Jesus: Apocalyptic Mesiah or Counter Apocalyptic Social Prophet? An Alternate View

Jesus: Apocalyptic Messiah or Counter Apocalyptic Social Prophet? An Alternate View of Jesus and Why the Church is Called to Serve the Oppressed

Nick Kiger

Proof Text:

Luke 6:20-21 Congratulations, you poor! God’s domain belongs to you. Congratulations, you hungry! You will have a feast. Congratulations, you who weep now! You will laugh. 1

Introduction

Christians around the world do not seem to agree on much these days, but presumably all Christians define themselves as followers of Jesus. What I mean by this is the Christian Church (which I use all-inclusively to describe the Christian movement) sees Jesus as its authority and inspiration. It is unfortunately apparent that the Church is having difficulty defining the purpose for its presence, and at many times is getting its priorities tangled in politics and a narrow interpretation of scripture. The Church is ultimately having trouble defining who it should serve, and how it should do so. An example of this confusion can be seen in two different decisions made by the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. The Archdiocese of Los Angeles decided they would not uphold a law prohibiting them from offering assistance to illegal immigrants. The law, if passed, would require churches and other charities to require documentation in return for services (Wantanabe 2006, 1). Cardinal Roger M. Mahoney stated he would instruct priests to defy the law (1). On the other side of the country, the Archdiocese of Boston has decided to discontinue adoption services because a Massachusetts state law prohibits agencies from discriminating against gay and lesbian couples in adoption cases. The Archdiocese refuses to offer adoption services until the law is changed to allow the Roman Catholic Church to make exceptions due to religious beliefs (Johnson 2006). It seems that in these two decisions, the Roman Catholic Church has decided to break one law to help a group of oppressed people, and has refused service to another group that would have been within the law. These recent decisions made by the Church are laden with confusion about who the Church should serve. This apparent confusion causes me to raise a few questions. First, does the Church have the responsibility to assist the oppressed? Second, is it acceptable to ignore a certain group of the oppressed? And last, if my earlier assumption was right about Jesus being the Church’s authority and inspiration, I am led to ask, what instructions does Jesus’ message give to the Church. The first and second questions rely on the answer to the third. We must determine what Jesus’ message was in order to determine the approach the Church

aegis 2007

aegis 2007

should take towards the people it serves.

Searching For Jesus’ Message

Since Jesus did and said many things, interpreting his message is no simple task. For the purpose of argument I will use two contrasting views of the historical Jesus. The first view, held by a majority of Christians, sees Jesus as the messiah, offering an apocalyptic message. In this view, the historical Jesus came to earth as the messiah to deliver a message about his second coming and the end of time. Marcus Borg (1999) offers four ways to view Jesus’ messianic status: 1. Jesus thought he was and was the messiah. This view is the one accepted by most Christians. 2. Jesus thought he was but was not the messiah. 3. Jesus did not think he was and was not the messiah 4. Jesus may not have thought he was the messiah but was (56).

All four views focus mostly on whether or not Jesus believed himself to be the messiah. I will come back to this list later. The second view, and the view I will argue for, is that Jesus was not concerned with the end of time, or being the messiah, but rather he was a social prophet, and his message was in fact counter-apocalyptic. It is important to establish Jesus’ messianic status because whether or not Jesus believed himself to be the messiah would ultimately determine his motivation. If Jesus believed himself to be the messiah, then his message would have been focused on his fulfillment of prophecy and other messianic characteristics. I place Jesus, as I believe Borg does as well, somewhere between not thinking and not being the messiah (Borg’s third), and not thinking and being the messiah (Borg’s fourth). I place Jesus in this category, because I believe Jesus’ message was not motivated by his messianic status, whether he knew or considered himself to be the messiah or not. If Jesus’ focus was on bringing the end of time, he would not have been able to focus his entire ministry and message on serving the oppressed. Through looking at Jesus’ words and actions, we can see that Jesus identified with the oppressed, gave preference to the oppressed, and was a servant to the oppressed, thus making service to the oppressed the motivation for his ministry.

A Breakdown of Luke in Defense of a Social Prophet Status:

I will attempt to defend my position by using a breakdown of the sayings in Luke. First, to be consistent, I have used only the sayings decided to be red or pink by the Jesus Seminar. Red and pink designations indicate the saying to be plausibly original to Jesus. No black or gray sayings are included. 2 I have developed a list of criteria to use in categorizing the saying as either “social-prophet,” “apocalyptic,” or “miscellaneous”:

Social-Prophet:

• The saying directly speaks to, or, about an individual or group of oppressed people (i.e. women, children, toll collectors etc.). • The saying points out corruption in the social, political and religious systems of

Jesus’ time. • The saying gives instructions for good human relationships • The saying defines God’s domain in terms not usually associated with the notion of God’s domain (i.e. God’s domain is like a mustard seed).

• The Saying defines God’s domain as being currently present (Counter-apocalyptic). • The saying emphasizes the inclusion of the oppressed in God’s domain. • The saying emphasizes God’s concern for humanity.

Apocalyptic:

• The saying defines God’s domain as coming in the future, or not currently present. • The saying refers to the end of time • The saying includes Jesus’ self-identification as the messiah (i.e. Son of Adam). • The saying includes language about a final judgment.

Miscellaneous:

• The saying shows wisdom of Jesus, but does not include any of the criteria for social prophet, counter-apocalyptic, or apocalyptic sayings • The saying contains certain instructions for apostles, but does not directly criticize social practices of Jesus’ time. • The saying could not be definitely placed in one of the two previous categories. Using the above criteria, I separated the red and pink sayings in Luke into one of the categories.

aegis 2007

Figure 1

As Figure 1 shows, the red and pink sayings were majority social prophet sayings according to my criteria. This breakdown of Luke shows that Jesus’ message was hugely devoted to being a social prophet.

Defining the Oppressed

A defining aspect of Jesus’ social prophet status is his preference for, and focus on, the oppressed. Because this paper is meant to be applied on a practical level, I will now focus on this aspect of Jesus’ message. Before I go further, I think it is appropriate to define my understanding of the oppressed in a first century context. Today we view the oppressed mainly as those who are poor, or those who are an abused minority. In the first century these groups would be seen as oppressed as well, but added to the list would be some groups that we do not usually view as oppressed, at least not to the extent that they were in the first century. Robert W. Funk (2002) defines four groups of oppressed people with whom Jesus would have interacted: the sick, tax collectors, women, and children. Each of these groups was considered

aegis 2007

oppressed in the first century (48-55). It is important to first understand how and why these groups were oppressed in order to understand Jesus’ interaction with them. Today we have pity on sick people because their illness is a burden to them physically and financially. In Jesus’ society they not only had these reasons for pity, but were oppressed in being labeled “unclean.” Being labeled as “unclean” was devastating to a person’s social existence. Leviticus 13:3-4 discusses the Jewish law concerning sickness; in this case Leviticus is describing skin disease. The passage states that the priest shall examine a sore on the skin to determine whether or not the person is “ceremonially unclean.” If the skin is in a certain condition, then the priest can place the infected in isolation for up to fourteen days. In a society governed by Jewish law, not only were the sick isolated from society, but they were prohibited from having regular social relationships and were denied religious observances if pronounced to be “ceremonially unclean” (50). Tax collectors are quite different from the other groups of the oppressed. It seems many tax collectors were responsible for bringing oppression upon themselves. They gained the reputation of being liars, cheats and thieves (50). Because of their reputation, tax collectors were often grouped with sinners, whores, and pagans (51). Although they had a heightened status in the political system, being compared to these groups would have made being a tax collector just as bad as being a prostitute or even a murderer. This shows that Jesus even identified with criminals. Despite their political and economic status, tax collectors were nonetheless socially isolated, and Jesus recognized this. Throughout history women have been oppressed. There was no exception to this in the first century. Women were considered practically invisible outside of the home. During periods of menstruation, women were given the same label of unclean as those who were sick. Women had separate social roles, and it was not customary for them to associate with men (48). Because of this, women were not allowed to be involved in social, religious, or political affairs. They were seen as unimportant in these matters. Children in the first century had a contingent existence. Many factors determined whether or not a child would be accepted into the family, which was ultimately the father’s decision (49). The first factor was simply whether or not the father wished to accept the child as his. Most female babies were rejected (49). Babies with deformities were often killed (49). If the family could not afford to raise the child it was abandoned, and even wealthy families abandoned children who were threatening to their estate (49). Children were only born to carry on the family name, do work to help the family, and to take care of the parents when they reached old age.

Jesus’ Identification With the Oppressed

We must next establish why Jesus would have any reason to want to serve the oppressed. To do this, I will explain the political situation in the first century, and how Jesus fit into it. Not only was Jesus’ society dominated by Roman rule, but it was governed by both Roman and Jewish law, Jesus being at odds with both in many instances. Borg (1999) explains the “domination system” in which Jesus functioned. Borg gives three characteristics of this system:

1. Politics were dominated by an obvious hierarchy. The Roman rulers and Jew

2. The peasant class was exploited for economic production. Although they generated the majority of the wealth, it was taken from them through taxation and upper class’ control of land ownership.

3. The will of God was used to justify oppression and the power of the elite (71-72).

Jesus was not only a part of this system, but given his status he was oppressed by it as well. As Borg points out, Jesus experienced injustice. This was not only an experience, but a factor that shaped Jesus and his ministry (65). The gospels claim that Jesus’ family was part of the peasant class. That Joseph was a carpenter or mason would most certainly land Jesus’ family in this category. Being from Nazareth, Jesus lived near the city of Sepphoris, a major city where he would have been able to experience social injustices firsthand. Because of his experience of social oppression, Jesus had a reason to make it the motivation for his ministry. Because of the domination system and because of his experience, Jesus spent his entire ministry interacting with the oppressed. Jesus had many means of expressing his connection to the oppressed, as I will show. He used these means to interact with the poor, the sick, the tax collectors, women, and children. He did all of this in the face of the Roman Empire and the Jewish hierarchy. I understand, along with many scholars that Jesus’ interaction with the oppressed ultimately lead to his death. Not only then did Jesus serve the poor, but if my understanding is correct, he sacrificed himself for them as well.

Jesus’ Interaction With the Oppressed

Jesus’ social prophet message greatly emphasized service to the oppressed and is evident in the synoptics’ description of his interaction with them. The familiar instances in the gospels where Jesus casts out demons, heals, and eats with many different people are often not acknowledged for their impact on society. Given the synoptics’ portrayal of Jesus’ status as a teacher and a prophet, simple interaction with the oppressed alone, without a secondary action such as healing, would have still been of great social importance to certain groups of people. As mentioned above, healing was one way in which Jesus chose to serve the oppressed. Luke 5:12-13 gives an example of one of Jesus’ healings: “And it so happened while he was in one of the towns, there was this man covered with leprosy. Seeing Jesus, he knelt with his face to the ground and begged him, ‘Sir, if you want to, you can make me clean.’ Jesus stretched out his hand, touched him, and says, “Okay-you’re clean!” As mentioned before, people with leprosy were considered unclean. Not only did Jesus allow the man to come close to him, but in the act of healing him, Jesus touched the man. This would have made Jesus unclean himself, and Jewish leaders very uncomfortable. Jesus pronouncing the man as clean allows him to skip the process of becoming clean through means of the temple, which would have been the traditional process. Instead the man is clean not because of a ceremony, but because Jesus said so. As Funk says, Jesus “restores [the man] to full standing in human society” (Funk 50). Jesus also disregarded social customs in service to the oppressed, especially in regard to women, children, and tax collectors. In these instances Jesus simply used interaction as a form of service. Jesus surrounded himself with female followers. In allowing women to accompany him in public, Jesus was allowing them to defy a social norm (Funk 48). Perhaps this was a message to those in charge that women were acceptable in the same social situa-

aegis 2007

aegis 2007

tions as men were, and should be allowed to interact with men. An instance in Mark 10:13-14, shows Jesus’ own disciples as the oppressors of a group of children: “And they would bring children to him so he could lay hands on them, but the disciples scolded them. Then Jesus grew indignant when he saw this and said to them: ‘Let the children come up to me, don’t try to stop them. After all, God’s domain belongs to people like that.’” Jesus is obviously irate with his disciples, and allows the children to come to him. These children, who were not really understood as complete persons, but only as a means for income, according to Jesus, were worthy of God’s kingdom. Matthew 9:10-11 gives another instance in which Jesus breaks a social code in order to interact with the oppressed, this time tax collectors: “And it so happened while he was dining in [Matthew’s] house that many toll collectors and sinners showed up just then and dined with Jesus and his disciples. And, whenever the Pharisees saw this, they would question his disciples: ‘Why does your teacher eat with toll collectors and sinners?’” At the end of this passage it is clearly apparent the Jewish leaders were uncomfortable with Jesus’ actions.

Inheriting God’s Domain

I have mentioned a few instances in which Jesus promises the oppressed God’s domain or the “kingdom of God.” God’s domain is usually viewed as God’s imperial rule, when God becomes the supreme ruler, ending evil and corruption. This was a Jewish belief that someday there would be a world of peace and freedom. Luke 6:20 is a prime example of Jesus’ promise to the oppressed when he says “Congratulations, you poor! God’s domain belongs to you.” The inheritance of God’s domain would have been important to the oppressed. Being regulated by laws and social customs, the oppressed were likely to feel they could not be a part of God’s domain. Jesus makes it very clear God’s domain is attainable by all, and in fact God’s domain is already on Earth. In Luke 17:21 Jesus says “God’s imperial rule is right there in your presence,” which I describe as a counter-apocalyptic statement. In Mark 10:13-14 Jesus promises God’s domain to children. In doing this, Jesus gives the message that the oppressed have the upper-hand, and those who oppress them are condemned, and refused the inheritance of God’s domain. Thus, the perfect world that was being anticipated was not only on Earth and present, but was reserved for the oppressed and those who served them.

Would Jesus Recognize the Church?

In light of all of this, I must wonder if Jesus would say that the Church has picked up on his message. I do not think that Jesus would be particularly happy with the Church today. In fact, I am sure he would find it unrecognizable. As the test case in the beginning shows, the Church has decided to ignore the needs of children who are in need of adoption services, and to refuse to respect the rights of gay and lesbian couples to adopt. I do not think that Jesus would commend such picking and choosing. Some denominations of the Church have actually taken on the role of the oppressor in many instances. The best example is many denominations of the Church’s widespread oppression of gays and lesbians. The Church views gays and lesbians as outsiders. A popular response to this claim is that homosexuality is a sin, and the Church should oppress it. My response would be that Jesus made no such exceptions in the area of sexuality. He served outsiders (“sinners”) just as he served insiders (“the holy”). 3 His interaction with tax collectors and prostitutes are striking examples of such interaction. In Matthew 25:46, the oppressor is not only condemned, but will “head for everlasting punishment.”

Conclusion: An Alternate View of Jesus and What it Means for the Church

Today the Church has rooted itself in political debate. Fundamentalists have taken to the narrow interpretation of scripture. Many Christians rely only on what is said from the pulpit on Sunday, and they dismiss any academic inquiry. Churches focus more on numbers than productivity. It is easy in these conditions for Jesus’ message to be distorted. It is easy in these conditions for people to turn to religion for the wrong reasons. It seems that the Church has been plagued by a season of confusion. The alternate view of Jesus and his message may help to clear up some of this confusion. As Christians begin to put Jesus’ words and actions into perspective, they can know the impact of Jesus’ constant interaction with the oppressed, and his expectation that the same impact would be made long after his death. The Church needs to realize its ability to be a voice to the oppressed just as Jesus was. If the Church will recognize that the presence of God’s domain is not a distant apocalyptic thought, but is here in our presence, it can see more clearly its role in the care for those isolated by society.

Works Cited

Borg, M.J., & Castle, Wright N.T. (1999). The meaning of Jesus: Two visions. New York:

HarperCollins Publishers Inc. Funk, R.W. (2002). A credible Jesus: Fragments of a vision. Santa Rosa CA: Polebridge Press. Funk, R.W., & J.S. (1998). The acts of Jesus: What did Jesus really do? New York:

HarperCollins Publishers Inc. Funk, R.W., Hoover, R.W., & J.S. (1993). The five gospels: What did Jesus really say?

New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc. Johnson, G. (2006 March 13). The Associated Press state & local wire. Romney seeking very narrow bill on church and gay adoption. State and Regional Section. Watanabe, T. (2006 March 1). Los Angeles times. Immigrants gain the profit. Metro Desk;

Part A; pp. 1

Notes

1 All references to Biblical scripture come from The Scholars Version. 2 Although the work of the Jesus Seminar has been debated, the issue is too large to contend with in this study. 3 I would like to point out the “hate the sin, not the sinner” mentality is not what I am supporting here. I am simply trying to explain how Jesus served even those made outsiders by the Church, regardless of whether or not they were committing a “sin.”

aegis 2007