One of the problems that I've noted in some liberal scholarly reconstructions of the historical Jesus (specially in the so-called Jesus Seminar) is a strange tendency to interpret Jesus wholly outside of his strong Jewish context. These scholars look at Jesus with the glasses of 21th century person, not with the glasses of a first-century Jew. Lacking the full cultural and religious context for an accurate interpretation of Jesus' teachings and deeds, many liberal reconstructions tend to reflect more the scholar's own ideology and values than what Jesus really was.
In popular anti-Christian books, it is often said that the idea that Jesus died for the sins of humankind was a fabrication or invention of the Church. Atheists, religious pluralists and other readers eager to believe this tend to uncritically accept such view, without proper critical scrutiny and examination of the evidence in its proper historical context and Jewish background.
As a matter of fact, there is some evidence, in the Old Testament, that God planned to send a person who was going to suffer for other people's sins.
Let's examine the evidence.
Consider carefully Isaiah 53 (read it several times slowly, please):
Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.[b]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.[b]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];
by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];
by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors
Note that the above saying is not a creation of the Christian Church, since such passage is from the OLD Testament (Christianity wasn't still born). But such passage clearly makes the point of a person that will be chosen by God in order to suffer for other people's sins. This view is already present in the Jewish background.
Now, consider these teachings and facts about the life of Jesus:
1-As a first-century Jew, Jesus recognized the Old Testament, and even quoted it often to make his points.
2-He taught authoritatively about God's kingdom and the conditions for entering in it.
3-In prayings, he called God "Abba" (an expression which suggested close contact or familiarity, something roughly like "daddy" in English, but not exactly).
4-He placed himself in the place of God in matters which belong only to God (e.g. he forgave sins; he corrected authoritatively some of the Old Testament laws given by God, and so forth).
5-He used expressions which, in the Jewish background, were connected with God (e.g. The expression Son of Man or "coming in the clouds").
6-As consequence (and previsibly), the Jews (who were hard-core, extremely radical monotheists) instigated against him the charge of blasphemy.
7-Jesus predicted his own death
8-He was tortured and suffered unimaginable physical and psychological pain in the cross (among wicked criminals who were crucified with him)
8-He was tortured and suffered unimaginable physical and psychological pain in the cross (among wicked criminals who were crucified with him)
9-He was buried by a rich man: Joseph of Arimathea.
10-He was risen from the dead (if you don't believe in the historical evidence for the resurrection, don't matter. Just assume it for the argument's sake, since I'm making a purely exegetical point in this post).
I ask unbiased and open-mind readers the following question: Does not Jesus' life and teachings (and I mentioned above only some of the less controversial ones, most of which can be defended using the standards criteria of authenticity) fit well with Isaiah 53?. I think any person would see clearly that at least an interesting close similarity between Jesus' life and Isaiah 53 does exist.
In the eyes of the Jews who were followers of Jesus, there is existed a clear continuity between the divine teachings of the Old Testament (including the predictions of Isaiah 53) and Jesus' own life which parallels such teachings and, apparently, fullfilled such predictions.
The death of the risen Son of God was obviously understood as the death for the sins of the humankind. What other plausible theological interpretation could be offered to Jesus' death, specially if we take into account Isaiah 53 and its parallels with Jesus' life?
So, the popular anti-Christian idea that the Church conspired to create falsely and out of nothing (and for mean reasons) a Jesus who died for ours sins is simply false. The conclusion of the early Christians, who were Jews, was the only viable, reasonable and logical theological interpretation of Jesus' death given the Old Testament prophecies about a person chosen by God in order to die for other's sins and Jesus' own life, exclusivistic teachings, and resurrection which seemed to actualize such prophecy. In fact, any other interpretation (given that Jewish-plus-Jesus background) would be arbitrary, contrived and irrational.
And note that we have not added here Jesus' sayings suggesting that his own death is "for others", because if we add that as evidence, then the case for the Christian view being the most reasonable interpretation of Jesus' death seem to be hard to avoid.
For example, consider Mark 14: 22-24:
22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”
23 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
24 “This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.
Or consider Mark 10:45:
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Compare with Isaiah 53 above which says " because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many..."
There is a clear continuity between the teaching of the Old Testament about such mysterious individual chosen by God "to suffer for the sins of many", and Jesus' own self-perception, life, teachings and the reasons for his death. In the mind of Jesus' followers, what other theological significance could be given to Jesus' death? Was not Jesus the most plausible candidate to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah 53? If not, why not? What other candidate was better than Jesus for the fullfilling of such prophecy?
Try to put yourself in the shoes of a first-century Jew who believed in Jesus' resurrection and try to answer the above questions objectively and unbiasedly.
Consider a further Jesus' saying in Mark 12:1-9:
Jesus then began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 2 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed.
6 “He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’
7 “But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.
9 “What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.
Jesus then began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 2 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed.
6 “He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’
7 “But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.
9 “What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.
Note that the parable (which highlights Jesus' exclusivistic self-perception as the Son of God), he uses a metaphor in which the messengers are "beat", "struck", "treated shamefully" and (in the case of some, including the master's heir =the SON), "killed". The parable seem to have a predictive aspect, namely, that Jesus (who was sent by God) was going to be killed.
Here, Jesus predicted his own death (and resurrection, which his disciples didn't understood because for Jews the resurrection was a general phenomenon in the end of days, and no single person can be risen before that).
Clearly Jesus knew that he was going to be delivered to the hands of his enemies and eventually be killed by them (and then resurrected, which suggest that the whole plan was known by Jesus in advance).
If Jesus was the man portrayed in Isaiah 53, then such knowledge of the plan is not surprising, because precisely it is God's plan (God's will, which Jesus respected about all things) that he was going to suffer and die for the sins of others, in order to fullfil God's predictions.
So, it is not surprising that Christians believe such a thing. What other thing could they plausibly to believe? Even Jesus Seminar's member and non-Christian scholar James Crossley agrees that " Famous terms for Jesus such as "son of Man" or "Son of God" really were being used by or of Jesus when he was alive. Jesus did really practised healing and exorcism; and Jesus really did predict his imminent death and probably thought it had some atoning function." (How did Christianity begin? p.1)
On the contrary, if Jesus was NOT the man mentioned in Isaiah 53 and the Christian interpretation of Jesus' death is false, then the following questions press:
1-Which was the point of Jesus' death and resurrection, and he knowing, in advance, that such things were going to happen to him? What is the point of his predictions? What's the point of his resurrection?
2-Why Jesus, who was so powerful and special as to be resurrected, was incapable of avoiding his own death in the hands of their enemies?
3-Why did Jesus has a life which paralleled Isaiah 53 and that, previsibly, was going to create into the mind of his Jewish followers the misleading impression that he was the man selected by God to die for other people's sins? Wasn't Jesus powerful enough as to know, precognitively, that his own life was going to be interpreted in terms of Jewish predictions? If he was, then wasn't Jesus, in that case, guilty of deception, misdirection or, at least, of improper care or technical incompetence, specially given that he chose and selected carefully and personally all his direct disciples (including Paul, in his post-mortem apparition)?
Conclusion:
So, in this point, we have at least 3 possible options:
1)If Jesus' resurrection was historical and the basic facts of his life mentioned above are veridical, I think the Christian interpretation of Jesus' death having an atoning function in terms of Isaiah 53 is very likely to be correct. Jesus' life was as God predicted in the Old Testament prophecies, and God's will and overall plan was actualized by Jesus' ministry and life.
In this case, Jesus' self-perception as the exclusive mediator between God and human beings makes sense, and Jesus was consciously performing God's will (a will which only Jesus knew and that He decided, as the only Son of God, to reveal to humans in order to share with them the conditions for entering God's Kingdom).
In this case, Jesus' self-perception as the exclusive mediator between God and human beings makes sense, and Jesus was consciously performing God's will (a will which only Jesus knew and that He decided, as the only Son of God, to reveal to humans in order to share with them the conditions for entering God's Kingdom).
b)If Jesus' resurrection happened, but his death didn't have any atoning function, then I think Jesus is guilty of a massive deception called Christianity, a deception of the most objectionale kind to which Jesus has to be reputed as the main responsible (for using a misleading and often criptic language; for living a life which paralleled Isaiah 53; for falsefly putting himself in God's place; for implying that he was the Son of God or the exclusive mediator between humans and God; and specially, and above all, for choosing a bunch of incompetent disciples who were incapable of understanding correctly Jesus' teachings, misrepresented his message and in passing created an amazingly influential, misleading and false religion centered around a person, instead of around Jesus' teachings, called Christianity).
But in this second case of such an incompetent and misleading Jesus, the resurrection becomes wholly inexplicable, an event which comes absolutely from the left-hand, without any clear theological or religious reason nor meaning.
c)If Jesus' resurrection didn't happen... then Christianity is a fairy tale and there is not point in wasting our time discussing this fantasy anymore.
You have to think by yourself, based upon the evidence, which ones of the above alternatives is more plausible.
0 comments:
Post a Comment