But it is true that the Our Father does not speak of the people of God in the same way as, for example, the Shemoneh Esrei does. Nothing is said about the house of David. The city of Jerusalem is not mentioned, nor are Zion and the temple, because in the time of Jesus all that could have been misunderstood as political, and particularly by the Zealot movement with which Jesus was constantly confronted, and by many others as well. Jesus’ whole concern is with the honor of God, with God’s good name. God’s only honor is his people, but not a people understood in nationalistic terms; instead, this people is an Israel such as Ezekiel had in mind.
Result: the first petition of the Our Father, which, because it is placed first of all, Jesus apparently regarded as the most important and most urgent in the prayer of his disciples, has a precise meaning, its content clearly outlined: it is a plea for the eschatological gathering and restoration of the people of God. That is exactly the way in which the Name of God will be hallowed.
The Choice of the Twelve
Thus Jesus has his disciples pray in the Our Father for the eschatological gathering of Israel. But he not only asks them to pray for it. He acts. Jesus chooses for himself—probably from out of a larger group of disciples—twelve whom he will send out in pairs to proclaim the reign of God throughout the land. They represent the gathering of Israel:
[And he goes] up the mountain and [calls] to him those whom he wanted, and they came to him. And he [created] twelve to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, and to have authority to cast out demons. [And he created] the Twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. (Mark 3:13-19)
“He created” points to a unique event at a particular place and a particular time. Jesus, with a demonstrative gesture that must have impressed, constituted a circle of twelve disciples. The number twelve can only refer to the twelve tribes of Israel.
But reference to the twelve tribes touches a central point of Israel’s eschatological hope, for although the system of twelve tribes had long ceased to exist, people hoped that in the eschatological time of salvation the people of the twelve tribes would be fully restored. The end of the book of Ezekiel describes, in broad strokes, how the twelve tribes, brought back to life in the end time, will receive their definitive shares in the Land (Ezek 47–48). Against the background of this living hope Jesus’ creation of the Twelve can only be seen as a deliberate sign of eschatological fulfillment. The Twelve exemplify the gathering and restoration of Israel as the eschatological people of the twelve tribes that is now beginning with Jesus. They thus embody the growth center of eschatological Israel.
Places of Jesus’ Activity
The theological program revealed in the call to decision in Matthew 12:30 (“whoever is not with me”), then in the lament in Matthew 23:37 (“Jerusalem, Jerusalem”), then in the first petition of the Our Father, but above all in the creation of the Twelve, corresponds precisely to Jesus’ actual presence on the scene. He restricted his activity to Jewish territory. Nazareth, Nain, Cana, Capernaum, Chorazin, Magdala, and Bethsaida were places long occupied by a Jewish population.
There is not a single reason to believe that Jesus ever left Jewish territory to teach in the presence of Gentiles. When it happened that he entered Gentile territory (Mark 5:1; 7:24, 31; 8:27) the reason may have been in part that he sought out marginal Jewish groups in boundary zones. The relevant texts, strikingly enough, do not say that he entered Gerasa, Tyre, or Caesarea Philippi. They speak, instead, of the rural surroundings of each of these ancient cities.
Obviously Jesus could meet Gentiles everywhere, even in primarily Jewish territory. In several such encounters he also healed Gentiles. But such healings were consciously related in the Synoptic tradition as exceptions. In the story of the centurion at Capernaum (Luke 7:1-10) the relationship to Israel is explicitly established: “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith” (Luke 7:9). The same is true of the story of the Syrophoenician woman and her sick daughter (Mark 7:24-30). When the woman asks Jesus to heal her daughter, Jesus at first refuses: “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs” (Mark 7:27). Obviously the purpose of this image is not to show that Gentiles are dogs. Instead, it is about the Bible’s principle of salvation history: first Israel must be saved, and only then can the Gentiles also be convinced of God’s salvation.
It is still the time when salvation must transform Israel. The hour in which the Gentiles’ hunger can be satisfied has not yet come. That Jesus then, nevertheless, allows himself to be persuaded by the quick-witted woman—she simply turns his saying back on him—shows his openness and respect for the Gentile world. Jesus does not let himself be bound by rigid strategies, but fundamentally his concern is with Israel.
Therefore he does not enter Gentile cities with his proclamation. Very close to the places where Jesus worked lay any number of cities of the Hellenistic type with a predominantly Gentile population, or at least strong Gentile minorities—for example, Sepphoris, Scythopolis, Hippos, Gadara, Gerasa, Tiberias, and Caesarea Philippi. Jesus does not seem ever to have worked in any of these cities. It may be that he deliberately avoided them during his public activity. Instead, he goes up to Jerusalem, to the place that summarizes and represents Israel. Anyone who wanted to address all Israel had to do so in Jerusalem.
Naturally all of that is no accident. It would have been very easy for Jesus to appear among the Gentiles, and he might even have been highly successful. But Jesus concentrated on Israel.
The Pilgrimage of the Nations
Thus Jesus does not have an active mission to the Gentiles in view. He holds to the rule enunciated in Matthew 10:6: “Go [only] to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But how shall salvation reach the Gentiles? Israel’s theology had long since found a solution to that in the motif-complex of the “pilgrimage of the nations.”
This pilgrimage of the nations will take place in the future, “in days to come” (Isa 2:2) or “in the last days.” It is thus an eschatological event put in motion by God, because it exceeds all human expectations and abilities. Nevertheless, in this as in all things God acts through people, concrete history, and a concrete place, namely, Israel. The motif-complex of the pilgrimage of the nations says that God acts on the peoples of the world through the people of God, who in the last days will become a new society. The image for that new society is the eschatological city of Jerusalem, or simply Mount Zion. It draws the nations. It shines out above all the mountains of the world (Isa 2:2), for a city set high on a hill cannot remain hidden (Matt 5:14).
The reason why the peoples will be drawn to Zion is important: a fascination exceeding all others will emanate from eschatological Israel. This fascination can be described in various ways. Ultimately it is God himself who shines forth in the power of his actions and the peaceful quality of his social order.
What the nations experience on Zion, or in Israel, they will take for themselves, so that it will spread throughout the whole world—for example, nonviolence. They will beat their swords into plowshares (Isa 2:4).
It is true that the pilgrimage of the nations is an eschatological event, but Israel is called now, already, to make a way for what is to come. Characteristic of this appeal is the cry in Isaiah 2:5, immediately after the description of the future pilgrimage of the nations: “O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the LORD!” To that extent the Old Testament itself is aware of a “self-realizing eschatology,” or the dialectic of “already and not yet.” The pilgrimage of the nations to Zion is being prepared already in Israel’s turning back.
Thus the vision of the pilgrimage of the nations answers the question of what God intends with the peoples of the world. Jes
us’ concentration on the people of God takes place against a universal horizon. It is not an egoistic view fixed on Israel; it is about the nations. It is about the world.
However, Israel’s theology contains not only the motif-complex of the pilgrimage of the nations or the idea that the blessing of God that lies on Israel will extend from there to encompass other nations (cf., e.g., Isa 19:23-25). There are also quite different positions, such as the many threats uttered by the prophets against the nations.7 These announce destruction. There is also the idea of a hostile attack of the nations against the city of God, which will not succeed but will be broken against Zion.
In Isaiah 8:9-10 the Gentile peoples are even ridiculed. Let them come against Jerusalem, if they will! Let them arm themselves for the decisive battle! Let them, by all means, make plans and forge alliances! Nothing will help them: they will be shattered against Zion. When the first line of this threat reads “Smash!” it presupposes that the hostile armies are already devastating the land around Jerusalem.
Smash, you peoples! for you will be crushed.
Listen, all you far countries!
Arm yourselves! for you will be crushed.
Gird yourselves! for you will be shattered.
Make a plan! for it will be thwarted.
Forge an alliance: it will not come about.
For God is with us. (Isa 8:9-10)
8
Jesus knew his Bible, and obviously he also knew the ideas about the attack of the nations, their hostility to Israel, and their ultimate destruction. But it is striking that all that plays no role in his preaching. He does, of course, take it as given that there will be a judgment of the world, but in that judgment it will go better with Tyre and Sidon than with unbelieving Israel (Matt 11:21-22).
It seems that, as far as the fate of the Gentile nations is concerned, Jesus read the Old Testament critically, in the sense that he adopted particular aspects of Old Testament eschatology and let others fall into the background. He made choices. He says nothing about the destruction of the nations, but he does seem to have adopted the idea of the pilgrimage of the nations and used it against Israel.
The word of warning in Matthew 8:11-12 // Luke 13:28-29 is crucial. Jesus must have spoken it as the hardening of Israel as a whole began to show itself. It comes from the Sayings Source and has to be reconstructed out of its varying forms in Matthew and Luke. It would have been something like: “Many will come from the rising and the setting and recline at table in the reign of God—together with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But you will be cast out into the outermost darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
The saying looks to the future. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the ancestors of Israel, have risen from the dead. Obviously they are only named as important representatives of the people of God. With them all the righteous of Israel have risen. The reign of God is coming to its fulfillment, portrayed in the image of the eschatological meal taken from Isaiah 25:6-8. The meal is here an image of fullness, of festival, of a fulfilled life that will never again be brought to an end. In this situation, then, the “many” come from the rising and the setting, that is, from the east and from the west.
The “many” in the saying are contrasted with Jesus’ Jewish audience. So he is speaking of the Gentiles. “Many” is a Semitic formulation and means a great, incalculable number. An unimaginable number of Gentiles are participating in the banquet of fulfillment. But the Israel that rejects Jesus will not be present, of all things, at this eternal banquet for whom everyone hopes. The unbelieving part of Israel will be thrown out into the uttermost darkness.
We can scarcely imagine a greater provocation. But that very provocation shows that Jesus was concerned first and foremost about the eschatological gathering of Israel. Matthew 8:11-12 is a last attempt by Jesus, carried to the limits, to shake up his audience and achieve their repentance after all.
So the word of warning is directed at Israel. Its real theme is not the fate of the Gentiles, but it makes clear, indirectly, how Jesus thought: He knows the vision of the pilgrimage of the nations; he expects the coming of the Gentiles to Zion. Indeed, he presumes salvation for the Gentiles as a matter of course.
Chapter 5
The Call to Discipleship
How do the gospels picture the beginning of Jesus’ work? Often the beginning discloses everything that will come after. Is the first thing a sermon that summarizes what Jesus wanted? Or a healing story? Or a symbolic action like that in the temple? Many things would be possible.
In the Gospel of Mark the first concrete narrative in Jesus’ public appearance describes how he calls Simon Peter, his brother Andrew, and the sons of Zebedee, James and John, to follow him (Mark 1:16-20). The Gospel of Matthew’s arrangement corresponds (Matt 4:18-22). But even the Gospel of John begins Jesus’ work with the calling of disciples: here it is Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip, and Nathanael (John 1:35-51). However, the first callings are told differently in the Fourth Gospel from what we read in Mark and Matthew.
This placement at the beginning of Jesus’ work need not mean much for the historical question. The fact that three evangelists begin Jesus’ activity in just this way could simply be a question of compositional technique. After all, Luke did it differently. In his account Jesus begins his public appearance by serving as lector and preacher in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30). One could also argue that the disciples are almost always thought of as present in the gospel narratives. Quite often they even appear as actors. So they have to be introduced at the very beginning of the narrative sequence.
All that is worth considering. But it may be that Mark, Matthew, and John did hang on to something crucial. Maybe they wanted to say that there was no activity of Jesus in Israel without a call to discipleship. In fact, discipleship is something fundamental. Without it there would be no Gospel, no gathering of Israel, and no church. It is as elementary as the proclamation of the reign of God, Jesus’ preaching, and his healing miracles. The gospels show that as clearly as possible. But what does it mean to be a disciple of Jesus? That is the subject of this chapter.1
Discipleship Is Concrete
Here again we begin with a philological fact: “follow” (following, etc.) appears in the gospels some eighty times, mainly in a theological sense, but never as a noun, “followership” or “discipleship” (akolouthēsis). It is always in verb form (akolouthein). That is: there is no such thing in the gospels as abstract discipleship. It is not an idea or a purely inward disposition; it exists only as a concrete, visible, tangible event.
Accordingly, we must imagine Jesus’ followers’ “discipleship” quite concretely, as “walking behind.” If you visit the Near East you can still see it: an Arab woman walks behind her husband, not alongside him. The son follows the father. The bride follows her bridegroom, the employee walks behind his employer, the student behind her teacher. And so it was, of course, in Jesus’ time also. A series of texts from the later rabbinic tradition shows that the students of the teachers of the Law walked behind their teacher, their rabbi, keeping a respectful distance. They followed him. That was simply a matter of proper deportment.
Given all that, we could suppose that the historical model for the disciples’ following was the rabbinic relationship of teacher and student—especially since the word “disciple” is based on the Greek word mathetēs, and mathetēs means nothing but student. The German word “Jünger” [disciple] rests on late Latin junior, which at the time, differently from today, also meant “student” or “pupil” or “learner.”2
The Rabbis and Their Students
Thus—according to the gospels—Jesus called “students” to follow him. Were the students he gathered around him, then, comparable to the rabbis’ students of the Law? As likely as this conclusion seems, it is inaccurate for three reasons:
First: the proper term for a rabbinic student’s entry into the Jewish house of study was not “following this or that rabbi,” but “studying (or le
arning) Torah.” So it is said of Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa (first c. CE) that he went to ’Arab (in upper Galilee) “to study Torah with Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai.”3 This is a stereotypical formula in rabbinic texts, and that in itself is remarkable. Mark says of Peter and Andrew not that “they came to Nazareth to study Torah with Jesus,” but “As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the sea—for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, ‘Follow me and I will make you fish for people.’ And immediately they left their nets and followed him” (Mark 1:16-18).
So Simon and the others do not follow Jesus in order to learn Torah but to become fishers of people with Jesus. Discipleship, following Jesus, is not their idea, their plan, their project; they are called, against their accustomed way of life, against their life-project, probably even against their idea of what a devout life should be. This was not their own will but that of a stranger—and yet they recognized, in that stranger’s will, the will of God.
Jesus calls to discipleship. There is not a single story in the rabbinic traditions in which a rabbi called a student to follow him. The reason is very simple: a rabbinic student seeks his or her own teacher. We have a lovely saying by the scribe Yehoshua ben Perachia (first c. BCE): “Make for yourself a rabbi, acquire for yourself a friend; and judge every person in their favor.”4 Occasionally it is even recommended that the talmid, the scribal student, should change teachers in order to get to know other interpretations of Torah. This was quite consistent with the rabbinic system of teaching and thought. It is the principle of the Talmud that different opinions or traditions be set alongside one another. Such a thing is foreign to the New Testament. And change teachers? That would have been unthinkable where Jesus was concerned.
Jesus of Nazareth Page 10
