Jesus, Part 8 - Jesus Was A Jew

Hebrew was the language of the Temple. He lived as a Jew, studying the Hebrew Bible, the Torah, and was known to quote extensively from it, and take His lessons from it. We can probably safely assume that He was circumcised as an infant, and went through the Hebrew rite of passage, called bar Mitzvah. He followed Hebrew religious laws, including the dietary laws. Jesus died as a Jew, and was buried as a Jew.

I love the essential message Jesus taught: Matthew 22:36-40. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Love your enemies. Luke 6:27-35.

Despite an early obscure death at the hands of the world’s most powerful military dictatorship, Jesus is the most successful, most famous Jew in history. He was born and raised in the Middle East which had been a pressure cooker for religion for thousands of years. That area has produced three great surviving religions, and several smaller religions as well.

The Jews were a particularly troublesome lot at that time 2,000 years ago, as we date time today. They had already had several claimants to the role of Messiah. They wanted a military Messiah. To Jews of the period, Jesus was a disappointment, as He was a “hippy – flower child” advocating love, when what they wanted was a military leader to step forward and do in the Romans. Naturally, the Romans didn’t much like this idea.

The Jews kept up their trouble-making ways until the Romans in exasperation, enacted the military option of the destruction and desolation of the country, around A. D. 70. It took the Romans about three years to kill all resistance, or drive out the remaining Jews in a diaspora. It broke the Jews up into smaller groups and spread them around the Empire. Jerusalem was surrounded with a forest of crosses. Prisoners were kept waiting for their turn to die on a cross.

It was easier after that to keep an eye on the smaller groups of Jews and the Romans were better able to kill off any remaining troublemakers. That settled the Jewish hash for over a thousand years.

Jesus lived at a place and at a time when scholarship was admired. He studied at the Temple. He was a scholar of His religion, and was called rabbi. There is some evidence that He could write in at least one language, probably Hebrew.

Jesus in His day, was such an obscure unknown that no known written record of Him has survived outside of religious materials. He does not appear in government records: prison rolls, lists of troublemakers executed, tax rolls, census rolls, or land ownership, nor is He mentioned by any contemporary known non religious authors of the time.

What is particularly troubling is absence of mention of Jesus in written records of the time. Some of the natural phenomena, earthquake and eclipse, attributed to the time of the crucifixion were not recorded. Existing written accounts by contemporary authors like Seneca and Pliny the Elder do not mention an earthquake or an eclipse at that time. Both were particularly interested in and recorded such events from across the full extent of the Empire.

This may be a clear illustration of just how fearful both the Jewish and Roman leadership in Judea was about rebellion at the time. Or, possibly it tells us just how unimportant Judea was in the world of the Roman Empire.

The leaders in Judea had to be incredibly sensitive about even the faintest possibility of rebellion. They had to be constantly prepared to act quickly and decisively to quell any hint of civil, or religious disturbances. Using crucifixion and slavery to quiet such disturbances was an effective methodology for dealing with rioters.

What about those religious materials? At first, Jesus' teachings were kept in an oral tradition, and decades later written by unknown persons. They were written after the fact, and in a different language (Greek) than had been used at the time of the events described (Aramaic). In some cases, they were written hundreds of years later, obviously by people who had not been present at the events.

These well-meaning, but misguided persons attempted to "fill in" some of the missing details of Jesus' birth and death. They also made a common mistake of plagiarizing currently available, familiar texts for mysterious phenomena and details when their own imaginations ran thin.

Then, as now, there are all too many people in awe of the written word. They believe that if it is written it must be true. Even if it is a demonstrable falsehood, it must be true. At least spiritually inspired, if not true, and thus still acceptable, even Holy.

The claim of a position as a Son of a God was common. There were many in the history of the Roman Empire. His followers, particularly ones distant in time are subject to exaggerations in the stories that are told about Jesus’ origins.

Much of the Christmas story is just too trite. It is a case study of cognitive dissonance. It follows a pattern common to the time. The sad truth is that most, if not all, of the Gospels were "embellished".

That's a fancy word for lie. They were added to, or had parts plagiarized from other books then available. It is sad because it is now impossible to separate the "embellishments" from the truth. Too much time has passed. Records have been lost or destroyed, and the eye witnesses are long dead.

For me, it is simply much more likely that God searched out a good and Godly man, seized him as He did Paul at a later time. Jesus was tougher than Paul, and able to go to work right away on His ministry. This simple idea explains much: the almost total lack of information about Jesus' life to the beginning of His ministry. The lack of, "I remember when..." stories from members of Jesus' extensive family.

No one around Jesus during His childhood, teenaged and young adult years, and adult years until about age thirty apparently thought anything remarkable about Him. Which implies that He was a pretty typical Jewish boy, pre-adult, and adult of His times. There was a period of approximately forty years when boyhood friends and many relatives of Jesus could have been easily found, interviewed, and good written records could have been made. Why did this not happen?

Judea was in A. D. 30, after nearly a century of Roman rule, "ripe", rife with rumors. It was anticipatory, waiting, watchful, looking for the emergence of a leader. They wanted a leader that would step forth, rally the population and reassert the power of God. They wanted to drive out the Romans. The messianic charged atmosphere that existed in Judea is hard to describe so that it makes sense to modern readers.

The best examples that comes to mind with a modern context are two people that stepped forward into leadership positions during troubled times. The worldwide economic depression of the 1930's produced two extraordinary leaders – Adolph Hitler and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both were charismatic. Both developed an intensely loyal following and were able to lead their countries to world shaking events.

The population of Judea was looking for, was "ripe" for such a charismatic leader. The people desperately wanted out from under the Roman yoke and taxes laid on top of the Temple taxes.

We cannot know the actual event when Jesus was seized by God. We just know that He began His ministry. We are able to imagine the reaction in His family, and in His village from His parents, brothers and sisters, and neighbors.

A person suddenly choosing to embark on a career in the ministry is not unknown. Strange, possibly, but not unknown. It even happens today. A person suddenly "seeing the light" and embarking on a career of revolution, or reformation, is common. History has shown the human race hundreds of reformers and revolutionaries. They rise up out of the obscurity of the masses of humanity as a suddenly growing wild weed. Every country has its own heroes that started as revolutionaries and reformers. We usually honor them after they are safely dead.

Judea was a country with a theocratic history and background. The people were accustomed to the idea of prophets "crying in the wilderness'. They understood bandits claiming to be revolutionaries. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between bandits and revolutionaries. The final test of revolutionaries is their survival. If they win the hearts and minds of the populace and achieve positions of power.

One thing all the people of Judea were also supremely aware of, on the lookout for, and ready to instantly seize upon the nearest stone, were individuals claiming to be God, or a messenger directly from God. These individuals were considered to be inhabited by evil spirits, in a state of blasphemy, and were immediately stoned to death.

This constant danger always meant that Jesus had to walk a tightrope every day of His ministry. He could not clearly state that He was God, nor from God, but had to veil Himself in obscure words, dark words. Jesus continued this cautious behavior apparently until His appearance before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem just before Passover.

Immaculate Conception was also said of John the Baptist and others. The Star of Bethlehem and the Wise Men from the East (Persia, or India) had their parts. Even King Herod’s part in the play is decorated with extra nastiness as a counterpoint. King Herod ordered the killing of newborn babies. That is about as horrid as you can make a villain.

The part about the census sounds like a point of reality. A birth in a manger is so different from the usual Godly, run of the mill, birth in a palace as a Prince, that it has more verisimilitude. The escape to Egypt seems a bit of an exaggeration, but possible. The family must not have stayed long. The conditions for extended travel by poor individuals were difficult.

What about His Death and Resurrection? I’m quite sure that the best killers on the planet, the Roman military, were well versed with death. The Romans knew what they were about, and made very sure that Christ died on the cross. The four soldiers were there, not only to be sure He was properly nailed to the cross, but to make sure He quickly died there, and was not rescued in some raid by His followers.

The soldiers took the heavy hammer to break the leg bones if the three did not die soon enough. Breaking the leg bones would cause an immediate inability to breathe while on the cross. The three to be executed needed to be dead, and removed before dark that day and before the beginning of the Passover festival.

This part of the crucifixion does not fit historical records. The Romans were really experts at cruel punishment. They wanted their victims to suffer for a very long time. Experience with hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of executions over the centuries had taught the Romans how to do it correctly. It was done painfully, and the nails miss the large blood vessels so the victim would not quickly bleed to death. Nor would the nails pull through.

What is more, the Romans had no trouble with insulting the people and leaders of Jerusalem. That was the whole point of the sign above the head of Jesus. It was to insult the Hebrews. Why not insult them even more by deliberately leaving the crucified men on the crosses for the usual time period, as was the common practice?

That was the whole point of crucifixion. Crucifixion was a terror tactic. People were known to be alive, surviving on the cross, for a week, or more. The real question is, were the soldiers paid, bribed, to kill Jesus quickly? If so, was this a mercy? In Jerusalem at the time, those about to be crucified were offered a drink of drugged wine. Jesus is supposed to have rejected this. It was not unknown for victims on a cross to be given food and water to keep them alive longer, and to reduce their screaming. Water laced with vinegar was actually a thirst quencher and may have helped fight off infections. Lots of people of the time commonly drank vinegary, watered down wine as it was cheap, and was known to be safer to drink than plain water.

In the story of Jesus’ crucifixion, He is portrayed almost as a wimp. Dying as quickly as He did, even before his leg bones could be broken. This allowed some doubt about His really dying. Pilate is even supposed to have questioned the speed of His death. Maybe the officer in charge had been bribed to take Him down while still alive? When dealing with a death sentence from the military governor of Judea, I’m willing to trust that the officer in charge knew his duty. I am sure that officer was sure that Jesus was dead before being allowing His removal from the cross.

I believe that Christ offered Himself as a martyr. He apparently knew in advance what was going to happen to Him at Jerusalem. He even purposefully did things to bring the religious and political pot to a boil. He rode a white ass, a kind of donkey, or small horse into the city. He entered at a certain gate of the city. He was following long held prophesy that said that the Messiah would do these things at that time. He was fulfilling the signs. He was setting Himself up to take the fall. He was setting the local religious leaders up to become angry enough to force them to act foolishly. It worked.

The pot that needed to be brought to a boil? The common people, the common worshippers at the Temple. The common people frustrated by continuing Roman rule and religious leaders that were passive. The tax burden on common people could reach two-thirds of their income. The religious leaders were terribly afraid that the common people would rise in religious fervor in political revolution.

The Jewish population was known to be fractious. They were ready to fight at the drop of a hat. They were unwilling to understand and believe the strength of the Roman military. They were zealous and fanatic in their belief that their God’s power would protect them.

The Sanhedrin knew with full certainty that a terrible blood bath would follow. The population would be ground beneath the heel of the Roman military machine. The Roman army was practically unending in size. There were units available from all over the empire. It might be enough to destroy the Hebrew religion.

Did Jesus intend that there would be a political revolution and a blood bath? We, today, find a common consensus to think not. But "we" are not directly involved in the real situation. There is a distinctive difference between the involvement of the chicken and the involvement of the pig in a meal called ham and eggs. One has an interest, the other is involved. Jesus was there and “pushy”, “demanding”, and “troublesome”. The Sanhedrin were there, frightened and worried, “on edge” , “jumpy”, and protective of the "status quo". They both had to deal with the very real civil political reality of that time and place. The Romans were there in force, with a powerful army, and not going away.

Did all three participants make mistakes, with everyone trying to do the right thing? Did Jesus intend that He could force the fearful Sanhedrin to deal with Him? Did He overplay His hand? Who cut the deck? Who shuffled? Who dealt the cards? Did they use a shoe? Did God “stack the deck”? Did Jesus plan to become a martyr?

Was His death an accident? Did Jesus believe that the holiday crowd, when given one condemned man to save, would choose Him? Did the Sanhedrin “outmaneuver” Him, and have a strong cadre of prepared cheerleaders salted in the crowd? Was His death intended as a diversion, to cool the passions of the mob by providing blood sport, a visual circus? A mob is easy to control, if you plan in advance.

Was His death only intended to rid the Sanhedrin of a “thorn in their paw”? Did Pilate go along with the Sanhedrin as a useful public reminder of the reality of Roman military power. The crosses to be erected outside a gate of the city along a well traveled road? Today, we think, yes, possibly, but we’re not sure. If Jesus had been convicted of a religious crime, He would have been stoned to death. The fact of His crucifixion indicated that His punishment was for a civil, a state crime. The mildest form of a claim of Kingship of the Jews was sedition against the Roman state. Punishment? Crucifixion.

We have a lot more questions than answers. Christ’s death as a martyr can be seen as a deliberate, long shot gamble. What would be the payoff? The story of His death at the hands of the known efficient killing machine of the Romans and His later resurrection could be offered as a proof of a life after death. This would prove to be a powerful religious attraction. A belief that the story would be such a strong calling card that it would work. That it would seize the imagination of peoples around the world, as it was then known, and bring them to hear and follow the messages of Christ’s ministry.

At that time, there were several resurrection stories available for belief, offered as proof of divinity. The death story was always “a bit suspect”, questionable, possibly faked, possibly it was only a coma? The fakirs of the East, had some really good endurance applications that were known to the well educated. “The con” was as well known then, as “the sting” is today.

As a child, I was raised on the resurrection story. Despite my doubts, I can only believe. If Jesus’ own disciples who knew Him, lived with Him, ate meals with Him, listened to Him, and walked the Earth with Him could doubt, then I think I’m allowed my doubts. Thomas had to touch Jesus' wounds in order to believe. That is hard core disbelief. I believe that Jesus returned to God, as do all souls.

We’ve talked about His birth and death. Little is known of His childhood. What is left, is His ministry as an adult, His messages, and His miracles. His messages are sometimes unclear, told as parables and stories, with sometimes obscure words. He may have been avoiding the problem of blasphemy. Jesus seems at times at a loss for words, how to make the subject clear and simple enough for His unsophisticated uneducated companions. Or, is this a result of unnecessary obfuscation by later Greek writers?

The miracles are open to some doubt for the same reasons. All miracles of whatever source, are open to some doubt. Even His followers doubted and they are supposed to have watched the miracles as they happened. Could they not believe their own eyes? Jesus was constantly proving Himself to His own disciples.

The story about loaves and fishes was guaranteed to scare the heck out of farmers, millers, bakers, and fishermen. Turning water to wine would worry owners of vineyards, wine makers and wine merchants. Miracles were and are the “coin of the realm”, “the proof of the pudding” for religious leaders. I apparently "see" religious miracles on TV on a regular basis. You must be cautious about miracles. Talk about them could easily disrupt an agrarian economy like that of the first century. Now that would be a very real disturbance and call for immediate and drastic action.

Helping, or healing lepers, the blind, “fallen women”, and raising the dead were commonly expected prerequisites of the day for “proofs” of a connection to God.

I can’t judge their accuracy. All; however, raise challenges to the civil and religious authorities. The department of health would be concerned about contamination and spread of disease. The beggars union would be concerned with future income, job security, and job training. The customers of the prostitutes (a powerful political group) would be concerned. The wives (another powerful political group) who preferred not to be bothered would be concerned. The undertakers association would be worried by resurrection. It would be disastrous for their business and that of the subsidiary tomb carvers union.

Jesus’ life was not about magic, or mumbo jumbo; it was about love and the power of love. It is likely that the later writers added a lot of decorations to the icing on the cake. I am not alone in believing that a lot, if not most, of the miracle stories were created to "sell" Christianity. Magic sells. It sold then, it sells now.

At the time, the Hebrew religion was in foment. God had failed them. He had been unable to keep the Romans out of Judea. The priesthood had failed to observe the rituals correctly. The priesthood was under pressure to be, and do, better. The people were under pressure to be, and do, better. They were more demanding of more correctness in all things. The people expected and demanded more.

They all wanted to be free of Roman taxation. After all they were having to pay the taxes that paid the Roman soldiers that oppressed them. Jerusalem had gone from being the center of the Universe to a minor provincial capitol. Jerusalem was a source of slaves and taxes for a distant hated Rome. Pay your taxes, or be sold as a slave to pay them. Israel was a tinderbox awaiting a spark of rebellion and everyone knew it.

Remember how Jesus was tested? The religious test? What is the greatest commandment? He answered, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like onto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:36-40).

The civil test? The question was one of payment of taxes. And Jesus answering, said unto them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s , and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:15-17). They were testing for religious and civil disobedience.

Do I doubt that Jesus was the Son of God? I do not doubt this. We all are sons and daughters of God. I simply believe in the possibility of a simpler answer. There is no reason if God decides to intervene in human affairs, for Him to wait for a child to be born and grow up to useful size. God simply has the power to seize an adult, as He did to Paul, and put a newly empowered adult to work right away.

Why do this only one time? Isn't only one son, all of your eggs in one basket? Why not an army of sons? Every woman in Judea could have been just as easily made pregnant. In the other instances where God does things, He does them in a BIG WAY. Create the Heavens and the Earth, etc.

A good administrator knows that the minimum often achieves the maximum. So, is God a good administrator? There's no evidence of that, except God's aloofness, and perhaps His dwelling in High Places.

(c) Copyright 2006: George Wallace recently published a book on religion which lashes out at nearly all of the comfortable ideas about God, the trappings of organized religion, and the priesthood. His pithy comments and suggestions for a return to a God-centered personal religion will interest everyone. This article may be freely reprinted so long as all copyright attributions, and the full content of this resource box are included. www.OhGodIsThatYou.com

Article Source: http://www.writerspenarticledirectory.com

Please Rate this Article

5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 

Not yet Rated