Table of Contents | 18. What does the designation of Jesus as "Son of God" mean today when the recovery of the historical Jesus sees him as a Jewish peasant and "a subversive story teller" who used parables to envision a way of life that is so radical?
Those who are aware of biblical scholars know the name John Dominic Crossan. He is, perhaps, the best known member of the Jesus Seminar. Indeed, John Shelby Spong asserts that he "has achieved the status of a pivotal theological scholar of the rank of Augustine, Acquinas, Luther, Calvin, Barth and Tillich." His most recent book is entitled God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now. Exaggerated rhetoric but true? He has, for me, some incredible and astounding insights in that book. He asks the reader to imagine a question about a first-cenury human who was designated as "divine," "Son of God," "God," and "Savior of the World." He acknowledges that most Westerners would conclude that these titles were "originally created and uniquely applied" to Christ. The truth is, he claims, that these titles all belonged to Caesar Augustus before Jesus was even born! In God and Empire Crossan points out that "Caesar's coins said he was DIVI F, that is, DIVI FILIUS, or Son of God." What were early Christians doing by giving Jesus those titles? They were taking the identifying characteristics of the Roman emperor and giving them to a Jewish peasant. That was high treason. The one who had saved the world from war and had established peace merited the titles. What early Christians were doing, in essence, was setting up a counter-vision or program to Rome's imperial theologoy. That is audacious and maybe even stupid knowing how Rome treated treacherous action. Thus, as I see it, they had found in this Jesus a courageous but subversive storyteller. He warranted their loyalty from the very beginning as a charismatic, bold and visionary Jewish peasant. These words were usually used then to describe Roman emperors and they seemed even more appropriate to describe Jesus. Literally? No. In the sense of devotion? Yes. A recent book by Marcus J. Borg entitled Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary describes this human Jesus for today. Amy-Jill Levine of the Vanderbilt Divinity School has helped me understand Jesus in the context of his Jewish background. Her book entitled The Misunderstood Jew is an insightful resource for those who yearn for help in envisioning Jesus as a first-century Jew. I am questioned by many about my perspective of a human Jesus and whether he was robust enough to warrant a following. If the early Christians saw Jesus in this fashion, I have little question about this issue. What his first companions experienced in their interactions may have been parallel to what Albert Schweitzer wrote years ago in The Quest of the Historical Jesus. "He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake side, he came to those men who knew him not. He speaks to us the same word, 'Follow thou me' and sets us to the tasks which he has to fulfill for our time. He commands. And to those who obey him, whether they be wise or simple, he will reveal himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in his fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience who he is." In his book Who Wrote the New Testament? Burton L. Mack delineates what happened when the early Jewish followers of Jesus struggled to understand his unique vision as well as the behavior it required. Early they began to transform aphorisms and parables into behavioral prescriptions. They began to imagine Jesus as the founder of a movement that took his social vision seriously. Thus, the contours of a Jesus movement began to emerge. With a self-consciousness rooted in their tradition, they began to gather for meals, to care for each other by distributing food and even began the process of ritualizing those common meals. Mack's observations are fascinating. He writes, "Here was a Jesus movement that took a look at its members, noticed the social formation taking place, delighted in novelty, realized how strange they must appear to others, wondered how to imagine themselves in comparison with other people, found comparisons to 'Israel' fascinating and had a great time trying out various scenarios before settling on the set of miracles that cast Jesus in the roles of a Moses or an Elijah." And history demonstrates that it didn't take much more to turn his insights and teachings and suggestions into strategies for a long-range plan. Augustus Caesar as "Son of God" or Jesus? Those early followers were absolutely certain they knew the answer! What do you think? You can reach me at my e-mail address (BobSueSand@aol.com). ) |