Jesus is depicted in the Gospel tradition as announcing the approach of God’s future kingdom, which in some sense is experienced in the present through deeds of power such as exorcisms and healings, as well as gathering followers around particular covenantal practices. Although he is referred to as Son of God and Messiah in the Gospel narratives, these are honorific titles attributed to him by others that he does not explicitly use of himself. The designation that may best represent what Jesus was doing and saying in Galilee, and then in Jerusalem, is that of prophet. The Gospel of Mark indicates that Jesus regarded himself as a prophet. He tells those who took offense at him in his hometown synagogue at Nazareth, “Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house” (Mark 6:4). It is unlikely that the epithet “prophet” would have originated with the early church. A passage common to Luke and Matthew says that Jesus regarded John as a prophet, and so he was also linked to this role by virtue of his identification with him.
When John’s messengers had gone, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? Someone dressed in soft robes? Look, those who put on fine clothing and live in luxury are in royal palaces. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.” (Luke 7:24–26)
Jesus here associates John’s prophetic activity with “wilderness,” and contrasts it with powerful elites such as Antipas. A number of passages in the Gospels suggest that people surmise Jesus is a prophet: “But others said, ‘It is Elijah.’ And others said, ‘It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old’ ” (Mark 6:15).
There were different kinds of prophets in early Judaism, but Jesus and John the Baptist fit the profile of popular prophets who led movements of resistance and renewal, which were not uncommon in the first century (Horsley and Hanson). As William Herzog observes, this type of prophetic leader emerges because he or she embodies the values of the group they represent. As a peasant artisan in the village of Galilee, Jesus would have been steeped in the prophetic traditions of Israel (Herzog, 23). In contrast to the scribal subculture within Judaism, characterized by texts and interpretations, Jesus inhabited an oral cultural that related the foundational biblical stories and figures to their own local context. These popular messianic movements, as Horsley calls them, often began in the wilderness as reenactments of the foundational acts of God’s deliverance in the exodus and the formation of the covenant community (Horsley 2012, 93). Moses was regarded as the prototypical prophetic leader (Deut. 18:15), and Elijah and Elisha were especially revered figures in the Galilean milieu of Jesus. They were prophets who responded to a crisis in the northern kingdom by challenging political authority. The prophetic renewal movement led by Elijah and “the children of the prophets” has left an indelible mark on the Gospel tradition and may even have provided inspiration for Jesus himself (Brodie).
It would be difficult to overstate the significance of the exodus as the defining event in Israel’s history, especially in the popular imagination of Judeans who had lived under imperial rule since the Babylonian exile. John the Baptist’s call to prepare the “way of the Lord” evokes Isaiah’s theme of a new exodus signaling that God was acting anew through Jesus to effect the liberation of God’s people (Mark 1:2–6 // Matt. 3:1–6 // Luke 3:1–7). While the new exodus is a scriptural motif used by the Gospel writers to characterize the movements initiated by John and Jesus respectively, it also symbolizes the phenomenon of power associated with the focus of Jesus’ message and activity, namely the kingdom of God. The phrase “kingdom of God” is a political metaphor that has its roots in the biblical notion of God as king. However, it is also a spatial metaphor that highlights a tension between the principal conviction of Judaism, that God is the sovereign creator who rules the universe, and the reality of the Roman control of Palestine. Since Jesus was proclaiming God’s reign in a Galilee that was under Roman rule, he was, in some sense, exemplifying an order or an experience of power different from and incompatible with the machinations of imperial power.
Given the anachronistic connotations of kingdom language in contemporary contexts, a constructive alternative translation that conveys the phenomenon expressed is “power.” Oakman maintains that “when Jesus spoke of ‘Kingdom of God,’ his reference was to the presence and reality of the Power, the Power’s ultimacy” (76). So, for example, when Jesus says to a group of Pharisees, “The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you” (Luke 17:20–21), he was speaking of the power “among you” or “in your midst.” The language of power pervades the Jesus tradition and is used in a variety of ways. Jesus’ healings are referred to as “deeds of power,” and he is described as teaching with “authority.” The Greek word translated “deeds of power,” and erroneously in some translations as “miracle,” is dynamis (e.g., Mark 5:20; 6:2, 5, 14; 9:1, 39; 12:24; 13:25–26; 14:62). The Greek term translated “authority” is exousia (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 2:10; 3:15). This is the same power that the Israelites identified with the one who delivered them from bondage in Egypt in the exodus (Horsley 2011, 45). It is also the power that formed the Israelites into a people, and the template for how that power was to operate among the people was set out in the Mosaic covenant. Principles of political-economic cooperation and justice distinguish it as a power shared in community (Horsley 2011, 43). Jesus uses the metaphor of “father” to speak of this power in personal terms as beneficent and merciful, as well as caring and providing for all creatures (see Luke 6:35–36; 11:2–4; 12:22–34).
The Gospel of Mark introduces the ministry of Jesus by announcing, “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news’ ” (Mark 1:14–15). Matthew and Luke follow Mark in making Jesus’ assertion of the imminence of this “power” the central focus of the narrative by describing its effects. Although the plot of these narratives is a construction of the authors using a variety of traditions about Jesus, the major facets of what the Gospels describe Jesus doing and saying are historically consistent with the portrait of him as a popular prophet leading a local renewal movement that dealt with the severe social and economic conditions of Galilean life. “Kingdom of God” is a biblical catchphrase encompassing the various representations of power featured in the narratives.
If these portrayals of kingdom power in the Gospels are set within the exigent circumstances of Jesus’ Galilean context, the shape of Jesus’ prophetic program of renewal and the various responses to it become more intelligible as a historical phenomenon. Of primary importance are Jesus’ efforts to gather the people of God. The gathering of the scattered people of God is a major theme in Israel’s Scriptures, especially among the prophets (see Deut. 30:1–5; Isa. 11:12–13; 58:6). As Gerhard Lohfink observes, “gathering” Israel is often parallel to “liberating,” “saving,” “healing,” and “redeeming” Israel (Lohfink, 60). The twelve disciples Jesus chooses represent the twelve tribes of Israel that were scattered; more importantly, it underscores the point that a primary purpose of the power is the formation of a community. In other words, “the reign of God must have a people” (Lohfink, 48). At the conclusion of an episode common to Luke and Matthew in which Jesus is accused of casting out a demon by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, he asserts: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Luke 11:23). In a characteristically prophetic mode, he holds people accountable to the power operative through him to gather, restore, and heal.
The scene in which we find this saying, about participation in God’s power at work in and among the people Jesus was gathering, is one of many exorcisms in the Gospel. Exorcisms can themselves be understood as episodes in a struggle for power. In commenting on the accusation in Luke 11:15 that Jesus “casts out demons by Beelzebul the prince of demons,” Halvor Moxnes emphasizes that his response reveals assumptions about space and boundaries underlying the challenge: “Every kingdom divided against itself becomes a desert, and house falls on house. If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand?” (Luke 11:17–18). Moxnes sees the challenge that identified Jesus with Beelzebul as an attempt by opponents to put him outside the boundaries of “civilized” society, outside Israel. The household was the center of social and economic life, and it was at the intersections of household and kingdom that the people around Jesus lived their lives and experienced the power that “the strong man” (Luke 11:21–22) could use to exercise control (Moxnes, 338). Anthropological studies of exorcism in other societies suggest that there is a connection between spirit possession and forms of imperial domination, but such experiences of being occupied by an alien power were interpreted cosmologically rather than politically (Horsley 2011, 113–17). These exorcism stories allude to experiences of release from the effects of the oppressive and hegemonic powers that controlled people’s lives as a consequence of Jesus imparting a restorative divine power.
Interpreting the exorcism and healing stories in the Gospels as a demonstration and experience of power that challenges existing structures of power not only demystifies the confrontation with cosmic forces but also sheds light on the conflict with the religious authorities. From a literary perspective, conflict drives the plot of the Gospel narratives just as it does any good story. Differentiating between conflict on the literary level of the narrative and in Jesus’ Galilean context is complicated by the fact that the Gospels are written after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. So the depiction of the conflict between scribes and Pharisees in the Gospels reflects post-70-CE disputes between Jesus’ followers and Jewish leaders because the portrait of scribes and Pharisees is something of a caricature that does not completely fit with Jesus’ Galilean context. However, if Jesus was mediating a power from outside the socioreligious system, then it follows that as its brokers, scribes and Pharisees would likely have regarded him as a disturbance and a threat.
In Mark’s narrative, the conflict between Jesus’ authority and scribal authority is introduced at the outset of his ministry where, in the context of teaching in a synagogue, he delivers a man with an unclean spirit (Mark 1:21–28). While it is the narrator who contrasts Jesus’ authority to teach with that of the scribes, this passage points to the crux of the conflict between Jesus and the religious authorities both in Jesus’ Galilean ministry and in the Gospels, namely the interpretation of Torah. First, it is important to note the setting of many of these conflicts is the local synagogue, which was a center for community life organized around the Torah. In a village context such as Galilee, scribes acted as administrators who related Torah to legal matters and the affairs of people’s everyday lives. As prophetic leader of a renewal movement in Galilee, Jesus embodied the values of the people who followed him, and those values were rooted and grounded in Torah. Despite a long-standing view that Jesus transgressed or abrogated Torah, he is depicted in the earliest layers of the tradition as upholding the Decalogue in its entirety (Mark 12:28–31), espousing many of its individual demands (Mark 7:9–13, 21–23; 10:17–19), observing Levitical rule (Mark 1:44), confirming that the whole of Torah is binding (Luke 16:17), and refuting criticism that his behavior is lawless (Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6; see Allison 2010, 165). What distinguished his interpretation of Torah from the more traditional interpretations of scribes and Pharisees was the conviction that God was speaking and acting through him. This prompted a prophetic approach to Torah that drew on its traditions of justice and judgment and was responsive to the socioeconomic stresses in Galilee.
The two nodal issues at the center of the dispute between Jesus and the scribes about how to interpret Torah were Sabbath observance and purity regulations. In Mark 2:23–3:6, there are two consecutive Sabbath controversy accounts. In the first, Pharisees complain that Jesus’ disciples are violating Sabbath by plucking grain, and in the second, Jesus responds to those who are watching to see if he will heal on the Sabbath. Anticipating their criticism, he asks, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?” (Mark 3:4). Both episodes have likely been embellished in the context of Mark’s narrative, but even so they disclose the underlying issues in Jesus’ historical context and a key interpretative principle for him. The matter in question in both incidents is the priority he gives to human distress—hunger and physical affliction, respectively. The purpose of Torah for Jesus was to support the health and well-being of human beings, and this is consistent with how Torah has been interpreted within historic Judaism. Similarly, in the conflict focused on Jewish purity regulations, he does not disregard purity so much as reinterpret it as a matter of interpersonal ethics rather than ritual practice (Mark 7:1–23).
Jesus’ habit of fraternizing with “sinners and tax collectors” was also a matter of concern for those scribes and Pharisees who saw themselves as guarding the boundaries of the Mosaic covenant (Mark 2:15–17; Luke 5:30–32; 7:34, 39; 15:1, 7, 10; 18:13; 19:7). “Sinners” were by definition people who behaved contrary to the covenant, or, as Crossley remarks, to someone’s definition of law and covenant (87). The most historically accurate aspect of the portrait of the Pharisees in the Gospels is their emphasis on purity or holiness. Some of the people who come to Jesus are depicted as being impure. While it is plausible that Jesus and his followers may have been somewhat lax in their observance of purity regulations, impurity was not regarded as a “sin” per se in early Judaism. Nonetheless, people who were ritually impure could be marginalized socially. The Gospel tradition does not elaborate on the specific reasons some around Jesus were deemed “sinners.” Given that a majority of the people in Galilee would have lived around subsistence level, lack of time and resources may have impeded many from observing Torah according to the standards of local religious authorities. Those who were designated “sinners” give the impression of being on the margins of society for economic or social reasons, and Jesus was reintegrating them into the covenant community.
In contrast to the Pharisees, who stressed purity and boundaries, Jesus’ teaching was more oriented to economic and social relations, and focused specifically on issues of poverty and debt. Followers were exhorted to give without expectation of return to everyone who begs (Luke 6:30–35). Several passages, including the prayer Jesus teaches his disciples, feature the problem of debt and emphasize the importance of release from indebtedness (Matt. 6:12 // Luke 11:4; Luke 7:41; 16:5, 7; Matt. 18:28, 30, 34). Jesus also instructs his followers regarding their relationship to possessions. He urged them not to be anxious about material needs and to trust God’s care for them. He enjoined them, “Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys” (Luke 12:33; 14:33). Jesus also had a lot to say about the deleterious effects of wealth, and in several passages challenges the rich. In addition to aphoristic sayings such as “woe to you who are rich” (Luke 6:24) and “you cannot serve God and wealth” (Luke 16:13), the parables of the rich fool (Luke 12:13–21), the story of the rich man (Mark 10:17–22 // Matt. 19:16–22 // Luke 18:18–23), the parable of the great banquet (Luke 14:15–24), the parable of the dishonest steward (Luke 16:1–8), the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31), the story of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1–9), and the parable of the pounds (Luke 19:11–27) all challenge the prosperous in a manner that implies their fiscal habits were a cause of economic distress and oppression for others, and so he required them to repent and amend their ways.
Since Jesus lived in an oral culture, he did not regularly cite or refer to biblical texts, but his teaching is grounded in Israel’s Scriptures. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man implores Abraham to warn his family so they can repent, but Abraham replies, “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31). In a passage common to all three Synoptic Gospels, a scribe asks Jesus, “which commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answers by quoting Deut. 6:4–5 and Lev. 19:18.
The first is, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” The second is this, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” There is no other commandment greater than these. (Mark 12:29–31)
This double command, as it is sometimes called, is the central precept in Jesus’ interpretation and appropriation of Torah in the economically distressed milieu of Galilee. The parable of the good Samaritan in Luke 10:25–37 is an example of how Jesus illustrates the practical implications of these commandments in ways that promote inclusivity, beneficence, and accountability to others, especially those in need.
Jesus refers to the Torah and the prophets mostly in the context of debating with scribes and Pharisees. His disputes with them were predicated on some shared convictions, such as the authority of Torah and the importance of the Mosaic covenant. What differentiated Jesus from these other teachers and precipitated most of their disagreements, however, was his concern to connect the power of God’s kingdom to the struggles of a peasant underclass who, for various reasons, found themselves on the periphery. Parables were his preferred medium for imparting the message of the kingdom. A parable is a short, narrative fiction that draws on the concrete particulars of nature and everyday life to subvert the status quo and reimagine the world (Scott 2001, 13–15). Jesus’ parables employed poetic metaphors to engage hearers’ imagination by painting a vivid a picture of kingdom power that was often set in contrast to grandiose images of power. A good example is the parable of the mustard seed.
He [Jesus] also said, “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.” (Mark 4:30–32 // Matt. 13:31–32 // Luke 13:18–19)
As the parable indicates, the mustard plant is more like a “shrub,” which the ancient writer Pliny says, “grows entirely wild” and, once it has been sown, it “is scarcely possible to get the place free of it” (Natural History 29.54.170). This is a strange and provocative image for the kingdom of God, but Jesus was likely invoking a comparison with the mighty cedar of Lebanon, which was a common image for empire in Israel’s Scriptures (see Ezek. 17:22–23; Dan. 4:10–12). The mustard shrub is a metaphor for an emergent phenomenon that was organic, recalcitrant, and disruptive. Moreover, it was the very antithesis of imperial power as control and order.
While it is not possible to comment on or categorize all of Jesus’ parables, they are all part of a strategy to evoke the possibility of another reality, the world as it should be over against the world as it was. Some critique greed, patronage, preoccupation with status, and other Greco-Roman values (e.g., Luke 7:41–43; 12:16–20; 14:15–24; 16:19–31; 19:12–27), and others suggest countercultural dispositions and practices such as hospitality, generosity, mercy, forgiveness, vigilance, and so on (Matt. 18:10–14, 21–35; Mark 13:34–36; Luke 10:30–35; 15:11–32). All the parables, along with Jesus’ other teachings, were inextricably tied to his effort to gather people into a cooperative form of life that would enable them to stand firm in the face of severe political and economic stress. The immanent power he mediated was the basis for a popular sovereignty, and as the movement organized around it galvanized and gained momentum, tensions with established authorities also intensified.