offering of God's own self. Why is this? This is so because there is a great deal of difference between a "good natured indulgence and a costly reconciliation." Baillie puts it this way, "Is there no difference between a good-natured indulgence and a costly reconciliation? There is an immense moral and spiritual difference between the two. And which of them are we to attribute to the love of God? Does the whole process of reconciliation cost Him nothing? Is His forgiveness facile and cheap? And if it were, or if we accepted it as such, would it have the liberating power, to set us free for a new and better life?"
(p. 172) To grasp concept this we must consider the difference between indifference and forgiveness. If someone takes something from me about which I do not care I can say, "I forgive you," and it will cost me nothing because I am really indifferent. In addition my indifference will have little if any impact on the one who has taken from me because they can tell I do not care. However, if someone takes something from me that is dear to me, for me to forgive them is costly to me because it hurts to forgive. I pay a price. That kind of costly forgiveness also contains within it the possibility of real change in the life of the one who has taken from me because they can see the pain they have caused.

The final part of Baillie's argument then is that in order for God to save humanity from sin, and transform us into loving human beings, God must pay a price…God must go to the cross. "What Jesus offered to God was Himself...But if, on the deepest interpretation, this was not only an offering made by a man to God, but also a sacrifice made by God Himself, then it is part of the sacrifice that God is continually making, because He is infinite Love confronted with human sin. And it is an expiatory sacrifice, because sin is a dreadfully real thing which love cannot tolerate or lightly pass over, and it is only out of the suffering of such inexorable love that true forgiveness, as distinct from an indulgent amnesty, could ever come. That is the objective process of atonement that goes on in the very life of God." (pp. 197-198) Thus the cross becomes a necessary evil/good through which humanity can be and is being changed into the very likeness of the image of God. Forgiveness now makes an actual difference in our lives so that we can become new people. The challenge for us then is to allow that transforming power to work within us that we too might be continually brought from death to life.

The Road to Redemption: The Resurrection of Jesus

Jesus died quickly. Unlike many victims of crucifixion who often endured several days of pain before they died, Jesus died quickly. The Roman soldiers were as surprised as anyone at his early demise and even checked to be sure that he was dead by poking his body with a spear. Though none of his followers were directly at the foot of the cross, many of the women who had followed him were nearby and saw him die. After his death a follower of his, Joseph of Arimathea, went to Pilate and asked for the body…a very brave act considering Jesus has been crucified for sedition. Permission having been granted Joseph took the body and had it placed in a family tomb. A stone was rolled in front of the tomb and everyone went home. The Sabbath had come.

    This much of the story would seem to be commonly agreed upon by most commentators. I say that for several reasons. First no one in the first century would have made up a story about someone being crucified. It was a humiliating and ritually unclean way to die. Second crucifixion meant one was an enemy of the state…hardly a selling point for a religion in the first century. Finally there are both Jewish and Roman sources which confirm the crucifixion. At the most basic level then, most people will acknowledge that Jesus lived and died. The question that has divided people is what happened to the body.

     Where Jesus' story begins to take a turn for the unusual is that when the women (or woman) arrived at the tomb on Sunday, after the Sabbath they discovered that the tomb was empty and the body gone. What remained were the grave clothes only. Depending on which Gospel we read they were informed by men in bright clothing, an angel or a number or angels that Jesus was not here but had been raised from the dead. Next we have various accounts of what message the people received, who saw Jesus first and how those persons interacted with him. There is little consistency within these elements of the stories. What is consistent however is that Jesus' body is gone and that all the persons are told he has been raised and is alive. In other words he has been resurrected.

    I want to take a moment and make sure that we are all on board with what resurrection means. Resurrection means that someone who was dead…clinically dead…no heartbeat and no brain activity…is now alive…heart beating and brain working. Resurrection is not that a person dies and becomes a spirit or a ghost. Resurrection is not that someone lives in our memory. I say this because the Greek language has words to describe ghosts, spirits and memories. The Gospels do not use those words to describe what happened to Jesus. They speak of resurrection, meaning being made alive in a fully physical sense. This being alive is confirmed by people touching Jesus (Mary), Jesus eating with his friends and the witness of more than 500 persons (according to Paul) who interacted with Jesus after his resurrection.

    Across the centuries people have had trouble with this resurrection thing. The Romans claimed that the disciples stole Jesus' body so they could claim he was raised from the dead (hardly seems likely since the disciples were not expecting him to be raised). Some have claimed that he was probably a specter of some kind (note my earlier comments). More modern scholars have spoken of resurrection as a common memory (not sure why anyone would have made up a memory of a living Jesus when it went against almost all understandings of life and death in both Jewish and Roman cultures).

    Ultimately our faith rises or falls upon the resurrection of Jesus. If he was not raised then Jesus is just another dead Jewish teacher. If he was raised then the world has been changed. We profess that he was resurrected and lives even now. Over the next couple of weeks we will look at the interplay of the cross and the resurrection and why they are so important to our faith. So stay tuned.

    

The Road to Redemption: Jesus’ Arrest, Trial and Crucifixion (Part 3)

    The powers in First Century Judea (both religious and political) needed Jesus out of the way. They needed him out of the way because he was a threat to their power and religious convictions. They needed him out of the way because he was offering a new way of being faithful to God and a new empire which would not bow to Rome or to Jewish political leadership. Jesus had to go so the powers had Jesus arrested, tried and finally crucified.

     Crucifixion was a form of execution that had been used by the Persians, Carthaginians and Macedonians, along with the Romans. The Greeks were loath to use it, but did so on rare occasions. The act of crucifixion was saved for slaves, pirates and enemies of the state; those who had committed treason. Rome conducted not only individual crucifixions but also mass crucifixions as well. Rome crucified over 6,000 slaves following the slave revolt under Spartacus as well as possibly up 30,000 Jews during the siege of Jerusalem. The methods of crucifixion varied. Individuals were either nailed or tied to the cross beam. When someone was nailed the number and location of nails varied. Crucifixion was intended to be both horrifically painful and humiliating in order to serve as a means of intimidation. It was a horrifically painful way to die because one slowly suffocated to death as one lost the strength to remain erect. It was humiliating because individuals were crucified nude, meaning not only were they completely exposed but any bodily function was done in full view of their tormentors. Finally most bodies were left up until birds had picked the bones clean.

    This was the fate that awaited Jesus. It is little wonder then that Jesus agonized so much in the Garden of Gethsemane prior to his arrest. He understood that once the trial began there was little doubt that he would be crucified. An additional humiliation for Jesus was that within Jewish culture crucifixion was not a reputable way to die (Jewish law only permitted stoning, burning, strangulation and decapitation). To be "hung on a tree" then meant one was dying outside the law and thus outside of God's grace.

    Once Jesus was convicted he was flogged, mocked, crowned with thorns and then forced to carry the top beam of his cross with him toward the place of execution at Golgotha. Along the way Jesus stumbled and Simon of Cyrene was required to carry the cross beam the rest of the way. Once he arrived at Golgotha Jesus was stripped of his clothes (do not let paintings and crucifixes fool you, he did not retain a loin cloth), and attached to the cross. Above his head was a plaque which read, in three languages, King of the Jews. This would have been the crime of which he was convicted, treason against the political authorities. Jesus was not crucified alone but between two thieves…or perhaps two rebels who robbed and stole to support their rebellion. While Jesus was on the cross he was offered sour wine on some hyssop. In addition soldiers cast lots for his clothes and according to John, pierced his side to see if he was still alive. Unlike many victims who lasted for days on the cross Jesus died quickly. His body was then taken down and placed in a tomb.

Depending on which Gospel one reads there were numerous strange events which followed Jesus' death; earthquakes, the sun was darkened, the Temple curtain (between the Holy of Holies and the rest of the Temple) was torn in two or a Centurion pronounced that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. While the historicity of these specific events is open to question the fact of Jesus' death is not (at least by serious historians). We know this because writers such as Mara Bar-Serapion (73 CE), Josephus (1^st cen. CE), Tacitus (116 CE), Lucian (160?) and even the Babylonian Talmud (220CE) all refer to the death of Jesus. The question for Jesus followers became what would they do with now that Jesus was dead. We will look at this issue next week when we look at the resurrection.

The Road to Redemption: Jesus’ Arrest, Trial and Crucifixion (Part 2)

    Jesus was too dangerous to be allowed to continue his ministry. As we saw last week he was dangerous to the Sadducees because he did not respect the Temple. He was dangerous to the Pharisees because he was not a diligent follower of the law. He was dangerous to the political authorities because people wanted to name him the messianic king. The Biblical accounts tell us that the religious leaders decided that because he was dangerous, Jesus needed to be arrested, tried and executed. It is at this point in the story that things become a bit unclear. I say unclear because the Gospel accounts do not concur in terms of the exact details of what happened next. However there are two series of three steps each which appear to link all of the stories together.

    The first series entails the trial before the Jewish authorities. Step one (according to the Gospel of John) is that Jesus is brought before Annas, the former high priest. While it may appear odd that Jesus would stand before a former high priest (the Romans removed Annas from his office in 15 CE) historians have discovered that Annas continued to be a significant power broker within the Jewish establishment. Annas evidently gave his approval to the arrest and trial thus facilitating Jesus being sent to then high-priest Caiaphas. In step two Caiaphas examined Jesus and determined that an official trial before the Sanhedrin be held. The Sanhedrin was what we might describe as the Jewish Supreme Court. It was composed of about 70 members from the competing religious sects (Sadducees, Pharisees, and Herodians). Their task was to enforce religious adherence among the Jews.

The charge against Jesus was blasphemy. The problem was that there was no consensus among the witnesses as to Jesus' guilt. Ultimately the leaders take a single statement of Jesus (that he saw himself as the Son of God…which could actually be taken in any number of ways) as proof of his guilt, thus giving them cause to send Jesus to the Romans for a hoped for execution (though in that trial they would charge Jesus with political crimes since the Romans had little interest in Jewish religious arguments).

    The second series consists of Jesus' trial before the Romans. The first step was to send Jesus to Pontius Pilate. Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea. It was his task to maintain control of the area, administer justice and collect taxes. Pilate was not overly impressed with Jesus and even though the charges against him were severe (inciting the people to riot, forbidding people from paying taxes and claiming to be King) Pilate decided to pass the political hot potato to Herod Antipas. Pilate was able to do so because he believed that Jesus was from the area of the nation ruled by Herod (Galilee). In step two Herod, also found that Jesus has done nothing deserving of either imprisonment or death and so sent him back to Pilate to do with as he pleased. The final step in this trial is that Pilate desired to let Jesus go (why antagonize the people at a major festival) but the religious leaders press him to execute Jesus. The leaders made it clear that unless Pilate gave in they would cause trouble, which would not play well in Rome. Pilate acquiesced and had Jesus prepared for crucifixion.

    There are three things we ought to note from these stories. The first is that we should not be surprised that the Jewish authorities wanted to rid themselves of Jesus. He was teaching a way of life which was inconsistent with First Century Judaism and was thus a heretic. The second thing we should note is that Rome was not only complicit in Jesus' death but actually carried it out. Rome nailed Jesus to the cross. Finally we should see clearly that Jesus not only did not defend himself (as the Apostle Paul would later do) but willingly went to the cross. Jesus believed that he was the suffering servant of Isaiah and that in his death the power of sin would be broken once and for all, thus ushering in God's kingdom.

    In First Century Judea Jesus was the most dangerous man in the world…maybe it is time for us to un-tame him and let him be dangerous again? What do you think?

The Road to Redemption: Jesus’ Arrest, Trial and Crucifixion (Part 1)

    The cross is at the very heart of the Christian faith. This can be seen through the church's use of the cross, whether empty (Protestantism) or with Jesus still present (Catholicism, Orthodox and Episcopalian) in our worship spaces. It can be seen through our use of the cross as jewelry and decoration on the walls of our homes or offices. While these uses would certainly have seemed shocking to the early church, considering that the cross was a means of execution, it was not long (2^nd century) before the cross became the church's most widely used symbol.

     In order to gain a better understanding of why the cross (and Jesus' death) is so central to our faith we will spend a few weeks looking at the process that led to Jesus' arrest, trial and death on the cross. As was noted in last week's article Jesus seemed to be aware of the constant possibility of arrest. John the Baptist, along with any others who questioned the lives and power of the Romans or their client kings were regularly rounded up and executed. This called for Jesus to be on the move and to avoid any hint that he might be creating an alternate empire to that of Rome and the Herodian dynasty. However that was exactly what Jesus was doing. He was initiating the Kingdom of God, in which God and not Herod or Caesar would be king. This transfer of power would turn the world upside down, placing the have-nots on top and the haves on the bottom. Ultimately Jesus would have to make his plans clear, which would put him in direct confrontation with the political authorities.

     Jesus' declaration of his initiating the Kingdom of God would also put him at odds with the religious authorities. It would put him at odds with the Pharisees who believed that the Kingdom would only come through strict adherence to the Torah and all of its rules. It would put Jesus at odds with the Sadducees who believed that the Kingdom of God was already present through the rituals and sacrifices of the Temple. It would put Jesus at odds with the Herodians who believed that the Kingdom was here because there was a Jew (Herod Antipas) on the throne in Jerusalem. Finally it would put Jesus at odds with the Zealots who believed that the Kingdom of God could only come through political and military rebellion. None of these powerful groups were ready to welcome Jesus' message about his bringing the Kingdom of God into the world.

    The stakes then could not have been higher as Jesus approached Jerusalem for Passover for the last time. Passover was the Jewish feast of liberation. It was the holy day on which the people remembered God's deeds of power in which God forced the Egyptian Pharaoh to let's God's people go. This meant that the festival carried with it not only religious overtones, but political ones as well. Because of these political implications the Romans always had additional troops ready to act. This however is where the story becomes a bit tricky. Depending on which Gospel one reads Jesus, his disciples or the crowd (you choose) decided that it was time to name Jesus king. The symbolism used during Jesus' entry into the city was an overt declaration that Jesus was claiming (or others were claiming for him) leadership in God's in-breaking Kingdom. As we noted earlier this put him at odds with all the existing powers and increased the odds of his arrest. The tension rises as Jesus disrupts the work of the Temple (scaring the Sadducees), teaches non-traditional ideas (scaring the Pharisees) and gathers large crowds around him (scaring the Herodians).

    Jesus' arrest thus becomes inevitable. He was a threat to everyone. The exact nature of the conspiracy seems a bit obscure, again with each Gospel giving a slightly different account. The bottom line however is that the religious authorities believed Jesus' to be a severe enough threat to their own beliefs and/or authority that Jesus had to go. He was the wild card which could upset all of their plans. The Temple authorities therefore arrest Jesus at night in order to avoid a riot and secret him away to stand trial, with the hope being they can have Rome execute him, forever removing him from the scene.

    

The Road to Redemption – Jesus and First Century Politics

    For generations Christians have tended to view Jesus as an historical character who, while interacting with a wide variety of people, was basically untouched and unaffected, until the very end of his life, by the politics of his day. More recent Biblical scholarship has begun to alter this view by examining how politics impacted the world in which Jesus lived. What they have discovered is that in both subtle and not so subtle ways Jesus and his ministry were affected by the politics of his day. We will look at only a couple of brief examples.

    Let's begin with the politics of money. For generations the people of Judea had worked the land as small peasant farmers using barter as the main means of economic exchange. There was no need for money because most communities were relatively self-sufficient. The political relationship between Herod Antipas (the son of Herod the Great who ruled during most of Jesus' lifetime) and his Roman overlords however was one in which precious metals in the form of coinage were required. This meant that when the tax collectors made their rounds they were no longer looking for produce but for coinage. The result was that local farmers could no longer survive by barter but needed to enter the larger currency economy, thus putting them in a position in which they were often cheated by those who now bought their grain. In addition the required taxes were often so great (sometimes as high as two-thirds of their produce) that farmers were forced to sell their ancestral lands in order to survive. We see the results of this transition in Jesus' ministry through his stories of landless peasants, tenant farmers and his interaction with the hated tax collectors.

    Second let's take a look at the politics of food. In the first century most of what was consumed (some estimates are up to 70% of a person's diet) was grains, wheat and barley. These were planted in the late fall and harvested in the spring. Again, as I said a moment ago, for generations most Galileans and Judeans existed as subsistence farmers. This began to change not only with the onset of the monetary economy but with the construction of new Roman-like cities such as Sepphoris and Tiberius. These commercial centers needed more grain than subsistence farmers could produce. Thus there were great incentives for the wealthy in the cities to purchase land from peasants (whether legally or illegally) in order to create larger more efficient farms. Even with the greater efficiency most of the food was designated for the cities or for export to Rome thus increasing poverty and hunger in the countryside. We can hear echoes of these changes in Jesus' stories of absentee landowners, his negative statements about the rich, and his compassion for the poor who had no one to protect them.

    Finally let's take a look at the politics of rebellion. Prior to Jesus' arrival on the scene, there had been a number of small uprisings against Herod and Rome. These included those led by a bandit named Judas, a royal slave named Simon and shepherd named Athrongaues. These disturbances were brutally put down by Rome. None-the-less the growing poverty of Galilee and Judea forced more and more men into banditry and resistance (ultimately culminating in the Jewish revolt of 66 CE). Both the Jewish and Roman political authorities were therefore incredibly sensitive to anyone who even remotely hinted at resistance to Roman dominated rule. This reality forced Jesus to steer clear of any overt references to himself as king or liberator. It also impacted his travels as he tried to avoid preaching and teaching in areas controlled by Herod Antipas who had previously executed John the Baptist. We hear references to this situation in Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan and his refusal to be named king by the masses.

    My hope is that this brief look at Jesus and politics helps us to see even though Jesus was not overtly "political" his ministry was impacted by as well as addressed the conditions created by the political climate of his day. This understanding ought to help us see that the church need not be afraid of engaging and discussing the political realities of our day as we strive to be faithful to God.

    

The Road to Redemption: Jesus and Women

    My wife Cindy has often commented that the pecking order within First Century Judaism was God, men, animals, plants, rocks and then women. While she was being somewhat facetious she was not far off of the mark. Jewish women living in Judea and Galilee were subjected to a much more patriarchal system than were their counterparts within the Roman Empire. Roman law allowed women to head households, sue for divorce, inherit property and goods, go about unveiled and to some extent even engage in extra-marital affairs, just as did men. Women could also hold leadership roles. One example is a woman named Junia Theodora who was one of the leaders of the Lycian Federation of cities (this federation included Corinth). Her role was critical in securing peace and trade agreements. In Egypt the nation could even have a female Pharaoh such as Cleopatra (who interestingly enough was Greek). Thus the wider Roman world was relatively accepting of women as virtual equals of men.

    First century Judaism offered no such parity. Women were considered to be property, first belonging to their fathers and then to their husbands. They had no rights of divorce and within Judea and Galilee no real right of inheritance (this was not often the case within Jewish communities in the Roman world where women had more rights). Women were considered to be inferior to men and were even considered to be the root of evil by many Jewish scholars. Because of this position they were not allowed to testify in court, go out of the home without their husband's permission, were to be veiled at all times out of the home and were considered to be ritually unclean during and after menstruation and childbirth, and could not talk to strangers. Women's lives were difficult and demeaning.

    It was into this cultural milieu that Jesus began his ministry. Jesus, as a Jew reared in Galilee would have been very familiar with the rules and regulations concerning women. As a rabbi he was called upon not only to uphold these rules in his ministry but to encourage others to do so as well. Jesus did neither of those things and in fact offered a radically different view of women and their place in God's kingdom. Jesus ignored ritual purity laws. When he was touched by the woman who had been bleeding for twelve years (Mark 5:25-34) he not only did not chastise her but healed her with words of love…and then he ignored all the requirements for cleansing himself. Jesus spoke with foreign women (John 4:7ff; Matthew 15:22-28), recognizing their humanity even when no one else would. Jesus taught women students. In the famous Mary and Martha story (Luke 10:38-42) he allowed Mary to sit at his feet and learn (most other rabbis would have rather burned the Torah than have allowed a woman to learn). Jesus accepted women into his inner circle (Luke 8:1-3), told as many stories about women as about men and even used the unprecedented language of "daughter of Abraham" (Luke 13:16).

    These brief references make it clear that Jesus' attitude toward women was not only very different from his contemporaries but was a radical departure from the Jewish norm in which he was reared. The question becomes then why would Jesus take such a different approach to women than what was considered the norm in First Century Judaism? While I have not asked Jesus directly I would offer a possible answer. As was discussed in a much earlier edition of this series, Jesus could have been drawing on the first, rather than the second creation story. In the first creation story (Genesis 1) God created men and women at the same time and God created them both in the image of God. Women were not inferior to men, but were co-equal. Thus Jesus pointed his followers back to God's original intent for men and women at creation. That being the case, Jesus was simply fulfilling his mission of "proclaiming release to the captives" (Luke 4:18b) by freeing women from their cultural bondage and into their rightful place in the Kingdom of God when he engaged women as equals.

    The challenge for us is to ensure that Jesus' attitude toward women is one that guides all of our work and witness as Everybody's Church.

    

The Road to Redemption - Jesus as Sacrifice

    The concept of sacrifice, at least in the religious sense, is one that is foreign to most of us. Nevertheless sacrifice has been an integral part of many world religions. Sacrifices included those for propitiation (appeasing the gods) and thanks (for thanking the gods). Sacrifices also included both animal and human sacrifices Animal sacrifices had not only a religious function but economic and social functions as well because the edible portions of the animals were usually shared as a meal following the sacrifice (which was true in Judaism as well as in the Roman Empire). Human sacrifices existed in both the old and new worlds. The Aztecs once sacrificed more than 10,000 prisoners in order to bury them beneath one of their great pyramids. We see remnants of human sacrifice in the Abraham and Isaac story in Genesis 22.

    Within Judaism sacrifice functioned in several different ways, each attested to in scripture. In Genesis everyone from Noah to Abraham to Jacob sacrificed animals as a way of giving thanks to God for what God had done for them. The use of sacrifice expands in Exodus 12 which describes the Passover. The heart of this story is the sacrifice of a lamb, in order that its blood be spread over the door posts and lintels of Hebrew homes so that the angel of death would "pass over" the Hebrew homes (the last of the plagues in Exodus). Finally the concept of sacrifice was formalized within the Jewish Law given to Moses on Sinai. Of the 613 commandments in the Law 100 of them deal with sacrifices. These 100 commandments insure that sacrifices are appropriate for their purpose (thanksgiving as well as propitiation) as well as appropriately conducted. Among those sacrifices is one not conducted in the Temple. It deals with the "scape-goat." This is the ceremony in which the Temple is cleansed of all sins, those sins are ritually placed on a goat, and the goat is sent out into the wilderness. This process was intended to insure that at least once a year, any unknown sins were taken care of.

    Each of those images of sacrifice (the lamb, the regular atoning sacrifice, and the scape-goat) is applied to Jesus in the New Testament. The Lamb of God (Angus Dei) imagery is focused within the Gospel of John. In John 1:29 and 1:36 John the Baptist sees Jesus and declares him to be the Lamb of God. The point is that Jesus will be the one who will be killed in order that his blood protect God's chosen people from death. The concept of Jesus as Temple sacrifice is contained within the New Testament book of Hebrews. In Hebrews 9 and 10 we read the author's argument that while Jewish sacrifices were temporarily effective at removing sin, Jesus was the sacrifice which once and for all dealt with sin (Hebrews 9:26). Finally the image of the scape goat is contained in the Gospels as Jesus is crucified outside of Jerusalem. While some people have argued that this was the normal procedure for crucifixion, Christians have long seen the leading of Jesus out from the Temple to the "wilderness" for crucifixion/sacrifice as a scape-goat image.

    Throughout the New Testament Jesus and sacrifice are continually connected. These images helped the early church make sense of what Jesus did on the cross. Many conservative pastors and scholars have even argued that God could not forgive without a sacrifice and blood being shed. Where we have to be careful however is in assuming that God's forgiveness could be bound by rules and regulations about sacrifice. I say this because the New Testament offers us other ways of understanding what Jesus did on the cross and how it accomplished our forgiveness, none of which are linked to blood or ritual sacrifice. Nonetheless the image of Jesus as sacrifice is one which can and should help to inform us the fact that God has dealt with sin, once and for all, in order that we might be brought back into right relationship with God, not just for a few moments (until the next sacrifice) but forever.

The Road to Redemption – Jesus as King

    Within the Protestant tradition (we as Presbyterians are part of this tradition because we protested against the control and theology of the Roman Catholic Church) there has long been an emphasis on seeing Jesus as the bearer of a threefold office; that of prophet, priest and king. In two of my previous articles we looked at Jesus as prophet and priest. Each of these offices had clear Biblical references; prophet from Jesus prophetic ministry and priest from the book of Hebrews. The references to Jesus as king are not quite as clear. So let's take a look at the social environment concerning the kingship and the evidence of Jesus being "king".

In the gospels we see Jesus living in a time and place in which the title and role of King is part of the social milieu. Even though the Roman Empire had only one Caesar who acted as king and lord of all, there were many other kings who ruled at the whim of Caesar. In the case of Judea, Herod the Great (proclaimed King of Judea by Rome in 40 BCE) was the first of the great client kings. Upon his death Judea was divided between several of his sons who ruled as kings in smaller sections of the nation. While these rulers were Jews they were considered to be no more than extensions of Caesar's rule and thus were never truly beloved by the people.

    This being the case, Judea and Galilee were always hotbeds for those who opposed Herodian rule. Having their own history of freedom and confident that God desired them to be a free nation, the Jews in those areas were always looking for a new messiah/king to lead them to victory over the Romans and into a glorious new age of the national independence. This desire for a messiah/king meant that the common people were always on the lookout for the next candidate for the office. In John 6:15 we read of the masses trying to take Jesus by force in order to make him their king. Even though Jesus avoided this rather awkward situation the rumors of his kingship remained with him throughout his ministry.

We see these rumors come to life in three places. The first is in Luke's account of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem (19:28ff) in which we witness Jesus using a host of verbal and visual clues intended to point to him as king (riding a colt, psalms of kingship being proclaimed by the disciples, spreading their garments on the road…all of which have kingly associations). The second is in his trial before Pilate in which he is asked if he is King of the Jews (Mark 15:2); a charge he does not deny. Finally the sign on his cross states that he is "King of the Jews."

    Paul, in his writings, never used the specific term, king when referring to Jesus. However Paul often wrote of Jesus as the "head of the church." (Ephesians 1:22, 4:15; Colossians 1:18, 2:19) By so doing Paul implied that Jesus is indeed "king" of the church; the one who rules and reigns over the lives of believers. Thus the connection between Jesus and kingship is present even if it is not overtly stated.

    Even with all of that having been said, for many of us in the 21^st Century the idea of Jesus being a king may seem a bit anachronistic. As those who have never had a king we struggle with the idea of someone telling us what to do. Many churches even avoid using the term "Lord" because it carries kingly (highly directive) connotations. However, allowing God in Christ to rule our lives (meaning both individually and collectively) is a foundational Biblical concept. It is based in the idea that God/Christ as creator knows better than we creatures what makes for a blessed life. We creatures are limited in our ability to know how our choices will impact our relationships with God, others and creation. By allowing God in Christ to set the parameters for our lives we are making it possible for the one who made us and knows us better than we know ourselves to guide us into the fullness of life. This view moves the concept of king from being one of an arbitrary dictator to one of a creator king who always desires the best for the king's creation. This is ultimately how we are challenged to see Jesus as king; as the one who lovingly rules and reigns in our lives in order to lead us to lives well and fully lived.

    

The Road to Redemption - Jesus as Priest

    In the first century, regardless of one's religion or location, the priest was a constant presence within one's daily life. In the Roman world every temple had priests or priestesses. These were the men and women who received sacrificial offerings, performed the necessary sacrificial rites and were the intermediaries between humans and the gods. Within Judaism priests carried out two very important functions. The first, like their Roman counterparts, was to perform the rites and rituals of sacrifice. The second function was to bless the people. Throughout the year there were rituals of worship centered on the Temple during which the priests would bless the people in order to insure their health and prosperity.

    So, you may ask, what does this have to do with Jesus? If all we had were the Gospels there would be no connection between Jesus and the office of priest, other than Jesus occasional conversation with them or stories Jesus tells about them. While Jesus clearly takes on the role of prophet and offers himself as the messianic King (we will look at this next week), nowhere does Jesus perform any priestly functions. He does not institute a new priestly order. He does not build a new temple. He does not create a new religion with new rites and rituals. So, again, what does the office of priest have to do with Jesus?

    The answer lies in the book of Hebrews. Within the book of Hebrews Jesus is declared to be a "high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 6:20). Then for the next couple of chapters the author of Hebrews unpacks that image and explains the importance of Jesus' priestly role. Before we look at Hebrews however let's take a short detour to find out about this Melchizedek person. Melchizedek is only mentioned twice in the Old Testament. He surfaces in Genesis 14:18 where he is described as the king of Salem and priest of the God Most High. In that capacity he blesses Abraham and receives a tithe in return. Melchizedek appears again in Psalm 110:4 in which the king (about whom the Psalm is written) will take on priestly duties of blessing the people and destroying God's enemies. Finally in the Qumran texts (texts written around the first century but not included in the Bible) Melchizedek is associated with the angel who will release God's people and defeat God's enemies.

    The writer of Hebrews takes this limited information about Melchizedek and creates an entirely new form of priesthood with which Jesus will be associated. According to Hebrews Melchizedek has no father or mother and so is an eternal priest (7:3). He is greater than Abraham because Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe (7:4). Melchizedek's priesthood is a replacement for the priesthood of Aaron because the Aaronic priesthood was not perfect (7:11) and this new priesthood brings a new set of laws (7:12). Where all of this is leading is to the claim that because Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek (eternal and perfect) then there is a better covenant; a covenant through which Jesus is able for all time "to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them" (7:25). As this kind of high priest Jesus does not have to daily sacrifice for the people but has offered himself, once and for all, as the sacrifice for humanity (7:27). Finally Jesus ministers in the true tent in heaven, of which the earthly tent (Temple) was merely a shadow (8:2-6).

    While the arguments laid out by the writer of Hebrews might appear to be somewhat antiquated and confusing they are never the less important. They are important because they remind us that in Jesus' actions sin was defeated once and for all (9:26); that this new covenant has the power to change our hearts and make us new people (8:10); and that through Christ eternal life is made possible (9:15). In other words, with Jesus as priest we know that we have one who makes forgiveness and new life a daily reality thus allowing us to take hold of the hope that God offers to each of us.

    

The Road to Redemption – Jesus as the Word Made Flesh

    When we look at historic Judaism there are many ways in which it was similar to its religious neighbors. They each had multiple religious sites, had sacrificial rituals and employed priesthood. Yet even with all of their similarities there was one great difference. Jews were monotheists. In the midst of cultures which worshiped multiple gods the Hebrews were driven by a singular conviction that God was one and that there would be no other gods before the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This is not only the focus of the first commandment, "You shall have no other gods before me," but it is also the heart of the "shema" from Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear O Israel; the Lord your God is one." While the Hebrews at one time believed in more than one "god" they were always called to worship only one. However as is often the case with all religions a strange thing happened along the way to modernity.

    The strange thing which happened was the development of what is called wisdom. In an earlier article I discussed wisdom as "what one discovered at that sacred intersection of God given insight and the living of a Godly life. This means that wisdom was more than ethics and more than practical advice. Wisdom allowed one to live fully into being a child of God such that one reflected the very wisdom of God into the world." There is also a second way in which wisdom is used on the First Testament. In the book of Proverbs Wisdom is personified as the feminine side of God. The role of Wisdom is twofold. First Wisdom helps God create. Second Wisdom is to be the one who brings the light of God to the world and shows human kind how to rightly live. Wisdom is literally the light of God to the world. We see this throughout the book of Proverbs (look at Proverbs 1, 8 and 9 as examples). There are also non-canonical Jewish sources which see Wisdom as its own entity in the very heart of God.

    This understanding the Wisdom tradition then helps set the table for Jesus as the Word of God made flesh. When in the Gospel of John we read that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" what we are hearing are echoes of the personification of Wisdom in the First Testament. If we continue in John we also hear of the Word being present at creation and that the Word is the light of humankind. Thus the Word is a new and creative way to speak of the Wisdom of God. What makes John's use of the Word (Wisdom) unique however is when he speaks of it being enfleshed in a human being. John writes of the Word made flesh in Jesus of Nazareth. This claim separates John (and thus Orthodox Christianity) from Judaism and from much of the Greco-Roman philosophical world. It separates Christianity from Judaism because Judaism can never accept that God could be other than the one, eternal, creative being who is not human. It separated Christianity from the Greco-Roman philosophical schools because they believed that the perfect-divine can never become the imperfect-physical.

    These two issues did not deter John from linking Jesus with divine Wisdom (Word) in the most intimate way. By so doing John makes several claims about Jesus. First Jesus is the light of the world. Jesus is the very wisdom of God who shows humanity how it ought to live. Second Jesus is the very creative power of God who can bring the dead back to life and usher in a new creation. Third Jesus as co-creator has a claim on all of life. These ideas help us to take hold of Jesus as the way (Jesus as the light of God showing the way), the truth (Jesus embodies the wisdom of God) and the life (Jesus is the one who gives life through creation). For John then (and again for orthodox Christianity) if we want to know the truth about God and what God wants us to know all we have to do is listen to and live like Jesus, who is the very Wisdom (Word) of God in the world. This way of seeing Jesus is far more profound than any other. It is so because it reminds us that Jesus has a claim on our lives; that he is not merely offering us good advice or healing our hurts. Instead as the very Lord of life, we are his and as such we are called to be light to the world, even as he was light to the world.

The Road to Redemption – Jesus as Servant

    In order for us to fully appreciate this image of Jesus we need to take a quick tour of the Greco-Roman world and its social structure. The easiest way in which to envision this structure is to think of a pyramid. At the very top of the pyramid was the Emperor. There was no one to rival the Emperor in terms of power or prestige. The second level was composed of the Imperial household and the administrators who worked from them. One step down was the Senatorial class. These were wealthy and powerful generational families, who commanded armies, sat in the Senate and exercised some influence over the direction of the Empire. Next in line were the equites (equestrian class) who were wealthy land owners who could afford to ride into battle on horses. The lowest level of the "upper classes" contained the local aristocrats, merchants and small land owners. Once we move below this level we encounter soldiers of all kinds, poor merchants, tradesmen and tenant farmers.

    At the very bottom of the society were the servants and slaves. While many of them were intelligent, educated, resourceful and highly trusted by their families they were still considered to be somewhat less than human. Roman law considered them to be a piece of property that could be bought and sold. Slaves were those who did everything from clean the toilets, to take care of the animals, to dress, teach and watch over children. While slaves could be, and sometimes were freed by their masters, this was not the usual way of things. To be a servant then was to be on the lowest and most despised rung of society. It was not a position anyone would choose. It was not a position to which anyone would aspire. It was to be avoided at all costs. Yet is a position that Jesus not only takes on himself but commands his disciples to emulate.

    The most profound image of Jesus as a servant comes from the Gospel of John in chapter 13. In this chapter we read of Jesus preparing for Passover with his disciples in the upper room. Jesus takes a towel, lays aside his garments, fills a bowl with water and begins to wash his disciples' feet. His followers are horrified. Even after all of Jesus' teaching about humility (which was looked on as a weakness and not a virtue in the first century) they were not ready to see their rabbi-master-messiah act like a slave. Peter is so offended that in the beginning he refuses to allow Jesus to wash his feet. After Peter finally consents Jesus instructs his followers to be servants themselves. It is hard for us to even comprehend how difficult this command was for his disciples to understand.

    Jesus later makes clear what he meant by being a servant when he went to the cross. He was willing to give up his life without a fight in order to save the world. Paul picks up on this servant-cross image in his letter to the church at Philippi. He writes, "Have this mind among yourselves which is yours in Christ Jesus who though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and become obedient unto death, even death on a cross." (Philippians 2:5-8). Our understanding of this passage is that it was a hymn which Paul quotes, meaning the image of Jesus as servant was already at the heart of the church's theology and worship within fifteen to twenty years after Jesus' death. This is remarkable if for no other reason that it runs, as we have seen, completely against the tide of Roman culture.

    While this image continued to be a constant in the life of the church it was never one which was easily taken to. Human nature being what it is the church was constantly struggling for power and control (either secular or sacred) and so living as a servant was never popular. However it lives at the very heart of Jesus' teaching and so the challenge for us is to let it live in our hearts and lives as well.

    

The Road to Redemption: Jesus as Healer and Miracle Worker

    How many miracles did Jesus perform while he was alive? There are several ways in which we could answer this. The first is that we could go to the Gospels and count. If this were our manner of approaching Jesus and his miracles the answer to our query would be 37. That's right; there are 37 different miracles which are mentioned by one or more of the Gospel writers. Twenty one of them are mentioned by two or more of the Gospels. The second way in which we could decide the number of miracles that Jesus performed would be to listen to the Gospel of John in which we learn that, "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen." (John 21:25, NKJV). In other words we would no idea how many miracles Jesus performed. The final way in which we could determine how many miracles Jesus performed would be to assume that he performed none…or only a few which were not really "miracles". I say this because ever since the rise of rationalism and science there has been growing skepticism over Jesus' miracles…whether they ever happened at all. So which of these is the correct answer? I'm not sure it matters.

    What is of critical importance is that we understand the role that miracles played in the first century and the role that they played in Jesus' ministry. In the first century miracles were a currency of common life. There are a wide variety of stories concerning miracle workers (that's right Jesus was not the only one around) in circulation at that time. Therefore for Jesus to be out and about doing miracles was not considered completely out of the ordinary. It was also not considered out of the ordinary in Judaism because as with many of the prophets before him, miracles came with the territory. Just as Elijah and Elisha performed miracles so too did Jesus. These basic understandings of miracles and miracle workers in the first century help us to rule out two of the most basic misconceptions about Jesus and miracles. The first misconception is that Jesus was the only miracle worker out there which would prove that he is the Son of God (we saw there were other miracle workers). The second misconception is that the miracles proved that Jesus was divine (again we see that there were other Jewish prophets who performed miracles and were not divine).

    If Jesus' miracles did not prove that he was either God or the Son of God, then what were they supposed to "prove?" We can find the answer to this question in the Gospels. In the Gospel of John where miracles are often referred to as "signs" they were intended to show that spiritual healing/liberation had taken place. This spiritual healing/liberation was the demonstration that God's kingdom was present in the world in and through Jesus. In the Gospel of Luke miracles were demonstrations that Jesus was fulfilling his mission. At the beginning of Luke we read that Jesus had come to fulfill the prophetic expectations of Isaiah (giving sight to the blind, healing the lame, etc.). The miracles were proof that Jesus was accomplishing that mission. In the Gospel of Mark miracles were almost seen as a distraction. Jesus was constantly performing miracles but was also telling people to keep silent about them so he could teach (which is the focus of Mark's Gospel). In Matthew the miracles became a battle ground between Jesus and the religious authorities in which Jesus was accused of being in league with Satan. Jesus used the miracles to prove he was working for God.

    Regardless then of how we view miracles today (did they or did they not happen) it is apparent that Jesus was not only considered a miracle worker but that being a miracle worker was also important to the church's early understanding of his person and his mission. The challenge for us then is not to either dismiss these miracles as relics of a bygone era (if we do not believe in them) or use them as proof of Jesus special nature (if we do believe in them), but instead to delve into their assigned roles in the Gospels as ways in which we can come to know Jesus better.

The Road to Redemption – Jesus as Apocalyptic Prophet

    The era in which Jesus lived was filled with the apocalyptic. There were straight forward apocalyptic books such as Daniel (in the Bible) and Enoch (not in the Bible). There were portions of other canonical books such as Ezekiel (38-39), Joel (3:9-17) and Zechariah (12-14) which offered a glimpse into the apocalyptic world. Even in the Dead Sea Scrolls the apocalyptic vision of a final battle between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness was a powerful theme. With this as a cultural background it would not be out of place for Jesus to use the apocalyptic as part of his teaching.    

Before we look at Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet however I want us to be clear what we mean by apocalyptic. The word apocalyptic simply means an unveiling or a revealing. In other words what apocalyptic literature (such as the Revelation of John) does is reveal what God is up to. God's actions need revealing because we as human beings have limited vision. Our vision is limited first because we cannot see the spiritual dimension of life. We are limited to seeing the physical. Our vision is also limited because we cannot see beyond the confines of the earth and into heaven. I realize that these might appear to be the same thing but in first century cosmology (the way people view the earth and the heavens) heaven is a physical place just beyond the sky and is kept hidden by a curtain. Therefore if we really want to know what is going on we need to have someone unveil (apocalypse) heaven for us.

    Apocalyptic literature then needs a couple of things to properly function as a revealing. First it needs a revealer. Sometimes the revealer is God. Other times the revealer is an angel. Second there needs to be a recipient; someone who can receive the revealing. The receiver in the Revelation of John is John the Apostle (at least according to tradition). Finally what is needed is the content that is revealed. Within apocalyptic literature the content will have some basic characteristics. It will allow us to see that the two arenas of physical and spiritual are now one. They interact on an intimate and immediate level. The content will allow us to see the future. We will get to see what God and evil are planning to do, especially the terrible conflict between God's people (children of light) and the enemy (children of darkness). Finally the content will also allow us to see the ultimate outcome of this conflict. We will almost always get a glimpse of God's great victory over the powers and principalities of the world.

    This understanding then allows us to take a fresh look at Jesus as apocalyptic prophet. The most obvious way in which Jesus touches on the apocalyptic is in Mark 13:24-27 where he is the recipient who unveils the future. "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 (the Son of Man is an end times character found in the book of Daniel) 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." Jesus allows us to catch a glimpse of heaven and earth merging together as well as a vision for God's future victory. The rest of chapter 13 makes it clear that there will be difficult times coming upon God's people (Matthew, Luke and John also have similar apocalyptic passages).

    The second way in which we see Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet is that he claims for himself the title, Son of Man. As noted above this was an apocalyptic title take from Daniel 7:13-14 in which the Son of Man is the one who will rule and reign for God over creation. All nations will come and serve the Son of Man. By claiming this title Jesus not only identifies himself with the apocalyptic visions of Daniel but also declares himself to be a major actor in the unfolding of Daniel's vision. The use of this title and its connection to Daniel would not have been lost on those who heard Jesus use it. Thus Jesus engages the apocalyptic tradition in his teaching in such a way as to further identify himself and his mission.

    

The Road to Redemption – Jesus as Wisdom Teacher

    We begin this week a series of articles in which we will try to gain a more in-depth look at Jesus as he is shown to us through the Gospels. As we noted several weeks ago there is no exact consensus on how we are to see Jesus (messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, rabbi, etc.). The gift of each of these descriptors is that they give us the opportunity to see a much more well-rounded Jesus than if we only had one or two of them. They allow us to examine his ministry and his person. Today we will look at the picture of Jesus as teacher…and more specifically as wisdom teacher.

    Within the Jewish tradition there was a distinction between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge concerned the basics of reading and writing; of how to plant and harvest; of how to build a house or restore a roof. Wisdom on the other hand was what one discovered at that sacred intersection of God given insight and the living of a Godly life. This means that wisdom was more than ethics and more than practical advice. Wisdom allowed one to live fully into being a child of God such that one reflected the very wisdom of God into the world. In a sense it allowed one to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth. Without wisdom one was literally walking in darkness and because of that one would make foolish decisions; decisions that did not honor the fullness of life one might have in God. Jesus spent much of his ministry offering this kind of wisdom to those around him.

    Jesus went about his wisdom teachings in two very distinct ways. The first was the use of aphorisms. Aphorisms are short, pithy sayings that cause people to see the world in a new way. Examples are: "Let the dead bury their own dead." "No one who puts their hand to the plow looks back." "There is nothing outside of a man that can defile a man. It is the things that come out of a man that defiles him." "Salt is good, but if salt has lost its flavor who will season it?" "For if you love those who love you what reward do you have?" Some of these aphorisms are contextual (the one about the dead burying their own dead) while others can stand alone (the one about loving those who love you). Regardless they allow us to see below the surface of specific moments and actions as they invite us to see life in a new way. These aphorisms are also not supposed to be easily understood. They are supposed to engage our minds, hearts and spirits in a complex process of discernment.

    The second way in which Jesus went about his wisdom teaching was through parables. The parables are far more familiar to us than much of Jesus' other teaching and work. Parables such as the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan have been taught to us since childhood. While the parables are often seen as stand-alone stories, more often than not they are Jesus' way of either answering specific questions or dealing with specific issues. This is what set Jesus apart from other rabbis or teachers. When asked a specific question most rabbis would quote other rabbis and give a history of interpretation. Jesus often went directly into the parables. The parable of the Good Samaritan was in response to a question about who is my neighbor. The parable of the Prodigal Son was in response to the Pharisees critiquing Jesus about eating with sinners. The gift of parables was that they invited persons into a story through which they could see the world differently. This meant that there was no point or counterpoint in which one person could win an argument or score points. Instead it allowed persons to be transformed by participating in a new reality created by the parable.

    The gift of Jesus' wisdom teachings is that they are not bound to a particular place and time. Though some of them may be difficult to understand in our non-agricultural, 21^st Century society, the truths that are contained within them remain eternal. Our task is to continue to allow them to invite us into their world, in order that we too might discover some of Jesus' wisdom for our lives.

    

The Road to Redemption: Jesus as Creator of a New Community

    So what was Jesus up to? That is one of the questions which has occupied New Testament scholars for the past century and a half (at least). The debate was about whether or not Jesus was trying to create something new (the church), reform something old (Judaism) or simply trying to be a prophetic agent and/or wisdom teacher in the rural regions of Judea. There are schools of thought which argue for each of these positions. There is a school of thought which argues that Jesus had abandoned Judaism as corrupt and thus needed to create an alternative community of faith. There is another school of thought which argues that Jesus was simply trying to reform Judaism (as Luther was trying to do with Catholicism) but people like Paul took it too far and began a new community. Finally there are schools of thought which simply see Jesus as a wandering prophet or teacher who had no larger plans than to impact the rural regions of Judea.

    Which is it then? What I would like to argue is that it is a bit of each. As we saw last week, Jesus' game plan was rooted and grounded in Judaism. The language that Jesus used was consistent with the work and words of the great prophets who had preceded him. In that sense what Jesus was about was a continuation of the great story of God's work in the world to restore creation to its original intent. As part of this process Jesus also picks up the idea that not all of the biological children of Abraham were going to be part of this recreated community. Again, this idea is not new, but is rooted in the concept of a "remnant." The Remnant was a subset of God's people who would, through their faithfulness live into and be a part of this new creation. This idea can actually be seen as early as I Kings 19 where we read the story of Elijah the Prophet who when believing he alone is left to defend God's honor, is told by God that no, there is a remnant of seventy thousand who will stand with him. Remnant theology is brought to full flower later in the work of Isaiah.

    At this point it would appear that Jesus is simply working for the reformation of Judaism. However there are also hints that Jesus is about creating something new out of the midst of the old. First Jesus calls twelve disciples. This number appears to be intentional as if he is going to be creating twelve new tribes. Second, Jesus invites women into his inner circle. Though they are not part of the twelve they are still encouraged to be fully engaged in learning and ministry (something which traditional Judaism would never allow). Third Jesus engages with Gentiles and offers them the benefits of being part of this new community (which by the way is actually based in the Old Testament, though it was certainly not a part of the beliefs of Judaism of Jesus' day). Finally (at least for the purpose of this article) Jesus rejects the Temple as essential to the life and work of God in the world. While he teaches in the Temple he is clear that ultimately God is going to be about creating a new community which is Spirit and not ritual powered (again an Old Testament concept).

    Thus what Jesus is creating is both in continuity and discontinuity with what has come before. There is continuity in that it looks somewhat like First Century Judaism (central beliefs about God, humanity and creation) but at the same time looks very different (women and Gentiles as integral members). This new community which ultimately is called the church was never intended to be a replacement for Judaism but was instead intended to be a community which resembled the teachings of Isaiah in which all nations would come and worship God and be Spirit empowered. This understanding is the basis of Paul's writings (which we will look at this week) in which he wants the church to know that it is a "wild olive shoot" that has been grafted into God's people; meaning that Judaism and its story are the church's roots for which the church must be grateful. In the end then Jesus created a new community which emerged from the old in order to be God's agent of reconciliation and renewal in the world.

    

The Road to Redemption – Jesus’ Messianic Ministry Game Plan

    Last week we looked at the slow but steady rise of messianism (the belief in a messiah) over the centuries prior to Jesus' birth. We also noted that there was during the Second Temple period no real consensus as to the nature or role of the messiah. All of this meant that when Jesus arrived on the scene the messiah field was wide open for interpretation. This can be seen in the wide array of messianic pretenders who came and went before and after Jesus. Each offered their particular slant on the messiah concept. Most, though not all, were leaders of armed gangs who tried to start a people's rebellion (something that succeeded after Jesus' death and ultimately led to the destruction of Israel). Jesus, as we will see, chose a very different tack in his short but world changing ministry.

    Jesus' ministry began in about his 30^th year with his baptism by John the Baptist. While his baptism, proved to be a slight embarrassment (It is embarrassing because the church claims that Jesus was sinless…so why did he need a baptism for remission of sins? It is also embarrassing because the greater baptizes the lesser…so why wasn't Jesus baptizing John?) the church understood that this event was Jesus' "coming out party." It was in his baptism that Jesus received his commission and call to messianic ministry. Jesus' baptism
was followed by his being driven into the wilderness in order to be tempted and tested. Such tempting and testing was a rite of passage for all who would live as prophets of God. The wilderness was that place where prophets learned dependence on God and God alone.

    The Jesus story told by the Gospels diverges at this point. Matthew, Mark and John move directly to Jesus calling disciples. Luke on the other hand has Jesus lay out his ministry game plan before calling followers. For the moment we will go with Luke because the messianic ministry game plan laid out in Luke fits with the work of Jesus in all four gospels. So what is this messianic ministry game plan? It is God's plan for the reclamation of creation. We know this because Luke tells us that Jesus lifted it right out of the words of the prophet Isaiah, who was echoing not only God's word to himself, but was reconfirming what God had been about since the calling if Abram. This longstanding plan was to remake the world into the "good" creation that God had originally designed it to be.

    Jesus' game plan for this work was as follows. He was to preach good news to the poor; proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind; set at liberty those who are oppressed; and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord's favor. In other words Jesus was going to set right the world that humanity had mucked up. I say this because if we turn to the Torah, to the most basic statement of God's plan for humanity, what we see is that God's desire for creation did not look much like the world into which Jesus was born. God's desire was that there be no poor (Jesus' world was filled with them), that there be no captives (Rome was all about captives and slavery), that all people know what God desired of them (the people around Jesus were being sucked into a Greco-Roman world with different beliefs and codes of moral conduct), that there be no oppression (the rulers, whether Jewish or Roman used force to keep the people in their place) and finally that the Jubilee year when all debts were cancelled and all land that had been bought was returned to its original owners would be proclaimed (this had never happened though the Torah says it should be done).

    As you can see Jesus' ministry was not simply about "spiritual" matters. Jesus was about restoring the political, economic, religious and social realities of the world in ways that would be God honoring. It is little wonder then that Jesus quickly ran afoul of those who sought to either maintain the status quo or who desired to change the status quo in order to impose their vision of life on the people of Israel. Nevertheless Jesus maintained his course even in the face of persecution and death. Over the next several weeks we will look at how Jesus went about accomplishing this mission.

    

The Road to Redemption: The Jewish Context Part Two

    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.

    

The Road to Redemption: The Jewish Context Part One

    Jesus was a Jew. That statement is one that ought to cause most of us 21^st 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.