Jesus as "Prophet": Part III

Jesus as Social (Leadership) Prophet: Crossan, Thiessen, Horsley, Kaylor & Herzog II
Within this section we will examine several prominent scholars who focus upon Jesus as a leadership, rather than an oracular, prophet. We will begin by studying John Dominic Crossan, who does not fit too comfortably here, but whose work has been influential upon others in this category. We will then examine the work of Gerd Thiessen, Richard Horsley, R.D. Kaylor, and William Herzog II, before critically reflecting upon this perspective.
John Dominic Crossan: Jesus as Prophetic Magician and Itinerant Cynic Sage
John Dominic Crossan is difficult to locate within a typology that examines Jesus as prophet. With his emphasis upon Jesus as sage, he fits well with the position of the Jesus Seminar — of which he is a member, albeit one that is rather distanced from, and arguably well beyond, most of the other members. Similarly, with his emphasis upon Jesus as a magician, rather than as prophet, it could be argued that he better belongs within the group that understands Jesus as a charismatic. However, this paper has located Crossan here because his work has borne much fruit, and functioned as a springboard to others who locate Jesus as a radical social prophet.
Although Crossan avoids the title “prophet” and prefers to call Jesus a “Jewish peasant Cynic”, he argues that the Cynics embodied a lifestyle and mindset that was opposed to the cultural heart of Mediterranean civilisation. As a Cynic Jesus espoused “a way of looking and dressing, of eating, living, and relating that announced its contempt for honor and shame, for patronage and clientage”. Thus, Jesus, rooted thoroughly in the tradition of the Jewish peasantry, sought to develop a religious and economic egalitarianism by announcing the “brokerless kingdom of God”. Therefore, Crossan argues that Jesus better fits the type of “magician” than “prophet” for the magician is one who “can make the divine power present directly through personal miracle rather than indirectly through communal ritual”. Jesus follows the model set by Elijah and Elisha who both combine oracular political prophesy with popular individual magic and thereby functions as a “magical prophet” or, better yet, a “prophetic magician”. Jesus thus espouses a different ideology than the powers that be, for his life and actions raise the question of the validity of other authorities. Therefore, the conflict that Jesus encounters is that between the magician as the personal and individual power, versus the priest or rabbi as the communal or ritual power. Thus, according to Crossan, Jesus was subversive, but was more sophisticated than radical in his form of subversion. Yet Jesus planted the seeds of what could become a much more radical form of subversion.
However, like the previous group, Crossan continues to drive a wedge between this historical Jesus and the Christ of faith, and he therefore argues against the resurrection, or the notion that Jesus was divine. Thus he writes:
If those who accepted Jesus during his earthly life had not continued to follow, believe, and experience [Jesus'] continuing presence after the crucifixion, all would have been over. That is the resurrection, the continuing presence in a continuing community of the past Jesus in a radically new and transcendental mode of present and future existence.
The resurrection is simply a handy metaphor employed by the early ecclesiastical authorities in order to legitimate their authority and the direction they provide the Christian community.
Crossan avoids calling Jesus a prophet, and limits the subversive nature of Jesus' ministry. However, several other scholars have developed this picture of Jesus in a much more radical manner and rooted it in a more thoroughly prophetic tradition, and it is to these scholars that we now turn.
Gerd Thiessen: Jesus as a Charismatic (Prophet?) Renewing the Poor
Gerd Thiessen also tends to avoid calling Jesus a prophet, and prefers to see him as an itinerant charismatic but because of his emphasis upon Jesus as a social radical, he fits this category better than the others offered in this paper. As part of a radical socio-ecological Jewish renewal movement, Jesus is an itinerant who calls for separation from pagan cities and espouses an ambivalence towards Jerusalem. Thiessen argues that Jesus was thoroughly rooted in the margins of society, and in opposition to the rulers. Within Jesus' ministry economic distress, religious unrest, and political resistance are all interconnected. Thus, through actions like healing the lower classes and the outcasts, Jesus comes into direct conflict with the authorities. Through this conflict Jesus was hoping to bring about the kingdom of God, which would result in the poor coming “into their own”. Jesus was hoping to bring about a “revolution in values, a takeover of upper-class attitudes by the lower class”. Consequently, Jesus dies a political death, just as John before him died a political death.
Richard Horsley: Jesus the Revolutionary Prophet
It is with the writing of Richard Horsley that the notion of Jesus as a radical social prophet really begins to reach its full expression. Here, Jesus is seen as an oracular and leadership prophet at the head of a “grassroots movement of Galilean peasant protest”. Jesus is emphatically not a cynic or a wandering charismatic, but is a social prophet like the Old Testament prophets. He is a revolutionary siding with the oppressed over against the oppressors. Thus, when approaching Jesus as an oracular prophet, Horsley emphasises the need not to take apocalyptic literally, but argues that it must be read within its context and understood as an act of subversive remembering by oppressed groups. Apocalyptic motivates resistance and demystifies the present social order. From this perspective talk about the kingdom of God, is all about rejecting the rulers for the communal solidarity of the traditions of Israel — it has nothing to do with the future or with a detached spirituality. Therefore, the key to Jesus' approach, as a social prophet, is resisting exploitation by the rich and powerful without surrendering Israel's egalitarian traditions or resorting to violence. The society that this Jesus envisions is one of radical equality, living within the “kingless kingdom of God”. It is a community that is co-operative, non-hierarchical, defined by solidarity, mutual service, and the absence of all authorities, and all authoritative institutions.
Because this Jesus envisions such an egalitarian society, he focuses upon those who were “utterly excluded” and pronounces judgement on the rulers. Like an Old Testament prophet, he opposes those who oppress the poor, and he therefore targets the temple and the high priests because they were the true power and the client rulers for Rome. Indeed, Horsley sees all of Jesus' actions as an assault on Rome. By exorcising demons, which, significantly, go by names like “Legion”, and by healing wounds caused by imperial power, Jesus claims victory over Rome. Because Jesus challenges the authorities so explicitly when he comes to Jerusalem (first by mocking all messianic pretenders by riding into Jerusalem on an ass, and then by overturning tables in the temple), he dies the death of a rebel and a prophet. Yet this provides the renewal movement with the impetus to live on in his name — and those today who resist the idolatry of power will inherit the kingdom of God.
R.D. Kaylor: Jesus the Social Prophet of the Here-and-Now
R.D. Kaylor largely follows the thesis of Horsley. Jesus was a prophet renewing Israel through a return to the social standards set by the covenant. He was political, with a political agenda, and was killed as a political subversive who saw the spiritual significance of seemingly mundane things like food, clothes and shelter. Kaylor also continues to argue that the focus on Jesus as a social prophet requires a move away from eschatology and spirituality. The kingdom of God, according to this Jesus, was all about the here-and-now, it was all about earthy politics. In this picture there is little room for such things as transcendence or a future coming kingdom.
William J. Herzog II: Jesus as Prophet of the Justice of the Reign of God
Finally, it is worth examining the significant contribution of William Herzog II. Like Wright, Herzog follows Webb's thesis by differentiating between first century clerical, sapiental, and popular prophets, before arguing that Jesus is most similar to, but not identical with, the popular prophets. Popular prophets, Herzog argues, tapped into deep wells of popular discontent, and worked towards delivering the people from foreign or corrupt domination. Thus, Jesus is quite political, albeit in a way that in not necessarily immediately obvious to the twentieth century Western reader. Active politics was one of the defining characteristics of the Old Testament prophets and Jesus fits well with the example they provide, for, like them, Jesus also upholds Torah, and came into conflict with “court prophets” who supported the existing regime. Thus, Jesus embodies what is common to all prophets.
Combining these three elements (Torah, politics, and conflict), Herzog argues that Jesus connected faith and theology based on a reading of Torah that saw God's land as a haven for justice in an unjust world, and this reading clashed with those who co-opted Torah for the purpose of political advantage. Therefore, Jesus attacks the temple system because it had become a place of economic exploitation and a means of legitimating the state and establishing dynastic claims. By attacking the temple system, Jesus also attacked the notion of a clear hierarchy of holiness with distinct boundaries that existed at all levels of Jewish society. The levies and taxes kept the people perpetually indebted to the temple and therefore in a constant state of uncleanness and vulnerability. Therefore, Jesus did not seek to cleanse the temple, he sought its destruction, based upon the desire to replace it with something different. As Herzog says, “The destruction of the oppressive institution that the temple had become was one step toward the coming justice of the reign of God”. In his assault on the temple system, Jesus also drives a wedge between the temple and the land, when he talks about the fruitfulness of the land apart from the temple system. This Jesus argues that the people were poor, not because the land was not producing, but because the people were being exploited and oppressed by tributes, tithes, and taxes.
In his conflict with the Pharisees, Herzog's Jesus counters the “Great Tradition”, that legitimated the powers and the then existent socio-political and economic order, with the “Little Tradition” of the dominated peasant masses. This is essentially the clash between religious traditions which support hegemony and religious traditions which challenge hegemony. These traditions can be traced back to two codes that exist within the Torah: the debt code, and the purity code. These codes do not coexist on equal terms but one becomes focal while the other becomes subsidiary and is mediated through the first. Thus the Great Tradition starts with the purity code while the Little Tradition begins with the debt code.
As a social prophet of the Little Tradition, Jesus is a herald of the kingdom of God, announcing it, articulating its meaning — justice for the oppressed — and mediating its power. Indeed, Jesus' healings and exorcisms are all a part of this conflict and part of Jesus' political strategy. Jesus never performed miracles just for the sake of performing miracles, rather the miracles revealed who channelled God's power, who mediated God's power, and on whose behalf God's power was exercised. All of this meant a rather damning judgement against the socio-political and economic powers, and it required the cancellation of debts, and the redistribution of resources.
Critical Reflection
What then are we to make of Jesus the social prophet as he is presented by these scholars? Crossan's Jesus will be examined first, and then Thiessen's Jesus, before some summary comments are made about Jesus the social prophet as he is reflected in the works of Horsley, Kaylor, and Herzog.
Crossan's magical Cynic Jesus has faced rather damning criticisms from several New Testament scholars. First of all, Crossan has imposed a more romantic and sophisticated type, that of Cynic, upon Jesus — but it is a type that would not likely be familiar to a first century Jew from Galilee. Although Crossan does attempt to distinguish between Greek Cynics and the followers of Jesus, there does not seem to be any significant evidence that the Cynics were a known presence with the Galilee of Jesus day. Secondly, if Jesus was the type of Cynic that Crossan describes, it becomes quite difficult to comprehend why anybody would want to kill this Jesus. Furthermore, the notion of Jesus as magician is rather suspect, not only because the term “magician” would be considered quite derogatory within Second Temple Judaism (hence, we discover that it is Jesus' opponents that apply this title to him in the Gospels), but also because Jesus' methods do not align with those of a magician. First century magic was “ritual and practices used to coerce the gods and spirit powers” and magicians tended to rely on material aids and magic formulas, while Jesus does not use aids or formulas and primarily operates through touch or simple commands. Magicians were regularly doing these deeds for money, they were magicians for hire, and Jesus certainly does not fit this model. Examining Crossan's model of Jesus helps us to realise how much more appropriate the prophetic type is, and so we can conclude with James Dunn that “there are parallels which can be pressed to affirm Jesus as magician, Jesus as Cynic. But is either case a good example of solid historical evaluation? I think not”.
Gerd Thiessen's model of Jesus — more socially radical than Crossan's but still not explicitly prophetic — has faced some criticisms from others within this section, especially from Richard Horsley. Horsley argues that Thiessen's move away from the prophetic type to produce an itinerant charismatic Jesus results in a Jesus that is far too removed from politics. Thus, according to Horsley, Thiessen does not do justice to Jesus' context of dislocation, conflict, and distress. More could (and should) be said about Thiessen's model of Jesus but further criticisms of the charismatic type will be reserved for the next section of this paper.
Examining the work of Horsley, Kaylor, and Herzog (and the elements that overlap in the work of Crossan and Thiessen), one finds much that should be affirmed. These scholars are absolutely correct to emphasis the socio-political and economic priorities of Jesus' mission, and of the prophetic vocation in general. One cannot engage with these scholars and still retain any doubt that Jesus was political and was at least subversively, and perhaps revolutionarily, so. Especially important in this regard is the insight that the miracles Jesus performed were done with a political and eschatological end in mind. As a first century prophet, Jesus' socio-political stance is firmly rooted within the traditions of Israel, and thus in the works of Horsley, Kaylor, and Herzog, the result is a convincing historical portrait of Jesus.
However, there are at least three criticisms that need to be raised against this perspective. The first is that these scholars tend toward an over-realised eschatology. In this sense, Ben Witherington is correct to argue that these scholars are often right in what they affirm, but wrong in what they deny. By stressing the social/leadership element, these scholars too quickly discard the apocalyptic/oracular element. Certainly Horsley makes a valiant effort to account for apocalyptic or eschatological elements within Jesus teachings, but he stresses that the eschatology all refers to events in the present, not in the future. Too much of the religious is lost in an overemphasis upon the notion that the kingdom is fully here, fully now, and not future at all.
This leads to the second criticism levelled at these scholars: they confuse the ultimate enemy that Jesus is fighting against. For all of these scholars the enemy is the corrupt leaders in Jerusalem and, ultimately, Rome. From this perspective it becomes difficult to understand why Jesus did not resort to violence (apart from the argument that asserts that Jesus was trying to break the cycle of violence — an argument that sounds quite nice to a twentieth century audience but could well have brought a lot of blank stares in a first century audience). Thus, it seems that Tom Wright's thesis, that Jesus understood his ultimate enemy to be Satan, is far more convincing. The exorcisms and healing may reveal secondarily that Rome's days are numbered, but they first and foremost reveal that Jesus is waging war with Satan. Jesus wins the initial skirmishes, and he goes to Jerusalem to (among other things) win the final battle. These scholars, with their move away from all things spiritual, have difficulty accepting this thesis, yet, if we are to do justice to the worldview of Jesus and the Old Testament prophets, it must be retained.
The third criticism confronting these scholars is that they also separate the Christ of faith from the Jesus of history, and reduce Jesus to only a prophet (albeit a very good one). In this regard these scholars fit within the neo-liberal school (although they hover on the radical fringe) as they deny any Christological elements or claims of Jesus, as well as denying the resurrection. Once again, this is the result of a too-realised eschatology driven by an overemphasis upon the here and now. If we are to do justice to Jesus as prophet, the apocalyptic and social elements, the oracular and leadership elements, must be kept together, not driven apart. Apocalyptic must be both heavenly and political, and the kingdom must be both now and not yet.
Finally, it should be noted how different this social prophetic Jesus is from the prophetic type that is common in the contemporary charismatic prophetic movement. Contemporary charismatics are generally apolitical, which really means that they support the current state of affairs. For someone to do this, and claim to be a prophet while doing so, is a total betrayal of the whole history of the prophets from the Old Testament through to Jesus. Having said that, let us now examine the more explicitly charismatic prophetic type as it is applied to Jesus.

Jesus as "Prophet": Part II

Jesus as an Apocalyptic (Oracular) Prophet: Schweitzer, Sanders, Casey, & Ehrman
If Jesus' mentor was eschatological, and Jesus' followers were eschatological, it would seem logical to suppose that Jesus was eschatological.
Within this section, we will examine key scholars that have emphasised Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet. These scholars all tend to bring a fairly literal interpretation to the apocalyptic elements of Jesus' ministry, and see Jesus as a prophet proclaiming, and expecting, the imminent end of the world. We will begin by examining the work of Albert Schweitzer, who is the single greatest impetus for this perspective, and then will comment on the works of E.P Sanders, P.M. Casey, and, most recently, Bart Ehrman. Finally this section will conclude by critically reflecting on the contributions of these scholars.
Albert Schweitzer: Jesus the Failed Apocalyptic Prophet
Albert Schweitzer believed that Jesus understood himself to be the final prophet before the cataclysmic in-breaking of the kingdom of God that would bring about the end of the world. Based on the fact that the Synoptics only recount Jesus going to one Passover in Jerusalem, Schweitzer argues that Jesus' ministry lasted only one year. He argues that Jesus was baptised by John in the Spring, and expected the kingdom of God to arrive at harvest time. From this perspective, Jesus sees his prophetic call to repentance as sowing the seeds that will ripen into the final harvest. Thus, Jesus sends out his disciples and expects the kingdom of God to arrive when they come back. Yet the kingdom fails to come and this is a critical turning point for Jesus. When the disciples return, he departs from the crowds and awaits the kingdom “… in vain”. At this point, Schweitzer argues, Jesus realises that he must prophetically take on the suffering that would act as the birth pains of the new age — “[Jesus'] death must at last compel the coming of the kingdom”. And so Jesus goes to Jerusalem to die, expecting to be immediately raised to life along with all of the dead in the final resurrection. Yet even here, Jesus fails. Thus, Schweitzer concludes, “There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the Life of Jesus”. Jesus, the apocalyptic prophet who expected the end of the world, was gravely mistaken and failed in his task.
E.P. Sanders: Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet of Israel's Restoration
Schweitzer's view has had a lasting impact upon New Testament scholarship, and it is picked up and developed in the monumental work of Ed Sanders. Sanders follows Schweitzer and argues Jesus expected an imminent end to the age, and thus Jesus functioned as an eschatological prophet calling for the final renewal of Israel. Thus: “Jesus looked for the imminent direct intervention of God in history, the elimination of evil and evildoers, the building of a new glorious temple, and the reassembly of Israel with himself and his disciples as leading figures in it”. From this perspective, Sanders stresses that Jesus must not be understood as a social reformer but as an eschatological prophet, whose message cannot be reduced to a sociological construct, for it is too oriented towards an imminent futurity. Jesus expectations were primarily focused upon an other-worldly in-breaking. He saw himself as “God's last messenger” before the new order was created through a mighty act of God. Thus, Sanders follows Schweitzer and argues that Jesus was mistaken. Jesus is not unique as an apocalyptic prophet, but he ends up being unique because of the ongoing impact of his life and work.
Sanders differs from Schweitzer because he roots Jesus within a Jewish restoration movement, and not within the context of a global cataclysm. Furthermore, he prefers to rely on historical “facts” (such as the baptism by John, the calling of the twelve, and the outburst in the Temple), versus Schweitzer's reliance on, what Sanders calls, “dubious texts”. The “fact” that the Christian community, shortly after the death of Jesus, still espoused an eschatological perspective, and held on to apocalyptic expectations, further supports Sanders' thesis. It is these “facts” that lead Sanders to argue that “prophet” is the best type to apply to Jesus, rather than “charismatic” or “magician”. Therefore, Jesus was a “charismatic and autonomous prophet” and a “radical eschatologist” calling for the final restoration of Israel. In all of this, Sanders paints a rather unique picture of Jesus as a prophet because he removes the notion of repentance from Jesus' prophetic message. Jesus does not issue a national call for repentance, John had already done this, and so Jesus freely offers restoration to the rejects within Israel.
P.M. Casey: Jesus the Apocalyptic Renewal Prophet calling for Repentance
P.M. Casey follow closely on the heals of Schweitzer and Sanders and argues that Jesus was acting out of the prophetic conviction that he was to bring Israel back to God as the final messenger to bring the good news before the kingdom of God burst into history. Jesus saw his ministry as the final in-gathering of the flock of Israel. The main point of difference between Casey and Sanders is that Casey emphasises that the return of Israel to YHWH is premised upon repentance, and he therefore argues that Jesus prophetic call is a call to repent and return to YHWH. Casey also further emphasis the type of prophetic renewal that Jesus embodied — a renewal wherein Israel returned to God as Father, a renewal that centred on healings, and was marked by a concern for the poor.
Bart Ehrman: Jesus the Misguided first century Apocalypticist
Finally, we come to Bart Ehrman who is recently gaining notoriety for almost completely resurrecting Schweitzer's portrait of Jesus. Ehrman argues that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet expecting the imminent end of the world. He argues that, on one hand, Jesus began his ministry associated with John, who was an apocalyptic prophet expecting the end of the world, and, on the other hand, the early Christian communities and early Christian tradition were quite apocalyptic. Therefore, with these apocalyptic bookends, Jesus must have been a “Jewish apocalypticist”. Jesus expected an imminent universal judgement upon all people and all institutions. Thus, he was an essentially misguided apocalyptic prophet, and Ehrman argues that the primary reason why this historical presentation of Jesus is rejected is because people desire a more relevant Jesus.
Critical Reflection
What then are we to make of the apocalyptic prophet Jesus presented by these scholars? To begin with, these scholars must be commended for desiring to locate Jesus within the context of first century Palestine and Second Temple Judaism. They are right to emphasis that Jesus was a prophet, and they are also correct to draw a close correlation between the prophetic and the apocalyptic and eschatological. The Jesus presented by these scholars is more thoroughly historical and Jewish than the Jesus of the preceding liberal tradition or the Jesus presented by much of the orthodox Christian tradition as well.
However, there are at least four areas where this approach to Jesus as apocalyptic prophet is problematic. The first has to do with the definition that these scholars give to “apocalyptic”. Tom Wright cogently argues that apocalyptic, within Second Temple Judaism, had very little to do with a cataclysmic end to the space-time universe. Wright argues, convincingly, that apocalyptic denotes a particular visionary form of literature and speech that discloses states of affairs not ordinarily made known to humans. Apocalyptic is used to refer to events within Israel's history in order to invest them with their full significance. Thus, to read apocalyptic sayings in a “crassly literalistic” manner is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of apocalyptic, which tends towards cataclysmic imagery in order to reveal the magnitude of an event that remains thoroughly this-worldly. It is true that apocalyptic is full of dualities (between the present age and the age to come, between God and creation, between good and evil) but these dualities do not posit a duality between matter and spirit, as if all matter is evil and must be destroyed. Thus, all the events of apocalyptic language remain grounded in time and space and we can conclude with Wright that: “there is no justification for seeing 'apocalyptic' as necessarily speaking of the 'end of the world' in a literally cosmic sense”.
Secondly, we must note that the apocalyptic Jesus presented by these scholars is quite apolitical, and this is largely due to the emphasis upon the total futurity of Jesus' eschatology. Here the kingdom of God is coming, it is not yet present. However, this understanding of Jesus' prophetic ministry must be challenged, in part because apocalyptic, properly understood, was quite political. The apocalyptic form was favoured by those who “[found] themselves on the wrong side of history” and it is written cryptically so that it can pass by the authorities, thereby functioning as “the subversive literature of oppressed groups”. Thus, apocalyptic does not look for the end of the cosmos, it looks for the end of the present world order. From this perspective it must be said that Sanders, and those like Casey who follow him closely, have a far too narrow understanding of politics. Sanders argues for an apolitical Jesus because Jesus was not planing “to liberate and restore Israel by defeating the Romans and establishing an autonomous government”. Be that as it may, there are far more ways to be political, as we will discover when we explore the notion of Jesus as a social prophet.
Thirdly, we must question the form-critical methodology preferred by these scholars. Because the historical Jesus posited by these scholars differs so strongly from the Christian faith tradition (that tends to appeal to the Gospels as they exist today), these scholars posit various layers of redaction that must be peeled back in order to get to the true Jesus. However, the process for discerning what parts of the Gospels are genuine, and what parts are later additions, remains difficult and rather arbitrary. One wonders whether Sanders “facts” are any more solid than the “dubious” texts that he cuts out and discards.
Fourthly, because these scholars desire to build a Jesus of history that is not only different from, but also antagonistic to, the Christ of faith, the Jesus that is presented here is certainly no less than a prophet (albeit a failed one), but he is just as certainly no more than a prophet. This Jesus has little to do with Christological claims of divinity. When all such claims, and all such material is excluded a priori one wonders how accurate a portrait of Jesus can be presented. At the end of the day, these scholars should be commended for their desire to find a Jesus different than the Jesus that twentieth century Westerners are comfortable with, and for providing us with some helpful insights into Second Temple Judaism. Beyond that one should be rather cautious of their understanding of Jesus and first century apocalyptic prophets.
Finally it is worth noting how various elements of this portrait of Jesus as apocalyptic prophet have implicitly or explicitly impacted the present day charismatic prophetic movement. This movement is also largely apolitical, and is also often marked by the expectation of the imminent cataclysmic end of the world. Due to these things the contemporary charismatic prophetic movement would do well to listen to voices from the next group of scholars, to which we now turn.

Jesus as "Prophet": Part I

[This post is the first part of the paper that was the reason why I've hardly been blogging — it maxed out at 41pp. I seriously apologise for the absence of footnotes, I'm still struggling with how footnotes work with livejournal.]
Who do you say that I am? Jesus as an Apocalyptic, Social, and Charismatic Prophet
Introduction
The last century has seen an explosion of interest in the historical Jesus. Within the realm of New Testament scholarship, scholars talk about a Quest for the historical Jesus, a renewed quest, and now a third quest, incorporating new perspectives on Jesus. As various traditional, liberal, historical-critical, sociological, and neo-liberal voices have contributed to the discussion, Jesus has been provided with a wide variety of portraits. One meets Jesus as apocalyptic prophet, Jesus as teacher of timeless truth, Jesus as social radical, Jesus as Cynic philosopher, Jesus as magician, Jesus as wandering charismatic, and so on. St. John tells us that, were all the acts of Jesus written, the books would fill the world, but recent scholarship seems to be doing a fine job of filling libraries with books based on the material we already have!
This paper will examine Jesus as prophet. The prophetic type is somewhat ambiguous and has been filled with various levels of meaning by various scholars. Sometimes those meanings are played against each other, while at other times they are synthesised to varying degrees. There are basically three major divisions within scholarship that studies Jesus as prophet: those who see Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, those who see Jesus as a social prophet, and those who see Jesus as a charismatic prophet. Each of these positions will be examined and critiqued before a final synthesis will be offered. For the sake of ease, various scholars have been positioned within these three divisions, but it should be emphasised that this typology is limited and there is often a more nuanced overlap between categories in the work of individual scholars (as we will especially discover when we examine the likes of John Dominic Crossan, Gerd Thiessen and Marcus Borg). Indeed, speaking of Jesus as “prophet” is already slightly problematic because Jesus stubbornly refuses to be fit into a single type, be it “prophet” or any of the other types listed above. As James Dunn writes, “Since Jesus seems to have broken through all the available categories to the extent that he did, it becomes almost impossible to find suitable terms to describe his role or define his significance”. Therefore, one must be cautious when studying Jesus as prophet, especially when one considers how the prophetic must be enacted today — a topic this paper will return to in the conclusion.
It is impossible to study the historical Jesus as prophet without noting the lasting impact that Albert Schweitzer and Rudolph Bultmann have had upon contemporary scholarship. Schweitzer is largely responsible for the streams within the quest for the historical Jesus that propel the notion of Jesus as prophet into the foreground, and Bultmann is largely responsible for the streams that reject the notion of Jesus as prophet. Schweitzer, as we shall see, painted a portrait of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, participating in an world-ending event… and who was, therefore, misguided and failed to bring about the results he expected. Bultmann found this Jesus to be quite unpalatable, and so he discarded the apocalyptic and prophetic elements of Jesus altogether. In recent years it seems that those who belong to Bultmann's school of thought have carried the day at the popular level, and it is necessary to comment on this school of thought before this paper engages in a sustained study of Jesus as prophet.
Jesus as less than a prophet? Rudolph Bultmann and the Jesus Seminar
'Jesus Christ, Jewish prophet thought to be the Messiah'… Delete 'Christ,' replace 'prophet' with 'teacher'. [From recent revisions made to social science textbooks in California]
Bultmann, as we already suggested, was hardly attracted to the picture of Jesus that was sketched by Schweitzer. Yet Schweitzer had engaged in a sustained historical study of Jesus and his life. Thus, Bultmann expresses a serious scepticism about any contemporary claims to knowledge about the events of Jesus' life or Jesus' actual intentions. He thus discards the category of apocalyptic and any “wishful thinking about the world to come”. However, he is much more certain about the content of Jesus' message, and triumphs the form-critical approach, confident that he can get back to what Jesus said despite the ways in which those sayings were corrupted by the Christian tradition. Thus, Bultmann focuses upon a kerygmatic Christ by means of an existential hermeneutic. The Jesus that emerges from this study is Jesus as “a preacher of a timeless call for decision”. Eschatology is essentially transformed by existenialism. This Jesus teaches timeless moral truths, which challenge people of all ages, and this is the Jesus better known through faith, and not through history.
In the 1980s and 1990s, Bultmann's anti-apocalyptic, anti-prophetic (and rather non-Jewish) position was championed at the popular level by the neo-liberal Jesus Seminar. The Jesus Seminar is a carefully self-selected group of North American scholars, that bring a particular view to the study of Jesus and the early church and then apply that view to a detailed list of sayings. It is largely due to the successful marketing of the work produced by the Jesus Seminar that schools are changing textbooks in order to call Jesus a “teacher” rather than a “prophet”. Because of the focus on sayings much weight is placed upon hypothetical documents like Q and Secret Mark, or much later documents like The Gospel of Thomas,. Thus, most of Jesus' sayings are stripped of their literary settings in order to discredit fundamentalist and traditional portraits of Jesus. Stripped of all apocalyptic elements the result is “a counter-cultural Jesus who serves as an iconic precedent for all anti-establishment restiveness, or a Jesus who was more sophisticatedly subversive than an apocalyptic prophet”. Thus, in the writings of Robert Funk, the founder of the Jesus Seminar, one finds that the Jesus of history has been separated from the Christ of faith so that the real non-eschatological Jesus of the sayings can be freed from both the Christ of the creeds, and the Jesus of the Gospels. In a similar vein, Burton Mack, another prominent member of the Seminar, argues that texts like Mark are early Christian creation myths used to legitimate a particular version of second generation Christianity. Really, Mack argues, Jesus was an “innocent Cynic wordsmith” who would have little to do with contemporary Christianity.
Of course, members of the Jesus Seminar have particular reasons to be attracted to a non-apocalyptic, non-prophetic Jesus. Living as North Americans at the end of the twentieth century they have seen the way in which apocalyptic expectation and prophetic fervour can be manipulated by the State in order to engage in vicious acts of violence and terror around the globe. Apocalyptic expectations are used to fund Israeli terror against the Palestinians, and an appeal to prophesy is made to garner fundamentalist votes for a political party that makes war in the Middle East. In response to these things, the Seminar tries to offer a largely apolitical subversive sage, who ends up looking strikingly like a sophisticated, and somewhat counter-cultural (or at least counter-cultural in the way that most middle-class liberals consider themselves to be counter-cultural), American university professor. We can therefore conclude that, despite their good intentions, the Jesus Seminar has largely thrown out the baby with the bath water when it comes to examining the historical Jesus. These neo-liberals, have made the same mistake that Schweitzer argued the liberals had made — looking for Jesus, they have found their own reflection.
Jesus as Prophet
While the Jesus Seminar was marketing itself as the authoritative and objective scholarly voice on all things related to Jesus, several other North American scholars, and almost all European and international Jesus scholars were drawing very different portraits of Jesus. One of the problems with the Jesus Seminar, as we have noted, is that they often recourse to hypothetical documents in order to create a picture of a Jesus that would have been strikingly out of place in first century Palestine, and Second Temple Judaism. Although other portraits vary greatly it seems that the title most applied to Jesus, that actually meets with considerable scholarly consensus, is the title prophet. This is so because it is the title most reflected in the first century material that we actually have access to (as opposed to hypothetical documents), the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. Within these documents, the title prophet is attributed to Jesus by the crowds, by his disciples, and, significantly, by Jesus himself. Conversely, his opponents condemned him as a sorcerer and a deceiver leading Israel astray — titles often used for false prophets. Thus, it is fairly safe to conclude with James Dunn that “little doubt need be entertained that Jesus was seen in the role of a prophet during his mission”. It is also likely that Jesus saw himself as a prophet, and self-consciously shaped his message, mission, and actions, in terms of classical prophetic principles. Tom Wright also notes that it would be highly unlikely for the later Christian tradition, including the early church, to invent sayings which called Jesus prophet, for “it might have seemed risky theologically to refer to him in this way; it might have appeared that he was simply being put on a level with all the other prophets”. As a prophet, Jesus is well grounded within a particular moment within the history of Israel, and this is one of the largest attributes that set this Jesus apart from Bultmann's Jesus as the teacher of timeless truth. As a prophet, Jesus' teaching is spoken out of, and addressed to, a particular situation in history. His teaching is marked by both prophetic insight, and prophetic foresight.
The notion of Jesus as prophet if further strengthened by the fact Jesus' early connection to John the Baptiser is one of the most indisputable elements of the early Jesus tradition. There is no question that John was a prophet and, in his baptism by John, Jesus “plunged into the prophetic and eschatological task he took to be his destiny”. However, it is worth exploring what sort of first-century prophets John and Jesus were because, contrary to the popular notion that prophecy had died out during the intertestamental period, there were three main types of prophets in the first century. There were clerical prophets, who were priests fulfilling a prophetic function; there were sapiental prophets, like the Pharisees and the Essenes; and there were popular prophets divided into two types: the oracular prophets and the leadership prophets. The oracular prophets tended to be solitary, and warn of impending doom whereas the leadership prophets promised salvation and attempted to initiate new liberation movements. What makes John the Baptiser such a striking figure is that he managed to unite both of the popular prophetic types; he warned of doom but he also gathered followers. Furthermore, he bears some striking resemblances to sapiental prophets like the Essenes, and he was born of a priestly family, so it could be said that he is the culmination of all the major types of first-century prophecy.
As a follower of John, Jesus continues to combine the oracular type with the leadership type. As a leadership prophet Jesus, with his followers, acted out the great return from exile, showing that Israel was being reconstituted through a new exodus; and as an oracular prophet he was urgent, itinerant, and warned of a near total annihilation that was fast approach Israel. Furthermore, it seems likely that Jesus modelled his ministry on the whole range of Old Testament prophets from Micaiah ben Imlach, to Ezekiel, to Jeremiah, to Jonah, to Amos, and especially to Elijah and Elisha. Where John is the climax of first-century prophecy, Jesus is seen as the climax of the entire prophetic tradition.
This brief survey of Tom Wright's position provides a fairly solid foundation from which to explore the various perspectives that contemporary scholars bring to the study of Jesus as prophet. The distinction between oracular and leadership prophets is quite helpful, because the two main streams of scholarship today that approach Jesus as prophet tend to emphasise each of those elements respectively. Thus, the first group of scholars we will examine — those who view Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet — have emphasised the oracular elements of Jesus' ministry. The second group of scholars — those who view Jesus as a social prophet — have emphasised the leadership elements of Jesus' ministry. Finally, we will discover that the third group of scholars — those who view Jesus as a charismatic prophet — are the least helpful because they have moved the furthest away from the specifics of Jesus' appropriate context.

Faith seeking Understanding

[This is a devotion I presented for a class today. Our reading was from “A Theology of Liberation” by Gustavo Gutierrez. I am mostly just pulling together a bunch of topics I have already referred to on my blog.]
In the Gospel according to Luke, Jesus inaugurates his public ministry with this quotation from Isaiah:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favourable year of the Lord.
I can't help but think of these words when I read Gutierrez.
When describing theology as critical reflection upon ecclesial praxis, Gutierrez provides a rather biting quotation from George Bernanos who says:
God does not choose the same men to keep his word as to fulfil it.
This is a damning critique of many of us who pursue theology. We seek to understand right doctrine, we seek to ensure that the gospel of Christ is not corrupted, yet we often fail to realise that faith gains understanding through praxis. We can only begin to understand the crucified Christ of our creeds when we journey in intimate relationships with the crucified people of today and bear on our own bodies the brand-marks of Jesus. We can only understand the gospel when we understand how it is good news to the poor. If we are not proclaiming release to the captives and freedom for the oppressed it just shows how little understanding our faith has.
The Spirit of the Lord was upon Jesus to do and say what he did and said. In the same way the Spirit of the Lord is upon us. As Tom Wright says:
The Spirit is given so that we ordinary mortals can become, in a measure, what Jesus himself was: part of God's future arriving in the present; a place where heaven and earth meet; the means of God's kingdom going ahead. The Spirit is given, in fact, so that the church can share in the life and continuing work of Jesus himself.
Continuing the work of Jesus involves a path of downward mobility. It means being empowered by the Spirit of the new age, in order to carry a cross and travel the road of suffering love. It means, as Paul writes in Colossians, that we, in our bodies, and in the body that is the Church, make up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ. Such a calling will inevitably lead us into the experience of godforsakenness. This is an experience that von Balthasar knows well. He writes:
There are legitimate experiences of absence within this ever-present world of God's grace, but they are forms and modes of love. Such were the experiences of the prophets of the Old Covenant, of the Son of God on the cross and in the darkness of his descent into hell; such are the experiences of all those who, in their several vocations, follow the Son. These are the redemptive paths of love as it traces the foot-steps of sinners in order to catch up with them and bring them home.
As theologians, as those possessed by a faith seeking understanding, we cannot simply rely on our intellect, on our texts, or on our professors. We will learn the nature of our faith when we begin to embody that faith in the call issued by Christ and the Church to journey with the scattered sheep, to trace the foot-steps of sinners in order to bring them home. Kant has dared us to think for ourselves and, for better or worse, we have accepted his challenge. Gutierrez has dared us to act and I hope to God that we accept his challenge.
Sheep that are scattered are not simply cute little animals fumbling around in the hills. Sheep that are scattered are sheep that get slaughtered. I know this because I journey with scattered sheep — abandoned children — in the inner-city. I watch them as they are slaughtered and I know that the only reason why this happens to the degree that it does, is because the people of God, including many of its leaders and theologians, have abandoned them. And these sheep have been abandoned because these people have a faith that lacks understanding.
And when faith lacks understanding exile looms on the horizon. As Isaiah, himself an advocate for the poor, concludes:
Therefore, my people go into exile for their lack of knowledge.
The Israelites thought they were being faithful to the Lord. They were fasting and tithing. They were observing the appropriate festivals and the Sabbath. They were worshipping YHWH. But they had neglected the poor and so their faith lacked understanding. And this had devastating consequences.
Let's pray.
Lord, you tell us that, if we ask of you, you will grant us wisdom. And so, Lord, we ask that you would provide our faith with understanding. We do not ask for this understanding apart from the call you issue for us to journey with the crucified people of today. And so, because you continually tell us not to be afraid, we pray that you would give us the courage to take up our crosses, to pursue downward mobility, and to follow in the footsteps of Jesus who, because he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped; but emptied himself taking the form of a slave, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Lord, we pray that you would teach us to be obedient to the point of death. Lord, we pray that you would teach us what it means to love as you loved — and what it means to lay down our lives for those we love. Lord, have mercy and make us both keepers and fulfillers of your Word.
Finally Lord, we conclude this devotion by praying the prayer that the Church has prayed for 2000 years. We pray as you taught us to pray:
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name.
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors;
and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one.
For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

Keepers and Fulfillers

God does not choose the same men to keep his word as to fulfill it.
~ George Bernanos [as quoted by Gustavo Gutierrez in Theology of Liberation]
Of course, Bernanos does not see this as a good thing. His comment is a rather acerbic reflection on the fact that so many contemporary theologians (who are safeguarding the doctrines of the Church) are far removed from the day to day realities and responsibilities of faith. He is criticising those who do theology from an “ivory tower”. To Bernanos and Guiterrez, it is exceedingly odd that one could be a doctor of the Word, and not also be in solidarity with the poor.
For if our theology truly is faith seeking understanding, that means that we should also be seeking the lost sheep, journeying alongside of the abandoned, weeping with those who weep, and carrying a very real, very tangible, very painful, and very shameful cross.
Unfortunately it seems that theologians are for more concerned with gaining credibility, respect, and prestige instead of embracing vulnerability, powerlessness, and shame. Thus, as Bernanos suggests, it is often a very different group of people who end up fulfilling God's word.
Of course, this dichotomy need not exist and both sides suffer where it does exist. What we need are theologians on the margins, theologians in the alleyways. I wonder what sort of transformation would occur if the keepers of the Word would unite with the fulfillers of the Word?

Rights

In its most extreme and universal form, our constitutional rights are reducible to the right not to have to love our neighbour.
~ Curtis White, “The Spirit of Disobedience”
And this is why it is high time that the Western Church moved beyond talking about “human rights” and began talking about forgiveness followed by repentance, and reconciliation paired with cruciformity.

Sapere Aude!

Immanuel Kant once wrote that the Enlightenment could perhaps be summarised by a single imperative: Sapere aude! Think for yourself!
A few hundred years later, we would do well to consider whether or not thinking for ourselves is all it is cracked up to be. We all think for ourselves, and, consequently, we refuse to recognise the thoughts of others as more truthful, valid, or persuasive, than our own.
Enlightened Western culture set out to liberate itself from religion and Nietzsche proclaimed this liberation to be so complete that we even managed to kill God. Yet, I don't think that this is the case. Our liberation, our commitment to thinking for ourselves, has not turned us into atheists. It has turned us into pantheists. We are all gods in our own minds. I am the sole authority in my life. God is not dead — I have replaced him.
Of course, a return to pre-Enlightenment forms of domination is hardly appealing (although post-Enlightenment forms of domination are just as lacking in appeal). Thinking for ourselves is not a completely worthless exercise. Therefore, I simply want to suggest that we continue to think for ourselves but that we don't take our own thoughts too seriously. This corrective is especially important for those of us who are pursuing Christianity within the academy. We need to heed Paul's injunction in Romans 12: “do not be wise in your own estimation.”
So, I'll think for myself, but, when push comes to shove, I'll submit my thoughts to other authorities and allow them to correct me.

Question

Can somebody explain to me how putting a “Make Poverty History” banner on your blog helps to make poverty history?

The Need for Authorities

Only those who follow the church have a sure guarantee for the fact that, in their obedience to Christ, they have not really followed just their own know-it-all wisdom.
~ Hans Urs von Balthasar, The von Balthasar Reader
Or, to put it in a more Protestant manner:
It is better to submit to an authority that is sometimes wrong, than it is to submit to no authority whatsoever.

Uncategorized