Turning Jesus of Nazareth into Jesus of Rome...

From his early beginnings, Jesus was a Jew, lived as a Jew and died at the hands of Jewish oppressors. Many believe, as some of the New Testament documents record, that he was a Rabbi, with disciples and followers. He taught in synagogues, he read from sacred scrolls, participated in Passover and other Jewish holidays. If we read Jesus in just this content, his being Jewish is obvious and well documented.

But some 2000 years later, it would be easier to find President Bush after Katrina hit than to find a trace of Jesus’ Jewish roots. Jesus, the penniless Rabbi of 1st century Israel has become a warrior Jesus, a Christ, returning in full glory to lop off the heads of all who oppose him. This presents Jesus as a very different view between his actual time on earth and how the earth views him now.

The early Christian community was said to have been conceived in heaven but was born here on earth. It told of a kingdom standing in opposition to the other kingdoms of this world. Where Jesus fit into this landscape, is the early Christians saw Jesus, as an individual, as Peacemaker and Lord, Savior and Son of God, who proclaimed that kingdom’s advent as gospel, good news for all the earth.

So as the religion of Christianity grew, so did the concepts of Jesus. We have previously discussed a few of these traditions, like for example the “borrowing” of the Old Testament prophecies that Christians believed pointed directly to the life of Jesus, but very few orthodox or rabbinic Jews would see it that way. What we see quickly developing is a belief system that was designed to help explain Jesus to the masses rather than letting the words of Jesus explain themselves. An old rabbi once told me that man is constantly interfering in the work of God.

The attention seems to turn away from the life of Jesus and the focus heads into determining what to believe about Jesus. So, even in the early start, Christianity is being defined by its orthodoxy (right belief) rather than it orthopraxy (right practice). As the writings of Paul hit the Christian community first, they gave little rise to any interest about the life of Jesus, or more to the point, the specific teachings of Jesus. Paul starts off where the battle is raging, and that is what the right beliefs about Jesus should be and how they should be taught.

As the Gospel traditions hit the community, they told of a Jesus that was much more warm, more human and seemingly concerned with the plight of man in this life, not just in the afterlife alone. Compared to the orthodoxy writings of Paul, these gospels and the words of Jesus seemed untamed, preaching a kingdom that was present and a lifestyle that was concerned with issues of social justice, reverence of God and non-violent resistance. These words of Jesus were organic and spoke to the immediate needs of the people around him.

By the time the Gospels emerged, many of the teachings of Paul were already circulating in the Christian community and for the most part, they were not always breeding unity. For example, when Paul taught that in Jesus there was no Jew or Greek, there were several groups that would not be on board with such a concept. Obviously in a slave trade market and society, there were slaves. In any patriarchal system, there would be defining lines between men and women.

Rabbinic Judaism would not hold to this idea, because for Jews, people are bodies, not spirits and God precisely marks them either male or female by His eternal plan. Further, the physical bodies were also marked by the act of circumcision, which was a sacred practice of the Jews since the time of Abraham. As Dr. Amy-Jill Levine pointed out in a recent interview, the very idea there being no Jew or Greek might be a bit offensive to a Jew or a Greek.

There were many myths and legends that told of people rising from the dead, which was to apparently prove their divinity or favor with their deity. Why was this man’s resurrection, although it had distinct characteristics, the cause of the birth of Christianity rather than the end of it? The interaction of the earliest followers of the historical Jesus and the continuation of that relationship despite his execution is one of the marvels of the faith.

Herein lies the challenge for the early believers. How do you take the penniless rabbi from Nazareth, who taught on humility and non-violent resistance, and turn him into the warrior King Jesus, leader of the Church of Rome? At first, we see no historical evidence that any group tried to come up with a solution. But as Christianity broke away from its Jewish adoptive parents, we see Jesus turning into the Christ.

This meant that there would need to be changes to the idea of Jesus. If he was not the Jewish Messiah, fulfilling the predictions of Messiah as seen in the Hebrew Bible, then who was he and what was he trying to accomplish? What could be taught about him that would separate him from the other pagan legends of his day? What we see from this point forward is differing teachings of Jesus being used to prove differing beliefs. We also begin to hear about books being presented as late as the 2nd century supporting these different beliefs.

The early Christians struggled with their flesh. There were many teachings on the subject of the flesh, ranging from it being a distracting mansion, a nomadic tent, a decrepit abode or a filthy prison cell. The love of the body or flesh was known as sacrophilia, and the fear of the body or flesh is called sacrophobia.

How they responded to this issue and all the issues would determine what previous group or sect they had formed from. This was a pivotal time for the early Christians, as they were not only trying to identify what they were doing, but also what were their origins. It was crucial they adopted some kind of history, because for Rome, if its new it can’t be true.

So what was Christianity in its conception? A Sect? A Cult? Sect movements occur by schism within a conventional religious body when persons desiring a more otherworldly version of the faith break away to “restore” the religion to a higher level of tension with its environment.

Cult movements, on the other hand, are not simply new organizations of an old faith; they are new faiths, at least new in the society being examined. Furthermore, sects appeal especially to those who if are not the disposed, they are at the very least of lower social standing than those who stick with the parent body. Cults on the other hand, must draw upon the more privileged for their recruits.

I believe the best way to view Jesus and what he was accomplishing is clearly a sect operating within Judaism. This theory helps explain several of the sayings and events of Jesus’ life. Jesus was not seeking an end to Judaism, but a return to a more authentic discipline of Judaism. He wrote rules inside the scope of Jewish practice, not outside of Jewish practice.

Christianity, after its departure from Judaism, was brought to this question: Are we a sect inside Judaism or a cult outside of Paganism? Neither option seemed to work, so Christianity needed a new center of operations (Jerusalem would not work), a new system of beliefs (that kept it separate from its pagan and Jewish competition) but also needed to hijack the Jewish rabbi Jesus of Nazareth.

It took time for Christianity to become fully recognized, partly because of how information traveled at this time and because the diversity of both Judaism and Christianity was immense, starting with the most unique of Christian believers, the Resurrection Christians. The Resurrection Christians were immediately seen as a “new religion”, one that added far too much culture to Judaism to any longer be a sect that operated within Judaism.

This is significant because most, if not all, religious groups have some identifying marker, something that separates them from other sects and religions. Most followed their leader, while others associated with a unique practice or location. But few did what Christianity poised to do: take someone else's 2000 years of religious history, borrow the sections that fit, dismiss the rest and incorporate a leader from that group be redesigning his shape, his conversation and his teachings.

This “borrowing” or “reshaping” of Jesus caused many problems, especially between the Jewish and Christian believers. The more Jesus’ Jewishness was de-tuned to fit the rising Gentile market share, the less believable this Jesus became to the Jews. A non-Torah observant, pig-eating Messiah was a hard pill to swallow. So the Jesus of the early Jewish believers began the slow process of becoming victorious and conquering Jesus of the Romans, to the point where the Roman army believed that by carrying the standard of this Jesus (the cross) they were un-defeatable in war.

The Roman Army would go on to defeat, but the image on the victor Jesus would stick and within a matter of 200 years, Jesus would be barely recognizable to himself. His clothing changed, his words changed from peaceful and non-violent resistance to sword yielding “melt your face off for not seeing him as he is” theology.

Here we must take pause and ask what would Jesus do? Jesus was clearly a Jewish man living in a very Jewish atmosphere and exhibited very Jewish behavior. Yet in his life he had clear conversations and concerns for people outside Judaism, and most Christians agree that his death served much in the way the Jewish sacrificial system served.

We all see his death and atonement as a covering for all mankind, regardless of our race, our gender, or social placement or religious backgrounds and beliefs. But perhaps even more in his life, Jesus was giving us the pathway to being able to be different, yet the same.

Surely he told us he came for the lost house of Israel and all the Jewishness of Jesus is undeniable, unless you are simply unconscious to the writings about him. But we all understand his death and resurrection as universal, for all mankind and for all people. The Messianic Jews will tell you that to believe Jesus you must come under the faith of Israel, being adopted into the faith of Abraham. Christians will tell you Jesus came to do what the Law and the faith of Israel could not do, and Israel failed in its relationship with God, so God moved the mantle to the Gentile nations. Both cannot be right and both cannot be wrong.

But what if the truth is both approaches can be helpful? What if Jesus is about helping people and not helping Christianity or Judaism? What if it is true that to believe in Jesus, to trust him and to take on his teachings is about coming to him as you are, always accepted, loved and welcomed? What if the true message of interfaith dialogue would be this: be where you need to be, but come as you are. Don’t miss Jesus because of overly religious people pressing a system of understanding rather that a right relationship with Jesus.

From my perspective, historically it would be difficult to know Jesus outside of his Jewish practice and life. But you can love him and experience love in return from him from wherever you are.

David Fournier in the Senior Instructor at Restoring Grace. David teaches classes on Hebraic Perspectives, Early Christian Communities and New Testament Formations and Canon. David is available for your church, youth group, seminars and retreats. Email David at:dfour26@gmail.com