64. See the classic study by Roland Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace (New York: Abingdon, 1960). Bainton also reports the process whereby the church moved from pacifism to the “just war” theory following the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine to Christianity in the fourth century. Ironically, since the time of Constantine the church has typically been more concerned to legitimate war than to advocate peace.
65. Striking also is the attitude toward Samaritans, who from the Jewish point of view were heretical and of mixed ancestry. Hostility between Jews and Samaritans was deep. Though we do not know that any Samaritans were part of the Jesus movement during Jesus’ lifetime, stories in the gospels portray them in a favorable light. According to Luke, of ten lepers healed by Jesus, the one grateful one was a Samaritan (17:11-19). Even more strikingly, the “hero” of one of Jesus’ most famous parables was a Samaritan, deliberately contrasted to a Jewish priest and Levite (Luke 10:29-37). The portrait of a Samaritan as “good” put together an impossible combination of words in the Jewish social world of the day. Yet the movement during Jesus’ lifetime may not have been directed to Samaritans; see Matthew 10:5-6, Luke 9:52-53. Clearly, however, it included Samaria soon after Jesus’ death; see Acts 8.
66. It is difficult to imagine any other satisfactory explanation. The culture-shattering quality of the Jesus movement does not seem to flow out of an ideology arrived at through a process of deductive reasoning; moreover, the criticism of cultural norms by revitalization movements in other cultures seems to flow out of the intense religious experience of their founders. Granted, charismatic experience is not a sufficient explanation all by itself, for there are charismatics who affirm very rigid cultural boundaries (including the classic in-group/out-group distinction). Perhaps one must speak of incomplete or culturally contaminated experiences of the Spirit.
67. See chapter 6, pages 108-110.
68. See Matthew 5:20 in the translation of the Jerusalem Bible: the righteousness of Jesus’ followers is to “go deeper” than that of the scribes and Pharisees.
69. Part of the accusation brought against Jesus in Mark 14:56-58, and though characterized as “false,” it may have had some basis in the teaching of Jesus. In any case, it is clearly present in early Christianity; see the use of notion in John 2:19-22 and 4:20-24, and in Hebrews 9:11, 24.
70. Matthew 17:24-27; found only in Matthew, the authenticity of the saying is indeterminate. Minimally, it indicates what the community of Matthew thought, usually understood as an extension of the Jesus movement in a Jewish environment.
71. See the preaching of John the Baptist: “Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (Matthew 3:9 = Luke 3:8).
72. See Luke 6:35 (“children of the Most High”) = Matthew 5:45 (“children of your father”), in the context of the imitatio dei as compassion. See also Mark 3:31-35: the family of Jesus consists of those who do the will of God.
73. Psalm 51:17.
74. Quoted phrases from Lohfink, Jesus and Community, and Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 80, 96. Brueggemann sees the tension between “alternative community” an dominant culture running throughout the Bible.
1. The “classical prophets” are those who have books named after them: three “major” prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel) and twelve “minor” prophets. For introductions, see especially Abraham Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper & Row, 1962) and Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978). See also J. A. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983); G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, volume 2 (New York: Harper & Row, 1965); and R. R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980). For prophecy in the New Testament, see David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).
2. The classical prophets and their predecessors were “seized” by the Spirit. The notion is expressed in many ways: the Spirit of God “rested on them” or “clothed itself” with them; the “hand of the Lord” grasped them. See, for example, Numbers 11:25-26, Judges 6:34, 1 Samuel 10:6, 1 Kings 18:46, 2 Kings 3:15, Jeremiah 15:7, Ezekiel 1:3, Isaiah 61:1.
3. “Apologetics” is a genre of religious writing which seeks to defend the truth of religion. It can be done rather well or rather crudely.
4. See, for example, the use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15; in its original context, Hosea 11:1 obviously did not refer forward to Jesus’ time, but backward to the Exodus. See also the numerous references to Psalm 22 in the story of Jesus’ death in Mark 15:22-37; this psalm as part of the devotional life of ancient Israel was obviously not “predictive”. The point is very simple: the prophets (and the Old Testament generally) need to be understood in terms of what their words would have meant to the communities which they addressed.
5. The book of Daniel, though thought of as “prophecy” in some Christian circles, is not included among the prophets in the Hebrew Bible, but is in the “writings” and is a “persecution book” most likely written in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees (ca. 165 B.C.).
6. In the north, Amos and Hosea; in the south, Micah and Isaiah of Jerusalem (the prophet whose words are preserved in the first part of the book of Isaiah, chapters 1-39).
7. Speaking mostly of the coming destruction were Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zephaniah, and Habakkuk. Speaking to the community during or immediately after the exile which followed the destruction were Haggai, Zechariah, and Isaiah of Babylon (sometimes called “Second Isaiah” or “Deutero-Isaiah” to distinguish him from the eighth-century B.C. Isaiah of Jerusalem; his words are found in the second half of the book of Isaiah, beginning with chapter 40).
8. The “threat oracle” is part of what scholars sometimes speak of as a “covenant lawsuit” brought against Israel by the prophets on behalf of God. Sometimes the legal imagery in a “threat oracle” extends beyond indictment and threat and even includes a “summons to the accused.” See, for example, Micah 3:9-12, which includes a “summons” in verse 9a, a list of indictments in 9b-11, and the threat in verse 12. Amos 4:1-3 is another classic threat oracle: summons = “cows of Bashan” (the wealthy women of Samaria, whom Amos calls “hunks of prime beef”); indictment = you oppress the poor and crush the needy; threat = you will be carried off as prisoners of war. The image of the prophets as “prosecuting attorneys” bringing a lawsuit against Israel is illuminating so long as they are not simply reduced to that image.
9. This is an important point; though the prophets were concerned with Israel’s collective life, they did not indict Israel as a whole, as if every person in Israel were equally guilty. As defenders of the poor, they did not hold the poor responsible for their own plight or for their nation’s direction; they saw them as victims.
10. Hosea 4:1, and frequently elsewhere in the prophets. See especially Heschel’s exposition of “knowledge of God” (daath elohim in Hebrew) in The Prophets, volume 1, 57-60.
11. Hosea 7:11. The prophets frequently charged Israel with seeking security in kings and princes, military alliances and arms, and saw this as a clear sign of Israel’s lack of trust in God—that is, as idolatry. See, for example, Hosea 5:13, 8:9-10, 10:13, 13:10; Isaiah 31:1; Micah 5:10-11.
12. See, for example, the “threats” in Amos 1:4-5, 7-8, 10, 12, 14-15; 2:2-3, 5, 13-15; 3:11; 4:2-3; 5:27; 6:7, 14; 7:17; 8:2-3; 9:1, 8. Though they make use of varied imagery, including fire, it is clear that a historical judgment through military conquest is being talked about.
13. The prophetic understanding of “repent” is somewhat different from popular Christian usage, where it often is understood individualistically as sorrow or contrition for sin. As “turn” or “return,” it has the double connotation of a radical turn in Israel’s direction, which involves a collective returning to God. This does not imply that “
saving” individuals is unimportant; the point, rather, is that this was not the central concern of the prophets.
14. Amos 5:6, 14-15.
15. In this sense, none of the predestruction prophets was “successful.” Somewhat ironically, the only “successful” prophet was Jonah, and his mission was to the hated Assyrians, not to Israel. Nineveh (the capital of Assyria) repented, and the threatened destruction was withheld. The book of Jonah, however, is best understood as a postexilic work protesting against the increasing exclusivism of the quest for holiness, and its character is more parabolic than historical (note in 3:6-9 that even the cattle of the Assyrians fast and put on sackcloth!).
16. Jeremiah 19, Jeremiah 27-28. Another prophet by the name of Hananiah, apparently an “official” prophet supported by the court or temple, broke Jeremiah’s yoke in order to symbolize the opposite message: God would break the yoke of Babylon. Though momentarily “defeated,” Jeremiah soon returned with an iron yoke. The episode is fascinating because of its drama and also because of the conflict it reveals between two prophets. As one of the “official” prophets, Hananiah legitimated the present order and spoke what the powerful wanted to hear. It must have been bewildering to those present—to whom should one listen? Then, as now, one perhaps heard what one wanted to hear.
17. Ezekiel 4. Major cities in the ancient world were surrounded by massive defensive walls. In time of siege, the enemy would encircle the city, thereby cutting off all food supplies and eventually producing starvation.
18. Other prophetic acts include the symbolic naming of children (Hosea 1:4-9, Isaiah 7:3, 7:14, 8:1-4), Isaiah walking naked for three years (Isaiah 20), Jeremiah’s episode with the loincloth (Jeremiah 13) and his purchase of a field (Jeremiah 32:1-16), and Ezekiel’s cutting of his hair (Ezekiel 5).
19. For the contrast between the alternative consciousness of the prophets and their culture’s dominant consciousness, see especially Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination, 28-43. He speaks of the latter as the “royal consciousness,” composed of the economics of affluence and the politics of oppression, and legitimated by “an official religion of optimism.” Brueggemann, sees this “royal consciousness” running throughout modern society and the church as well.
20. See Amos 7:10-17, one of the classic confrontations between a prophet and the established order.
21. Jeremiah 20, 26, 37-38, plus the numerous references made by Jeremiah to people seeking his life.
22. Jeremiah 6:14; see also Micah 3:5.
23. That the prophets felt the feelings of God is one of the central emphases of Heschel’s The Prophets, especially 23-26. The fundamental content of the prophetic experience was sympathy with the pathos (feelings) of God.
24. See chapter 3, page 48.
25. These specific examples all come from Luke 12:54-13:9. The section as a whole is very illuminating, including the episode reported in 13:1-5; see note 66 below.
26. Luke 11:50; cf. Matthew 23:35-36. Luke 11:29-32; cf. Matthew 12:38-42. “This generation” has its natural temporal meaning of “contemporaries” and not “offspring of this race,” as is sometimes suggested.
27. See chapter 1, pages 11-13.
28. For last judgment texts, see Mark 9:43-48; Matthew 25:31-46; Luke 10:12-15 = Matthew 10:15, 11:21-23; Luke 11:31-32 = Matthew 12:41-42. In none of these cases is it said that the judgment is imminent. The element of imminent judgment is found in some of the “coming Son of man” sayings (Luke 12:8-9 = Matthew 10:32-33, Mark 8:38, Luke 12:39-40 = Matthew 24:43-44; Luke 17:23-24, 37 = Matthew 24:26-28). A near consensus of contemporary scholarship affirms that these do not go back to Jesus himself. See also Marcus Borg, “A Temperate Case for a Non-Eschatological Jesus,” Foundations and Facets Forum, volume 2, number 3 (September 1986: 81-102) and “An Orthodoxy Re-Considered: The ‘End-of-the-World Jesus,’ ” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 207-217.
29. For a detailed technical study of the synoptic threat tradition, see Marcus Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teaching of Jesus (New York and Toronto: Edwin Mellen Press, 1984), 201-221 and tables on 265-276. The threats fall into three roughly equal categories: threats of historical destruction, threats of the last judgment, and threats of unidentifiable content (that is, the threat is left in the imagery of the parable or proverb in which it is found, and its referent is not identified). Peculiar to Matthew’s redaction is an emphasis on eternal judgment for individual acts of wrongdoing (see especially 203-204, and 266-268). When once it is seen that the imminent crisis was not the last judgment, then it becomes clear that the crisis of the ministry was the historical threat to Israel’s social world and the urgent call to change in the midst of that crisis.
30. Mark 12: 1-9, Luke 13:6-9. The best known Old Testament passage speaking of Israel as the unfruitful vineyard of God is Isaiah 5:1-7, whose language is echoed in the “parable of the wicked tenants” in Mark 12:1-9. Often seen as inauthentic because of its possible reference to Jesus’ crucifixion as “the son,” the core of the Marcan parable without an explicit reference to Jesus’ death or “sonship” may well go back to Jesus.
31. Matthew 18:23-35, Matthew 25:14-30 = Luke 19:11-27, Luke 12:42-46 = Matthew 24:45-51. The two versions of the parable of the cautious servant in Matthew 25:14-30 and Luke 19:11-27 are closest in the “reckoning scene” with the third servant, which suggests that that was where the original emphasis was placed. For the “cautious servant” who provided no return on his master’s “investment” as then-contemporary Israel or its leadership, see C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (New York: Scribner’s, 1961), 114-121, and Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (New York: Scribner’s, 1972), 55-63.
32. Matthew 5:13, Luke 14:34-35, Mark 9:50; Matthew 5:15, Luke 11:33, Mark 4:21.
33. Luke 6:39 = Matthew 15:14.
34. Luke 11:52 = Matthew 23:13. The term “lawyers” (Luke) refers to those skilled in the Law (Torah) and is thus equivalent to “Torah sages.” See chapter 5, page 82.
35. Luke 11:47-48 = Matthew 23:29-31.
36. See, for example, Luke 14:15-24 = Matthew 22:1-10; Luke 17:26-30.
37. Jacob Neusner, A Life of Yohanan ben Zakkai, 2d ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 11, comments correctly about the generation living before the war of A.D. 66-70: “It was not a sinning generation, but one deeply faithful to the covenant and the Scripture that set forth its terms, perhaps more so than many who have since condemned it.”
38. See chapter 5, page 88. Because Matthew heightens the conflict with the Pharisees, I have not made use of material peculiar to Matthew, but only that shared by Luke or Mark.
39. The word “hypocrite” meant an actor, a person who performed behind a mask. It has two quite different nuances of meaning. If one is conscious of the mask, then “hypocrisy” refers to “pretense,” a contrast between external appearance and internal state; for example, a “pretended” righteousness. In this sense, the Pharisees were not hypocrites. For the most part, they practiced what they preached. However, one may also be unconscious of the fact that one is wearing a mask or playing a role. In this sense, “hypocrisy” has nothing to do with lack of sincerity, but consists of playing a role (often with great sincerity) which includes professing a religious loyalty which much of the rest of one’s life belies. In this sense, the Pharisees (and many others, before and since) may be “hypocrites.”
40. Mark 7, Luke 11:38-41 = Matthew 23:25-26; see also chapter 6, pages 109-100.
41. Luke 11:42; according to Matthew 23:23, the emphasis on fastidious tithing led to the neglect of “justice, mercy and faith.” The two versions have essentially the same meaning.
42. The comparison of the Pharisees to graves or tombs is found in two different versions in Luke 11:44 and Matthew 23:27; I have followed Luke. In Matthew the Pharisees were compared to tombs which had been whitewashed: they were beautiful on the outside, but inside were full of rot. Matthew’s version missed the point of whitewashing (it w
as not to make tombs beautiful) and also changed the criticism of the Pharisees into a contrast between outward appearance and internal state. Luke’s version more closely reflects the setting of Jesus’ ministry: the criticism was of the Pharisaic path, not of Pharisaic “pretense.”
43. For the Pharisees as leaven, see Luke 12:1, Mark 8:15, and Matthew 16:6, 11-12.
44. If we turn all of Jesus’ opponents into “bad” people, we trivialize and distort his message, as if it were primarily about being “good” instead of “bad.” The point is that his opponents were for the most part “good” people who were sincere and earnest about their convictions.
45. Luke 10:29-37. For details of exegesis, see Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics, 103-106.
46. Note that it does not answer the question, “Who is my neighbor,” but instead portrays the Samaritan as one who acted as a neighbor. Thus the parable shifts the focus from the question, “Who is to be included among those I am to love?” to the affirmation, “Be a neighbor.”
47. The parable provides a good example of a wisdom genre (a parable) being used in a prophetic way.
48. Mark 12:38-40. Luke 6:26, 14:7-14; Matthew 6:1-8, 16-18.
49. Matthew 21:31.
50. See chapter 7, pages 135-137.
51. The struggle continues in the modern church. If one interprets Scripture through the “lens” supplied by contemporary conventional wisdom, Scripture will appear to be in basic harmony with it. To use another example, whether Christians interpret Scripture as a set of requirements for salvation or as the story of God’s compassion makes a large difference in one’s vision of the Christian life.
Jesus: a new vision Page 25
