JESUS , THE RABBI

The Gospels give us scant information about Jesus before his journey to Jordan to be baptized by John the Baptizer, but the information that we do have which is derived from the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew and Luke give us some clues that Jesus perhaps was more educated and not as impoverished as we have been led to believe.   What I am about to say is pure speculation based on very scant information, but it is speculation that I feel is worth some consideration. 

If we are to understand how Jesus was able to attract a following and debated with Jewish scholars, we need to move beyond the idea that Jesus knew everything simply because he was God's only-begotten son from all eternity.   That idea would not have had any weight with those to whom Jesus was preaching to, but something about Jesus did attract not only the sick and poor, but the scribes (Jewish legal experts) and the Pharisees to Jesus.  Jesus was a human being just like us, and just like us the knowledge that Jesus possessed had been handed down him by those who taught him.  

According to the Gospels, Jesus was frequently called "Rabbi" when addressed by scribes and Pharisees.  The Gospels portray Jesus as being able to read and write, something most of his disciples would not have been able to do.  Reading and writing means that Jesus has some formal education.   After all he was invited to read from the prophet Isaiah at his hometown synagogue.  The leaders of the synagogue knew that he was educated; that he may have been trained, had been in training as a scribe, or even ordained as a rabbi. To suggest that he simply knew how to read and write because he was the Son of God borders on absurdity.  

The term rabbi is often portrayed by Christian preachers as a respectful term given to anyone who was a teacher of some kind.  While there may be some truth in that, the likelihood is that Jesus being recognized as a rabbi is simply due to his being one, as evidenced by the fact that in the Gospels he was addressed  as such throughout his ministry by the scribes and Pharisees who knew him or knew of him.  What also supports this speculation is Jesus' use of parables as a primary teaching tool to engage his audience in thinking about his message.  Storytelling is an art form that most rabbis utilized then and now.  Jesus was a master story-teller.

An educated Jesus begs the question, who his teachers were.   In particular, where did he obtain his particular understanding of the Torah and the Prophets?  

The Synoptic Gospels significantly records that Jesus moved from Nazareth to Capernaum at the start of his prophetic ministry.   Unlike Nazareth which was rather remote, Capernaum was a thriving community that boasted two synagogues and was located on various trade routes.  Capernaum became Jesus' home-base for his prophetic ministry and its attraction may be due to Jesus' familiarity with it.

Having two synagogues, Capernaum was likely an educational center where Jesus could have received  at least some rabbinical training.  Trade routes converged in Capernaum, which exposed its residents to the outside world and new ideas like all cosmopolitan environments.  Jesus choice of living in such an environment lends itself to the notion that Jesus was a seeker of knowledge who was open to the universal and perennial wisdom found throughout the world that can be traced in some of his teachings; as in Luke 11:34 where Jesus talks about the singular eye filling the whole body with light, a concept associated with  the Far East and not found elsewhere in the scriptures.

Regarding Jesus' early education, one is drawn to the intriguing story found in Matthew of Joseph taking his family to Egypt to protect Jesus from King Herod.   While this story is not corroborated by the other Gospels, there is a strong possibility that the story is correct since trouble was brewing in Galilee around the time of Jesus' birth as a zealot by the name of Judas of Gamala who was encouraging people not to pay Roman taxes. There was a significant Jewish population living in Egypt, particularly in the city of Alexandria.  Had Jospeh taken his family to Egypt,  they would have likely settled in Alexandria where there was a notable Jewish community.   

Regarding their return to Galilee, the only information is given that when they heard Herod had died and was replaced by one of his sons they decided to move back.  How long they stayed in Egypt is unknown.  Jesus could have been approaching his teenage years by the time the family returned.  If so,  a young Jesus could have been encountered or have been taught by someone like the Jewish philosopher Philo or one of his students.  Many scholars have noted the similarities between the teachings of these two men. If nothing else, Jesus might have been familiar with Philo's views  or influenced by sages (wise men) who traveled the trade routes from the East passing through Capernaum.

We know from the Gospel of Luke that by the time Jesus was twelve and on the cusp of being declared a son of the law in his bar mitzvah at age thirteen, he was taken to the Temple by his parent.  The Jewish Talmud records a tradition that during the Second Temple period (the time in which this story took place) it was customary for families to take their first born sons to the Temple, particularly on the Feast of Passover, to do their first fast recalling of the 10th plague of the Exodus story in which the firstborn of the Egyptians were slain.  After such a fast, the firstborn son would be taken to the Temple to be blessed by the sages. [See Exodus 13].  Jesus is depicted in Luke as being able to converse with the Temple sages regarding the scriptures during this visit. It is also a story that depicts an inquisitive Jesus capable of being disobedient to his parents by staying in the Temple after his parents headed back home to continue his conversation (his education) with these sages (teachers).  

If Jesus was a rabbi, he appears more drawn to the prophets than to the Torah.  It is not that Jesus was disinterested in the Torah, but rather that Jesus interpreted the Torah through the prophets or with a prophetic vision.  As such, when Jesus took to the road, he did so more as a prophet while maintaining a rabbinical teaching style.  He identifies himself in the Gospels as the Son of Man, the title God conferred on Ezekiel and Daniel.  In doing so he identifies himself as an exemplar, a teacher of a particular way of life.  

Jesus was not teaching something new.  Everything that Jesus taught was a reflection of what can be found in the law and the prophets of the Old Testament.  Jesus was no scriptural literalist, however.  While he honored the scriptures as any practicing Jew does, he stopped short of insisting that the scriptures were the inviolable Word of God; that everything in Scripture had to be taken literally.   For instance, in the collection of Jesus' teachings compiled as the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus famously says, "You've heard and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say...." [See Exodus 21:23 and Matthew 5:38].    He offended the Pharisees by plucking grain from the fields on the and healing someone on the Sabbath, taking to task their rigid, literalist view of the Torah. 

Jesus had an astute knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures that allowed him to argue his perception of the world based on them.   Jesus went a step further than sticking with a rabbinical, open-to-debate style.  Jesus practiced his understanding of the scriptures in order to expose the hypocrisy he saw evident in many of the religious practices of his day.  The Gospels note that the scribes and the Pharisees "marveled" at his assertive teaching style, or to put it the words of Gospels, "as one who spoke with authority, an authority most rabbis wouldn't have attempted to display publicly..

In my next post, I offer an overview of Jesus' message.

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm 

 

  

   

JESUS AND HIS DISCIPLES

 As Jesus' fame spread, he attracted a following.  The Gospels describes three types of followers; those who were interested in what he was doing and what he had to say, those who sought healing, and those he personally invited or called to be his disciples.  The Gospels give these callings a mystical hue. Generally speaking,  Jesus simple says to whoever he is calling, "Come, follow me" and they immediately drop what they're doing and start following him.   

There is a tendency within Christianity today to think of any church member as being a disciple of Jesus; a concept derived from Jesus commissioning his disciple to make disciples of all nations at the end of the Gospel of Matthew.  Discipleship is a term that needs to be understood. 

Looking at the time, the place, and the culture in which Jesus called his disciples tells us that Jesus was  a product of the time, place, and culture in which he grew up and lived.  All of Jesus' "called" disciples are men.  Jesus was no misogynist.  He honored women and women were his most ardent followers.  They were the people who didn't abandon him when he was crucified and they were the first people to experience the empty tomb and receive the message that Jesus was resurrected.  They were also directed to "Tell his disciples that he is risen."  What is clear in the Gospels, however, is that these devoted women were not considered disciples at the time the Gospels were written.   

This is admittedly dangerous turf to tread on today.  I'm not saying that women are not worthy to be called disciples, but rather that Jesus apparently did not think of them as such during his ministry and that his not doing so reflects the time, the place, and the culture in which he and the devoted women who followed him lived.  In the patriarchal, male-dominated society  women would have been put at risk if told they were told to preach and heal people.  While Jesus was a product of a patriarchal upbringing, he did not feel bound by it in his personal relationships to women.  He spoke to them in public and allowed them to speak to him in public.  That in itself would raise some men's eyebrows and it indeed did even amongst his disciple's inner circle.    

The fact is we know little about the twelve named disciples he called.  We are familiar with Peter, James, John, Judas and Thomas.  We know Matthew was a tax collector before becoming a disciple.  We know a little about Phillip, but very little else.  We know Peter was married and his brother Andrew was a disciple, but other than that we know virtually nothing of the other six disciples who made up Jesus' core disciples, apart from their names. 

In Luke 10 we are informed that Jesus may have had seventy-two other disciples beside the core twelves disciples we are familiar with.  Who these disciples were is unknown.  What we know is that Jesus is said to have sent them out like he did the twelve disciples to put into practice what he taught them.  In this sense, disciples were more than devoted followers, they were students learning to do what Jesus did and Jesus sends them out as his apprentices to practice what they have learned, some returning with mixed results.  

In the John 6, there is a story that seems adapted from stories in the Synoptic Gospels in which the religious leaders of his community challenge Jesus about his teaching.  In this story Jesus is telling his audience that he is the Bread of Life and that unless people will eat his body and drink his blood they  will not have eternal life in them.  It is at this point that John writes many of Jesus' disciples left him because they felt Jesus had gone too far in comparing himself to bread from heaven and talking about eating human flesh and blood.   Only the core twelve disciples stick with him.  Like many stories in the Gospel of John that reflect events found in the Synoptic Gospels, the premise of disciples leaving because Jesus talked about eating his flesh and drinking his blood is spurious and reflects a rationale attributed to Jews, during the time the Gospel of John was written,  for rejecting Christianity. 

Jesus lived in a time in which messianic fervor was high and was viewed with suspicion by both Jewish and Roman authorities. but amongst the general public there was a hope that some day soon the Messiah would defeat the Romans, and reestablish the Kingdom of Israel.  One cannot help but wonder that when John the Baptizer and Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God if people equated it with the reestablishment of a Davidic Kingdom of Israel.  

This thought may have crossed Jesus' mind.   What strongly hints at it is when in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus takes the twelve on a journey outside of  Galilee to ask them, "Who do people say that I am?"  Jesus is wondering if the question that continued to haunt him could be answered by the perceptions of how others saw him.  More importantly, since picking up on John the Baptizer's theme of talking about the Kingdom of God being at hand, was people making a connection between what he was preaching and who he is.

That Jesus waited until he was away from a predominantly Jewish audience to ask his disciples this question underscores the concern Jesus had regarding that question.  The disciples responded by saying some thought  he was a prophet or one of the prophets, or the recently executed John the Baptizer, some even thought he was Elijah, the forerunner to the Messiah, but the disciples had not heard people speak of him as the Messiah.  This may have come as some relief to Jesus because people were not following him for who they thought he was but rather because of what he did and taught regarding the Kingdom of God, which Jesus consistently presented as an antithesis to any kingdom on earth.    

Then Jesus asks his disciples who they thought he was.  This question might have struck them as a bit odd, as somewhat begging for an answer Jesus was looking for.   It's very likely that Peter thought he knew the answer that Jesus was looking for: "You are the Messiah, the son of the living God." Apart from Matthew's telling of this story, Mark's and Luke's description of Jesus' reaction to Peter's answer comes across as something Jesus was less than excited about because he quickly warns them to tell no one.  

Theologically, this story poses a quandary because if Jesus believed he was the Messiah why didn't he want people to know.  None of the Synoptic Gospels attempt to explain Jesus' reticence in taking on this title or why he didn't want his disciples talking about it.  We don't have a straight answer for that unspoken question.  Theologians can come up with reasons why he didn't want that information out there, but these Gospels don't offer one.  It is only in the theological Gospel of John that Jesus has no qualms about Jesus being the Messiah because by the time the Gospel of John was written, Christians claimed Jesus to be the Messiah.  

In all three Synoptic Gospel accounts, it is after Peter declares Jesus to be the Messiah that Jesus begins talking about his death.  Theologically speaking, Jesus talking about his death is presented as an indication of the  sort of messiah Jesus is.  Pragmatically speaking, Jesus is simply  reminding his disciples what happens to those who claim to be a messiah, which is to say that those with messianic aspirations will end up being crucified by the Romans.  There is no mystery about that.  It had happened before and it would likely happen again.  In other words, Jesus is saying if he is perceived to be the Messiah that Peter claims him to be, he will be seen as a threat and end up being crucified.

While the Synoptic Gospels do not have Jesus clearly denying that he is the Messiah, it becomes evident that he is not the Messiah that his audience and his disciples were waiting for.  Peter was ready for a fight.  In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, James and John approached Jesus with a request that one of them sit on his right hand and the other on his left hand once Jesus' kingdom is established, which infuriated the other disciples. The Gospel of John tackles the issues of Judas' betrayal by portraying Judas as being disenchanted with Jesus' lack-luster commitment to the here and now concerns of the poor as evidenced by Jesus allowing a woman to anoint his feet with expensive oil. 

All of the Gospels tend to portray Jesus' core disciples as having difficulty understanding what Jesus was saying about the Kingdom of God.  It isn't that they were ignorant about what he was saying, but more likely, that the difficulty they had in "understanding" Jesus was due to the time, place, and situation that they found themselves in.  If they were trying to see in Jesus the Messiah that they wanted to see, they had difficulty in seeing that Messiah from what Jesus was saying. 

That Jesus healed illnesses and did things that challenged the religious authorities of the time was something they could see the Messiah doing, but his teachings did not contain the rhetoric they expected the Messiah they are looking would use.  It was not that they didn't understand Jesus' parables as much as it was trying to filter from them something concrete to rally the troops around; the troops they suspected Jesus would need if he was to take on the Romans and cleanse the Temple of what they saw as a paid off priestly cast doing the bidding of Rome.  

It isn't until after Jesus' crucifixion and the disciples' resurrection experience of Jesus that their understanding of Jesus undergoes a profound change and his message about the Kingdom of God finally begins to sink in.  It is after Jesus' physical departure that the followers of Jesus experienced a spiritual awakening in which the teachings of Jesus enlivened and emboldened them.  In time, the Kingdom of God that Jesus had talked about became more vivid and took on cosmic proportions than the reestablished Davidic Kingdom of Israel they had once hoped for.  As such, the teachings of Jesus that they found difficult to accept before Jesus' death would propel them to proclaim the good news of the emergence of God's Kingdom throughout the world. 

My next post will examine the teachings of Jesus.

* * * * * * * * * * 

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm   

  

 

  

JESUS, THE SON OF MAN

SON OF MAN

בֶּן־ אָדָם֙

SON OF THE EARTH

"Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked.  “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?  Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him.  But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith." Matthew 13:54-58 KJV

In this post, we turn from Jesus' "Who-am-I" question to the question people in his hometown of Nazareth were asking.   Who is this person? Where did his get his wisdom and miraculous powers?  Isn't this the carpenter's son?  Isn't his mother's name, Mary and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?  Aren't all his sisters with us?  When and where  did this man get all this information and the ability to heal? 

These are indeed good questions and they reveal something about Jesus that we indoctrinated Christians tend to dismiss:  Few if anyone in his hometown really knew who Jesus was as a person.  It's as if they even forgot his name.  He's not recognizable because they apparently could not remember anything about him growing up. They associate him with Jospeh's occupation, a carpenter - perhaps referencing an early memory of Jesus helping Joseph out.  They know the name of his mother and his brothers and the fact that he as a number of sisters living in their community, but they are unable to remember his name or unwilling to say it.  There is a strong lack of familiarity surrounding Jesus amongst the people who should have known him as one of their own.   

The encounter with his hometown people is suggestive.  There apparently was nothing impressive about Jesus growing up that stuck in their minds.  Did Jesus leave his hometown at the earliest time he could and live elsewhere, to study with some biblical scholars or rabbis, perhaps?  That he knew the scriptures as well as he did also rendered his home town folk unable to recognize him, as if to say that no one from their community would have been able to give him that sort of instruction or knowledge.  His fame as a miracle worker was known to them but, if anything, that made him more unrecognizable.  In fact they appear suspicious of him.  "What had he been up to?  Where had he been since they last saw him?" 

Jesus response to their bewilderment is revealing.  "A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home." 

Jesus had changed.  He had taken on the role and the identity of prophet. 

Even in Jesus' day prophets were something to be wary of.  The implication is that the people of Nazareth were so wary of him that Jesus could not do many miracles because of their lack of faith.  

I chose this particular story about Jesus found in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark because it gives us window into how Jesus' contemporaries; particularly, those he grew up around perceived him.  There is nothing remarkable about Jesus in the minds of those who knew him prior to his entry into his ministry.  His wilderness journey in which he struggled with being called a son of God in a vision was transformative and transfiguring to the point people who should have easily recognized him couldn't or refused to do so. 

In this passage, however, we find an answer to Jesus' question, "Who am I?"   In this passage Jesus clearly identifies himself as a prophet.  Prophets could also be understood as sons of God, although a prophet would never usurp that understanding to promote oneself.  Any outright claim to being God's son would have been met with outrage.   Instead Jesus chooses an ancient prophetic title, "Son of Man."  

Only two prophet were called son of man.  Ezekiel was regularly addressed by God as son of man  (96 times).  What I found disturbing is that in researching this term, some English translations translate the original Hebrew בֶּן־ אָדָם֙ (ben adam) as "mortal" instead of "son of Adam" or "son of man" or "son of the soil."  I understand the temptation to do so because we humans are mortal, but it misses the etiological meaning of ben adam.

It's important to understand the etiology of this term "Son of Man" in order to get at what Jesus meant by applying it to himself.  The etiology of the English word man or human is also linked to the idea of humus or earth, which renders a good translation  בֶּן־ אָדָם֙ (ben adam) as "son of the earth."  It is worth keeping that definition of  in the back of our minds while discussing Jesus as the son of man.  

Another term that is translated as "son of man" is found in the Aramaic phrass in Daniel 7:13 "like the son of man," כְּבַ֥ר אֱנָ֖שׁ [ kebar enawsh].   כְּבַ֥ר אֱנָ֖שׁ connotes in Daniel's vision someone "like" the son of mankind appeared to him.  In Daniel 8:17 God calls Daniel in Hebrew  בֶּן־ אָדָם֙ (son of Adam, son of man, or son of the earth) rather than the Aramaic בַ֥ר אֱנָ֖שׁ (son of mankind).  

It is likely that the term son of Mankind ( כְּבַ֥ר אֱנָ֖שׁ  the eschatological figure described in Daniel 7:13 influenced an understanding of Jesus as the "son of man" the eschatological term since it was found in Aramaic in Daniel, the language of Jesus.  Jesus could have used the Aramaic בַ֥ר אָדָם֙ [bar adam (son of Adam, son of man, or son of the earth) just as easily.  

The New Testament Gospels we have come from Koine Greek.  As such, they translated בַ֥ר אָדָם֙ orבַ֥ר אֱנָ֖שׁ as ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου, the son of man.  There is some argument that the Hebrew or Aramaic translation of son of man found Ezekiel and Daniel is missing the definite article that preceds  the Greek use of this term in the New Testament.  As such the argurment is that lacking a definite article when using this term in the Hebrew and Aramaic texts there is no connection between Jesus' use of this term and its use in Ezekiel and Daniel. There is a simple reason, however, for this.   In Daniel and Ezekiel the term lacks the definite article because it is a term God uses to address Ezekiel and Daniel.  In the New Testament Gospels,  Jesus applies this term to himself; frequently using it as a third person reference to himself. 

It is likely Jesus used this term in much the way God identified both Ezekiel and Daniel.  It is literally a humble title, given its connection to earth from which the human soul is made of. (See Genesis 2:7 and my Reflection on Agape and Nefesh).  What is clear from Jesus' use of this term is that Jesus understood himself to be a prophet.

Why Jesus chose "Son of Man" as a reference to himself is precisely due to its revelatory connotation.  Jesus was interpreting or revealing the signs of his time to the people of his time.  If there is a prophet Jesus was channeling during his ministry, it would have been Ezekiel.   

Ezekiel prophesied to Jews exiled in Babylonia, giving them hope that God would restore their land to them.   As were many people living within the Roman Empire, the Jews living in Judea and Galilee became exiles in their own land.  It was to these exiles in place that Jesus became their exemplar, God' messenger offering them hope and a way through the trials they were experiencing.   

Jesus didn't engage in bizarre behavior like Ezekiel.  He would, however, engage in behaviors and story-telling that challenged those following him and, in particular, the religious authorities who challenged him in return.  Jesus touched untouchables.  He partied with questionable characters.  He broke Sabbath laws with aplomb.  By doing so he drew attention to himself as the Son of Man, their and our exemplar, in order to draw attention to what we are doing to ourselves.  Jesus became the exemplar of what it means to be human; that is, to be created in the image of God and to be a child of God.

As our exemplar, Jesus also cryptically applied "the Son of Man" to mean all of us.  There are two examples of this in the Synoptic Gospels.   The first is found in the Gospel of Mark 2:1-12.  

This is the story of Jesus healing a paralytic.  Jesus returns home to Capernaum and his fame as a healer and prophet has spread throughout the area.  A paralyzed man is brought to him on a mat and lowered through the roof of the place where Jesus was preaching to be healed by Jesus.  Jesus is impressed by their faith.  

Jesus uses this event as a teaching moment.  Infirmity of any sort was largely considered a punishment for some sin either committed by the person or a member of the person's family.  For someone to be blind, crippled, or paralyzed from birth cast suspicion of sin and guilt upon the person's family; in that, someone had sinned and the person's infirmities exposed it as God's punishment of it.  

In this case, the man's palsy or paralysis was attributed to something the man had done. It is quite obvious that in many of these situations, the afflicted might be left wondering, what sin did I commit that would result in such a punishment.  In this story, Jesus' response to this man is, "Son your sins are forgiven."  Note that Jesus calls him "Son."  There is really only one way for a Jew of Jesus' day to interpret the meaning of "son" in this context, which is that he was a son of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; a member of the  tribe of Judah. Jesus immediately identifies this man as his sibling and a sibling  to everyone in the room.  

Jesus' declaration that the man's sins were forgiven must have raised some eyebrows on the faces of the the religious leaders who were present.  Jesus picks up on their questioning looks and confronts them with, " Is it is easier to say to this man your sins are forgiven or to say take up your mat and walk."  Without waiting for a reply Jesus said, "So that you know the son of man has power to forgive sins on earth,'  Jesus then turns to the man and says, "Take up your mat and walk home."   

"That you may know the son of man has power to forgive sins on earth" is Jesus' way of saying to everyone in the room, "You have the power to forgive sins" and by doing so telling them they can heal the many ills they are afflicted with and can refrain from attributing sin to every ill that comes their way.  

The other story in the Synoptic Gospels that gives strong credence that Jesus' use of  'son of man" was applied to mean every human comes on the heels of the paralytic story in Mark 2:23-28 and is also found in the other two Gospels of Matthew 12:1-7  and Luke 6:1-6.   What differentiates the account of this story in Matthew and Luke from the account given in Mark is Jesus' revealing statement of using the term son of man to mean all of humanity.  Matthew's and Luke's version follows that of Marks until the last two sentences in Mark.   Here is Marks account from the King James Version:

"And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.  And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?  And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?  How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?  And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:  Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath."

As our exemplar, Jesus is properly understood as the Son of Man, a man with a clear prophetic vision of the ignored obvious.  By the time the Gospels of Luke and Matthew were written, we can see that the notion of the "son of man" being used by Jesus to indicated his role as our exemplar and a prophet became something more than Mark's understanding of that term.  "Son of Man" became an exclusive title ascribed to Jesus, as the eschatological figure described in Daniel and in the Book of Revelation.

Mark being the earliest Gospel account of Jesus' life and ministry has value in that it shows Jesus use of that term having a purely human connotation.

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm

JESUS' JOURNEY INTO THE WILDERNESS

The story of Jesus' journey into the wilderness after his baptism by John the Baptizer is foundational to the whole story of Jesus.  That journey was transformative for Jesus.  It is what I have described in other posts as a pause in Jesus' life that would transfigure his perception of himself and the world in which he found himself.  In this series of posts on humanity of Jesus,  I am attempting to offer an understanding of Jesus' life  story from a strictly human point of view.  I feel the importance of doing so is that over the centuries we have lost sight of and lost touch with Jesus being a person just like us.

What is portrayed as a demonic voice or visions in Jesus' wilderness experience  I am purposely portraying as interior conversations. This is not to discredit the Gospels or the understandings of their presentation, but rather to orient our understanding of them in human terms.  The very human Jesus of Nazareth has much to teach us about ourselves and our life journeys if we avoid distancing him as being something other than one of us.

Like us, Jesus experienced both right and wrong in his life. Contrary to what some of the New Testament writers would have us believe about Jesus, he wasn't, in human terms, perfect.  He was not only subject to sin but he perceived himself a sinner as, most notably, he was one of many who heeded John the Baptizer's call to repent and prepare for the kingdom of God.  It was heeding that call which led Jesus to experience a vision as he emerged from the water of his baptism in the Jordan river, a vision in which he was told that he was God's son, in whom God was well-pleased.   

We can only imagine the sense of awe, if not panic, Jesus was likely to have experienced.  What did this mean?  Was it real?  Inevitably it would lead to the question that haunted Jesus throughout his ministry, a question hopelessly expressed on the cross in those painful words,  'My God, my God why have you forsaken me?  When Jesus emerged from the waters of the Jordan he found himself on a journey of discovery that began with the most fundamental question most of us have or will face in our lifetimes:

WHO AM I?

That spirit driven question drove Jesus into the wilderness seeking an answer to what it meant to be declared God's son.  The destination of the wilderness is more than a geographical place.  It implies a state of mind.    

In strictly human terms, Jesus likely questioned his sanity.  He questioned the voice of God declaring him to be God's son and finds that he can't get it out of his head or get rid of the gut wrenching feeling it caused him to have.   The Synoptic Gospels do not depict Jesus questioning that vision in any direct manner.  They do so rather indirectly by introducing another voice into the narrative, that of the devil or Satan.

We are led to believe in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' journey into the wilderness that God wanted to test Jesus without giving us a specific reason for God wanting to do so, as if God wanted to see if he would stand up against the temptations that would be coming his way.  Perhaps the wilderness journey was needed to temper Jesus' expectations of what he was going to face in his ministry through a series of trials. We can't read God's mind, but from a human point of view, we can understand Jesus needing to find an answer to the meaning of God calling him son.  

Questions that crossed Jesus might have sounded like these:  "Is  God calling me  to be the Messiah that everyone was looking for?  Am I the one who would re-establish the Kingdom of God on earth?  If so, why me?  What is so special about me?  Why is God pleased me above all the others who gathered at the Jordan?"  

In the Gospels of Luke and Matthew Jesus is presented with three  temptations.  The Gospel of Matthew has Jesus initially presented with two temptations specifically aimed at answering the question, "Are you really God's son?"   They come in the form of turning stones into bread and testing to see if God would send his angels to protect Jesus should he jump from the highest pinnacle of the Temple.  In other words,  "If you're the 'Son of God.' Prove it."  

If Jesus had wanted to know if he truly was God's specifically declared Son, all he would have had to do was follow through with any one of them.  Had he turned stone into bread or experienced angels saving him from harm after jumping from the Temple highest pinnacle, he would have had all the proof he needed.  Jesus would have proven himself to be some potential super hero with super powers, but Jesus didn't take the bait and we are left wondering why?  A clue to that is found in the reasons Jesus called to mind, "Man does not live by bread alone" and "You shall not tempt the Lord your God."  

As enticing as these temptations were, it would appear that Jesus figured out that proving that he had super powers would have not answered the most fundamental question that brought him to the wilderness.   The question as to who he was would have remained.  

What strongly supports this assumption is the final temptation according to Matthew.  Playing on the prospect of Jesus' doubts and fears as to where God was leading him, Matthew depicts the devil taking a different approach and offers Jesus a familiar, more sure-fire temptation.  Paraphrasing Matthew's account;

Then Jesus heard a voice.  "You seem to be afraid of proving whether you're who God says you are.  Perhaps you're afraid of God or you really don't think you're the Son of God, which of course leaves you nowhere but in this wilderness of doubt.  You still seem so uncertain about yourself.  Nothing is more annoying than that nagging feeling of uncertainty.  I can fix that. 

I suspect you are torn about this whole son of God thing because you would really like that to mean you are, at some level, God.  Do you want to be like God?  I know this has crossed your mind.  The urge to exercise God-like power is there.  I can sense it.  

You can... you know.... be a god.  Just look around this wilderness.  Just look at the mental anguish this whole son of God thing is causing you.  Why labor for an ambiguous kingdom that has yet to take shape (and probably never will) when you can have your own kingdom on earth, right here, right now. 

I know you want to do good.  Think of all the good you could do if someone good like you ruled the world.

You know I can make that happen.  I have the ability to grant you that.  You can rule the world if you acknowledge me as your father.  Make me your God and I will make you a god on earth.  Can I have an Amen to that?"  

As alluring as this proposition was, Jesus resists the temptation to temporal power.  On the surface these temptations as described in Matthew and Luke probably don't seem so tempting to us.   After all, we did not experience the vision that Jesus did.   We know we can't make bread out of stones or leap from a tall building expecting to be saved by God's angels.  We know how ridiculous it is to think that anyone of us could rule the world with god-like powers if we worshipped Satan or some demonic presence, but Jesus struggled with such demonic thoughts.  Unlike Jesus, we don't live in a world were a majority of people thought it possible for mortals, on rare occasion, to acquire god-like powers like those attributed to emperor of Rome, who he could possibly through some demonic manipulation have replaced.   

Each of these three temptations appear aimed at general human needs; the need for sustenance, assurance, and empowerment.  One could spend some time delving into each these, but the point of Jesus' refusal to take the bait on being certain as to what it meant to have been identified as the son of God was to let go of the need for certainty in order to move on with his life and ministry.  

In resisting the lure of these temptations, Jesus proved to himself what Abraham proved throughout his life; his faithfulness to God and his trust in God's faithfulness. Like Abraham, Jesus comes to understand through this trial that he didn't need to know for certain where God was leading him, but rather to accept that faith in God alone is sufficient for sustenance, assurance, and empowerment he was seeking; the same faith that led him to the Jordan, the faith that led him into the wilderness, and the faith that would lead him to where God willed him to be.  

Jesus didn't receive a direct answer to the question,"Who am I?"  Jesus found his desire to know quelled; to be content with the ambiguity and uncertainty of being declared God's beloved son.  That question of who Jesus was would morph into a life-long journey of discovery that could could only be answered by Jesus living into into becoming the son God called him to be.

In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus refrains from ever referring to himself as the son of God, let alone the capital "S" Son of God.  He never refers to himself as a messiah.  Instead, Jesus chose a different identity as he enters his ministry, a human identity by referring to himself as the "Son of Man." 

In my next post, we will take a closer look at Jesus' choice of this identity.

Until next time, stay faithful