Foundations

20 The person of Jesus Christ

Essential terminology

Arianism

Christology

Council of Constantinople

Council of Jerusalem

Council of Nicaea

Demythologising

Guerilla

Homoousion

Hypostatic union

Liberation theology

Liberator

Logos

Messiah

Metanoia

Nicene Creed

Parousia

Pentecost

Pharisees

Preferential option for the poor

Resurrection

Salvific

Sermon on the Mount

Sermon on the Plain

Zealot

Key scholars

Aristotle (384–322 BCE)

Philo (c. 20 BCE–c. CE 50)

Pliny (23–79)

Josephus (37–c. 100)

Tacitus (56–c. 120)

Novatian (c. 200–258)

Arius (250/256–336)

Anselm (1033/1034–1109)

Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153)

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)

David Hume (1711–1776)

David Strauss (1808–1874)

Rudolf Karl Bultmann (1884–1976)

John Hick (1922–2012)

David Jenkins (1925–2016)

Wolfhart Pannenburg (1928–2014)

Gustavo Gutiérrez Merino (1928–)

Camilo Torres Restrepo (1929–1966)

Leonardo Boff (1938–)

What you will learn about in this chapter

The OCR checklist       

The person of Jesus Christ

Learners should have the opportunity to discuss issues related to Christian ideas regarding

Suggested scholarly views, academic approaches and sources of wisdom and authority

Jesus of Nazareth

God, saint or sinner?

For two millennia theologians and other scholars have tried to work out what can actually be known about Jesus of Nazareth.

The ‘quest for the historical Jesus’ was particularly important in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Two important texts are Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet (1835–1836) (The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined), by David Strauss (1808–1874), and The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906), by Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965).

Extra-biblical texts were initially seen as the most important proof of the historical Jesus. However, in the twentieth century, the works usually cited, by Philo (c. 20 BCE–c. CE 50), Pliny (23–79), Josephus (37–c. 100) and Tacitus (56 – c. 120), were all discredited as forgeries or forged insertions into the text.

There is no archaeological evidence available as again, items such as the sarcophagus inscription, which says, ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus’, cannot be shown to have any further connection to Jesus and, of course, although many Christians accept this family link, it is not clear in the New Testament.

Therefore, people have to accept that apart from the biblical text and perhaps the pseudepigraphal and apocryphal books, there is no ‘proof’ that Jesus ever existed. Many might regard the Bible as proof because in the New Testament it says, ‘All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness’ (2 Timothy 3:16).

However, it requires very little skill in verbal logic to see that this text is a circular argument which proves nothing.

The best-known official statement of the Christian Church about Jesus is found in the Nicene Creed:

I believe in one God the Father Almighty,

Maker of heaven and earth,

And of all things visible and invisible:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,

Begotten of his Father before all worlds,

God of God, Light of Light,

Very God of very God,

Begotten, not made,

Being of one substance with the Father,

By whom all things were made;

Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven,

And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary,

And was made man,

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.

He suffered and was buried,

And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures,

And ascended into heaven,

And sitteth on the right hand of the Father.

And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead:

Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost,

The Lord and giver of life,

Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son,

Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified,

Who spake by the Prophets.

And I believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church.

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

And I look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the life of the world to come.

Amen.

(Book of Common Prayer, 1662)

This creed was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in CE 325 and expanded at the Council of Constantinople in CE 381.

The creed was necessary to counter the many Christological heresies of the time.

The most significant of these are as follows.

Adoptionism

This was a belief which said that Jesus was born as man and because he was so virtuous he was adopted as the ‘Son of God’ when the Holy Spirit descended to him on the banks of the river Jordan.

And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’

(Matthew 3:16–17)

The Gospel of Mark is believed by most modern scholars to be the first of the four canonical gospels to have been written but in the earliest manuscripts of Mark the phrase ‘Son of God’ does not appear Mark 1:1. Therefore the first use of the title for Jesus comes at his baptism.

Also, the letters of Paul do not mention a virgin birth. Paul describes Jesus as ‘born of a woman, born under the law’ (Galatians 4:4b) and ‘the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness’ Romans 1:3-4a).

This was promoted in Rome by Theodotus of Byzantium but condemned by the Synod of Antioch in 268.

Apollinarism

This belief stated that Jesus had a human body and lower soul but a divine mind. Apollinaris of Laodicea also said that human souls contained other souls, as well as their bodies. This heresy was condemned by the first Council of Constantinople in 381.

Arianism

In the third and fourth centuries Arius (250/256–336) did not accept the true divinity of Jesus Christ but agreed that Jesus Christ was created by the Father and that he had a beginning in time. The title ‘Son of God’ was purely a courtesy. In order to make clear the relationship of Jesus Christ to God, the Nicene Creed used homoousion (ὁμοούσιος) – ‘one in being’. In the fourth century, the Arian heresy argued against the use of homoousion. Homoeanism declared that the Son was ‘similar’ to God, while heteroousianism said that God the Father and God the Son were different in both their substance and attributes.

This was condemned at the Council of Nicaea in 325 and again at the Council of Constantinople in 359.

Docetism

This was a belief dating from the first century that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion. He only appeared to be physical but, in fact, was incorporeal and therefore pure spirit.

Macedonians or pneumatomachians

This fourth-century heresy accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ as stated at the Council of Nicaea but denies that of the Holy Spirit. It sees the Spirit as a creation of the Son, and a servant of the Father and the Son. It was opposed by the Cappadocian Fathers and condemned at the Council of Constantinople.

This is what prompted the addition of the following to the Nicene Creed:

And I believe in the Holy Ghost,

The Lord and giver of life,

Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son,

Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified,

Who spake by the Prophets.

Monophysitism or Eutychianism

This is a fifth-century heresy promulgated by Eutches of Constantinople. It stated that Christ’s divinity dominates and overwhelms his humanity. It was rejected by the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Monothelitism

A seventh-century heresy from Armenia and Syria which stated that although Christ had two natures he had only one will.

Monothelitism was a development of Monophysitism. Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople was the force behind this heresy with the blessing of the Emperor Heraclius. In 622, Heraclius wrote to Bishop Paul of Armenia and asserted that the active force of Jesus was single (Monoenergism).

Nestorianism

This heresy was put forward by Nestorius of Constantinople in the fifth century. It teaches that Jesus Christ was a natural union between the flesh and the Word and therefore is not identical to the divine Son of God. It was condemned at the First Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451. It rejected the title Theotokos (Θεοτόκος) – ‘God carrier’ – for the Virgin Mary and used Christotokos (Χριστοτόκος) – ‘Christ carrier’.

Patripassianism

This stressed that the Father and Son were not two distinct persons, and therefore it was God the Father who was crucified as Jesus.

Similarly, it stressed that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit were three different aspects of one God, as seen by the believer, not three distinct persons. There were no real or differences between the three, so there was no true identity for the Spirit or the Son.

Psilanthropism

This is an approach to Christology which teaches that Jesus was human, the literal son of human parents. It denied the virgin birth of Jesus, and his divinity. The 19th century poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge was an example of a psilanthropist. However, later he rejected it totally. The heresy was rejected by the first Council of Nicaea.

Sabellianism

This second-century heresy taught by Noetus of Smyran and Sabellius that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were three characterisations of one God, not three distinct ‘persons’ in one God.

So, what did Jesus think?

The authority of Jesus Christ

What is authority? According to the Oxford English Dictionary it is ‘Power or right to enforce obedience; moral or legal supremacy; the right to command, or give an ultimate decision.’ Jesus apparently had the power to command and carry out his Father’s work; however, he was under control of his Father as he was to be the ultimate sacrifice. Although he could do anything he wanted, he showed obedience, respect and submission to authority over him. His main purpose was to fulfil the plans of his Father. In stating this, was Jesus in control of every single moment or did he have free will? Did he have complete authority over his disciples or did his Father actually have that control?

If this is the case, then how do Christians live and walk in this power and authority? Many Christians believe that the world they live in has two realms – the natural and the spiritual. People need to know how to live in this spiritual realm in a way that affects the natural realm. Instead of the spiritual realm affecting only an individual, he or she needs to be living in a way that affects the spiritual realm, which in turn affects the natural realm.

Son of God

Christology is the study within Christian theology primarily of the relationship of Jesus with God the Father.

(John 1:1–5)

Jesus is given many titles in the New Testament. The primary one is Son of God. Jesus never used this of himself, however.

The title is in frequent use in the Old Testament, where it is seen as referring to a ruler or king who it was believed had been chosen by God to exercise his will. The Hebrew word מָשִׁיח – Moshiach – is translated as ‘messiah’, which means ‘anointed one’. It is a direct parallel with the Greek Christos (Χρίστος) – Christ.

A hope that a specially anointed person would arrive and free Israel politically, morally and spiritually. The Hebrew for ‘anointed one’ is messiah or Christos (in Greek). In other words, Son of God and Christ are equivalent terms.

One of the most famous references to this is found in the words of the Roman centurion at the crucifixion: ‘Truly this man was God’s Son!’ (Mark 15:39b). However, if a centurion said this it is not at all clear what he meant.

Knowledge of God

Was Jesus Christ only an ordinary man? Novatian (c. 200–258), a theologian and writer, answered this question at a time when there was much debate about how to deal with Christians who had lapsed and wished to return, and the issue of penance.

If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which he said, ‘And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?’ (John 17:3). Had he not wished that he also should be understood to be God, why did he add, ‘And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,’ except because he wished to be received as God also? Because if he had not wished to be understood to be God, he would have added, ‘And the man Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;’ but, in fact, he neither added this, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as man only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked himself to the Father had he not wished to be understood to be God also. For he would have separated himself from him had he not wished to be understood to be God.

(Novation, 235, Treatise on the Trinity, 16)

There are many passages in the Bible which say that knowledge of and about God the Father and Jesus Christ is of crucial importance.

May grace and peace be yours in abundance in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.

(2 Peter 1:2–3)

The Bible also states that God is the source of all knowledge. By seeking God, humanity can discover God’s truth. Jesus brought this knowledge to earth.

For it is the God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

(2 Corinthians 4:6)

He will be the stability of your times, abundance of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge; the fear of the Lord is Zion’s treasure.

(Isaiah 33:6)

Miracles

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) defined the word ‘miracle’ as ‘that which has a divine cause, not that whose cause a human person fails to understand’ (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles). Aquinas’ definition is important, as it highlights a fundamental point for religious believers: miracles are events caused by God. This is reflected in the meaning of the word ‘miracle’, which comes from the Latin ‘miraculum’ – an object of wonder.

As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ Jesus answered, ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.’ When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva and spread the mud on the man’s eyes, saying to him, ‘Go, wash in the pool of Siloam’ (which means Sent). Then he went and washed and came back able to see. The neighbours and those who had seen him before as a beggar began to ask, ‘Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?’ Some were saying, ‘It is he.’ Others were saying, ‘No, but it is someone like him.’ He kept saying, ‘I am the man.’ But they kept asking him, ‘Then how were your eyes opened?’ He answered, ‘The man called Jesus made mud, spread it on my eyes, and said to me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.’ Then I went and washed and received my sight.’ They said to him, ‘Where is he?’ He said, ‘I do not know.’

(John 9:1–12)

If we take a story such as this passage from John’s Gospel, it is of no interest to a religious believer whether we understand how Jesus performed this miracle. The point of the story is that God caused the man to be cured and this is an event to be wondered at. In the story, people cannot stop talking about what Jesus did and how God worked through him.

The second point to note is that Aquinas’ idea of miracle comes from Aristotle. Aquinas and Aristotle both believed that everything which exists has a nature. Basically, this nature is a statement about what a thing is able to do. For example you could say that part of the nature of human beings that makes them different from animals is that they can think about the future and the meaning of life and death. When Aquinas talks about a miracle having a ‘divine cause’ he means that the event in question is not a normal part of the nature of things.

However, many Christians today would add a further point to what Aquinas says. They would add that miracles not only are caused by God but also reveal something about God to people.

David Hume’s definition of a miracle

The most famous definition of a miracle in the modern world is probably that of David Hume (1711–1776). Hume defined a miracle as a ‘violation of the laws of nature’ (David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding).

For Hume, a miracle, such as Jesus curing the paralytic, is an example of an event which suggests that something happened which broke the laws of nature. It is important to understand what Hume means by the laws of nature, as his ideas are rather different from those of scientists today. Hume uses the laws of nature to show how the universe works. For example if you throw a book off your desk you know that it will fall to the floor. Why?

For Hume, a law of nature is something which can be tested scientifically and you say something is a law of nature only if every time you test the law you find the same result. If you want to put this philosophically, Hume would say that laws of nature are proved inductively. What this means is that evidence is collected and a conclusion reached, like a judge listening to the evidence in a court case. The conclusion is beyond reasonable doubt. Hume is not saying that the laws of nature necessarily have to be this way, but he is saying that the laws of nature are the best description of the way in which the universe works, beyond any reasonable doubt. Secondly, Hume believed that the laws of nature are rigid and fixed – meaning that they are statements which describe how the world works. Once discovered, laws of nature are unchanging.

In terms of events recorded in the New Testament a miracle is an unusual and significant event (τέρας) which requires the working of a supernatural power (δύναμις) and is performed for the purpose of authenticating the message or the messenger (σημεῖον).

Jesus himself uses the term ἔργον (erga) – ‘work’ – when referring to the miracles. This comes from Jewish tradition, where miracles are seen as a sign of God’s mighty and saving power.

Jesus performed many miracles which demonstrated his power over nature and spirits to indicate that the Kingdom of God was immanent (παρουσία, or parousia).

According to the accounts in the synoptic Gospels, Jesus refused to perform miraculous signs simply in order to prove his authority. However, in John’s Gospel he performs seven miraculous signs:

Parousia

This means presence, arrival or official visit. In the New Testament it is also used for the Second Coming of Jesus.

Many Christians believe Jesus’ miracles were historical events and that his miraculous works were an important part of his life which showed his divinity and the hypostatic union – that is the dual natures of Jesus as God and Man. His experiences of hunger, weariness and death are seen as evidence of his humanity, and the miracles as evidence of his divinity.

So, what could be understood from the following miracle?

When evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land. When he saw that they were straining at the oars against an adverse wind, he came towards them early in the morning, walking on the sea. He intended to pass them by. But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and cried out; for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, ‘Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.’ Then he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.

(Mark 6:47–52; see also John 6:15–21)

Jesus accompanies his words with many ‘mighty works and wonders and signs’, which manifest that the kingdom is present in him and attest that he was the promised Messiah.

The signs worked by Jesus attest that the Father has sent him. They invite belief in him. To those who turn to him in faith, he grants what they ask. So, miracles strengthen faith in the One who does his Father’s works; they bear witness that he is the Son of God. But his miracles can also be occasions for ‘offence’; they are not intended to satisfy people’s curiosity or desire for magic. Despite his evident miracles some people reject Jesus; he is even accused of acting by the power of demons.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church §547–548)

Salvific

Causing salvation.

Resurrection

The resurrection of Jesus – and the salvific nature of his sacrifice, atoning for the sins of the world, restoring the relationship between God and humanity and conquering death – is generally seen as probably the most important event in his life.

The Pharisees of the first century held a belief in resurrection that in a future age the dead would rise from their graves to live again. This is closely associated with their teaching about the Messiah and the immortality of the soul. However, there are only two references to the idea in the Jewish scriptures:

Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise.

O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!

For your dew is a radiant dew,

and the earth will give birth to those long dead.

(Isaiah 26:19)

Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

(Daniel 12:2–3)

What might be considered different about Jesus’ resurrection was that it happened so soon after his death and that the people who experienced the resurrected Christ were left with a belief that something fundamental had changed in their relationship with God.

Paul saw Jesus as the first fruits of a new order and wrote,

But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

(1 Corinthians 15:20)

Some theologians who do not believe that Jesus was more than a human being during his lifetime nevertheless believe that it was at the resurrection that Jesus is shown as the actual Son of God. Key among these is Wolfhart Pannenburg (1928–2014).

On the other hand, the late bishop of Durham, David Jenkins (1925–2016) was perhaps more challenging. His selection as bishop of Durham was controversial due to allegations that he held heterodox (not orthodox) beliefs in relation to the virgin birth and bodily resurrection. Just before his consecration in 1984 he said in an interview, ‘I wouldn’t put it past God to arrange a virgin birth if he wanted. But I don’t think he did.’

He was very widely quoted as describing the resurrection of Christ as being ‘just a conjuring trick with bones’. What he actually said was ‘[the Resurrection] is real. That’s the point. All I said was “literally physical”. I was very careful in the use of language. After all, a conjuring trick with bones proves only that somebody’s very clever at a conjuring trick with bones.’

He believed that the resurrection was not a single event but a series of experiences that gradually convinced people that Jesus’ life, power, purpose and personality were actually continuing.

What do people believe?

According to a 2017 survey carried out for the BBC there is a wide diversity of belief about Jesus’ resurrection.

ComRes surveyed 2,010 British adults by telephone, between 2 and 12 February 2017. The research was commissioned by BBC local radio for Palm Sunday.

The survey suggested the following:

Jesus Christ’s authority as a teacher of wisdom

Many scholars have accepted that Jesus’ wisdom teaching and the resurrection are signs of his relationship with God.

However, others have rejected events such as the miracles on the basis that these were invented by the early Church to prove his divinity.

Form criticism

This is a method of biblical criticism that classifies scriptural units by literary pattern and attempts to trace each type to its period of oral transmission. It attempts to establish the original form of each unit from its historical context.

Rudolf Karl Bultmann (1884–1976) was a German Lutheran theologian who is probably most remembered for his controversial ideas. In 1941 he gave a lecture called New Testament and Mythology: The Problem of Demythologizing the New Testament Message, calling on interpreters to replace traditional supernaturalism (demythologise) with the temporal and existential categories. He rejected teachings such as the pre-existence of Christ. He believed that the ‘mythical picture’ presented by the early Church alienated many people from Christianity in the twentieth century. He believed that faith should not be made to rest on provable facts; rather it is the decision to choose a new life in Christ.

For many scholars this was welcome because it largely removed arguments about the divinity of Christ and therefore did not put Christianity in opposition to other faiths.

John Hick (1922–2012) saw wisdom teachers, such as Moses, Jesus, Buddha and Muhammad (pbuh), as ‘gifts to the world’. This means that the authority of Jesus’ moral teaching lies in an actual engagement with and affirmation of life. It is no longer reliant on abstract concepts.

Jesus’ moral teaching

Many scholars have suggested that Jesus was, in fact, a travelling rabbi. There is very little in his teachings in the Gospels which is different from that of the Judaism of the first century. This is therefore different from the teachings found in many of the epistles.

The bulk of Jesus’ moral teaching is found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), opening with the Beatitudes. (Much of this teaching is also found in the Sermon on the Plain; Luke 6:17–49.)

While it is almost certain that Luke was written before Matthew, many of these teachings are now attributed by some scholars to Q (see p. 297).

One of the difficulties with deciding about Jesus’s moral teaching is a passage which comes three verses after the Beatitudes:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

(Matthew 5:17–20)

It is difficult to decide what the text actually means. At face value it would appear that Jesus was saying that the Law (Torah) was not being followed and he had come to make sure that this was corrected. He seems to be saying that this had to be observed until the coming of the kingdom.

Certainly, in the Acts of the Apostles it appears that after Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1–4) many of the laws began to be seen as outdated.

Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the apostles. All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.

(Acts 2:43–47)

Peter’s vision

About noon the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. Then he heard a voice saying, ‘Get up, Peter; kill and eat.’ But Peter said, ‘By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.’ The voice said to him again, a second time, ‘What God has made clean, you must not call profane.’ This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven.

(Acts 10:9–16)

The council of Jerusalem

Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders … The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.’

(Acts 15:1–3, 6–11)

Council of Jerusalem

The First Council of Jerusalem found in Acts 15 is generally said to have taken place in ce 50. However, as it is never mentioned in the letters of St Paul, many scholars have doubted its authenticity.

Apart from the Sermon of the Mount, which may be a compilation of teachings, Jesus seemed to prefer the use of parables.

Repentance and forgiveness

The announcement of the Kingdom of God was also a call from Jesus to repentance.

There are many examples of repentance in the New Testament but perhaps the most famous and significant is in the parable of the lost (prodigal) son.

Metanoia

(Greek μετάνοια) is ‘a transforming change of heart’ and suggests ‘repentance’.

Then Jesus said, ‘There was a man who had two sons. The younger of them said to his father, “Father, give me the share of the property that will belong to me.” So he divided his property between them. A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and travelled to a distant country, and there he squandered his property in dissolute living. When he had spent everything, a severe famine took place throughout that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. He would gladly have filled himself with the pods that the pigs were eating; and no one gave him anything. But when he came to himself he said, “How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.’ ” … Now his elder son was in the field; and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. He called one of the slaves and asked what was going on. He replied, “Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has got him back safe and sound.” Then he became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and began to plead with him. But he answered his father, “Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!” Then the father said to him, “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.” ’

(Luke 15:11–19, 25–32)

The key issues in the parable are both repentance for sin and its forgiveness.

The requirement for both is found in the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9–13, Luke 11:2–4). The need to show forgiveness is taught by Jesus to Peter:

Then Peter came and said to him, ‘Lord, if another member of the church sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?’ Jesus said to him, ‘Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times.’

(Matthew 18:21–22)

Note: the Greek for 77 times can also be translated as ‘70 times 7’.

Jesus’ teaching on inner purity and moral motivation

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gives clear teaching on six topics.

Anger

Jesus expands on the commandment ‘You shall not murder’ and explains that God cannot be worshipped unless a person is at peace with their family and neighbours.

You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire. So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift.

(Matthew 5:21–24)

Adultery

Again Jesus extends the teaching of the commandment ‘You shall not commit adultery’: ‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart’ (Matthew 5:27–28).

Divorce

It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The Greek term porneia (πορνεία), meaning adultery in this translation, is often translated as ‘prostitution’. It is unclear therefore which Jesus meant.

Oaths

Here Jesus is expanding on the commandment ‘You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name’:

Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.’ But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’; anything more than this comes from the evil one.

(Matthew 5:33–37)

Retaliation

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

(Matthew 5:38–42)

The passage being referred to here is ‘Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered’ (Leviticus 24:19–20). It is often referred to as lex talionis and means a retaliation authorised by law, in which the punishment corresponds in kind and degree to the injury. However, it is very important to remember that this was an instruction to limit revenge, not to insist on it. Also, some New Testament scholars have suggested that, in fact, to turn the other cheek was an insult.

Love for enemies

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

(Matthew 5:43–48)

The phrase ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy’ is often thought to have its origins in the Old Testament, but, in fact, it does not appear anywhere and is the total opposite to what the scriptures teach (see Leviticus 19 et al.).

It can be seen that Jesus strengthens the Jewish law rather than trying to change it. However, he sometimes interpreted it differently from the scribes and the Pharisees.

The prime example of this is the fourth commandment:

Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work – you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.

(Exodus 20:8–11)

Jesus of course taught that people should follow the commandment and worship on the Sabbath but also said that the 39 categories of work which were banned were preventing people from carrying out their duties to others who needed help.

Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. And just then there appeared a woman with a spirit that had crippled her for eighteen years. She was bent over and was quite unable to stand up straight. When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said, ‘Woman, you are set free from your ailment.’ When he laid his hands on her, immediately she stood up straight and began praising God. But the leader of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had cured on the sabbath, kept saying to the crowd, ‘There are six days on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be cured, and not on the sabbath day.’ But the Lord answered him and said, ‘You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger, and lead it away to give it water? And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen long years, be set free from this bondage on the sabbath day?’ When he said this, all his opponents were put to shame; and the entire crowd was rejoicing at all the wonderful things that he was doing.

(Luke 13:10–17)

One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, ‘Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?’ And he said to them, ‘Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.’ Then he said to them, ‘The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.’

(Mark 2:23–28)

As a reminder:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

(Matthew 5:17–18)

Jesus’ role as liberator of the marginalised and the poor, as expressed in his challenge to political and religious authority

From the New Testament it appears that much of Jesus’ ministry was spent in conflict with both the Roman and Jewish authorities.

For centuries Jesus has largely been portrayed as a pacifist, and some have taken this to mean that the Church should play no part in politics or conflict. However, there are many scholars who maintain that his teaching on the Kingdom of God requires a change to society and the oppression of the poor and marginalised.

Jesus a Zealot

The Zealots were a first-century group who used violence and rebellions in order to free Palestine from the Roman occupation. The argument that Jesus himself was a Zealot was put forward in a controversial book Jesus and the Zealots (1967), by S.G.F. Brandon (1907–1971), a British priest and professor of comparative religion. This book argues that Jesus was a freedom fighter and that the Gospels deliberately changed this image.

Liberation

The period from the 1970s to the 1990s was a time of civil wars in South America and the continuing oppression of the poor.

This saw the development of liberation theology, particularly by Roman Catholic priests. The idea of Jesus as a Zealot was understandably attractive.

This theology argued that the almost totally neutral Jesus portrayed and built upon by the Church was wrong. They saw Jesus’s actions and teachings as having a bias towards the poor and marginalised. These were the people who were now viewed as the ‘underside of history’ – the majority of people in the world who are ignored or forgotten about. This could be changed, they argued, only by portraying Jesus as a liberator. This should then ensure that Christianity is at the forefront of the struggle to free people from poverty and oppression as Jesus demonstrated in his own life.

Gustavo Gutiérrez Merino, O.P. (1928–)

A Peruvian philosopher, theologian and Dominican priest, Merino is regarded as one of the founders of liberation theology.

The liberation which Jesus offers is universal and integral and transcends national boundaries, attacks the foundation of injustice and exploitation, and eliminates politico-religious confusions, without therefore being limited to a purely ‘spiritual’ plane.

It is not enough, however, to say that Jesus was not a Zealot. There are those who seek, in good faith but uncritically, to cleanse Jesus from anything which can give even an inkling of a political attitude on his part. But Jesus’s posture precludes all oversimplification. To close one’s eyes to this complexity amounts to letting the richness of his testimony on this score escape (Gustavo Gutiérrez: A Theology of Liberation, 2001).

Preferential option for the poor

Liberation theology sees a bias in Jesus’ life and teachings towards the oppressed and describes this as a preferential option for the poor. The option should be seen as central to the lives of all Christians at all times.

A Christology that proclaims Jesus Christ as the Liberator seeks to be committed to the economic, social and political liberation of those groups that are oppressed and dominated. It purports to see the theological relevance of the historic liberation of the vast majority of people in our continent. Such a Christology believes that its thinking and practice should be centred on such liberation. It seeks to create a style and to develop the content of Christology in such a way that it can bring out the liberative dimensions present in Jesus’ historical course (Boff, Jesus Christ Liberator: A Critical Christology for Our Time, 1972).

Leonardo Boff (1938–)

Keystone Pictures USA/Alamy

He was born Genézio Darci Boff in 1938 in Concórdia, Santa Catarina. He entered the Franciscan Order in 1959 and was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1964. He studied at the University of Munich and his 1970 doctoral thesis Die Kirche als Sakrament im Horizont der Welterfahrung considered how the Church could be a sign of the sacred and the divine in the secular world and in the work of the liberation of the oppressed.

Boff is one of the best-known supporters of the early liberation theologians. He is a controversial figure in the Catholic Church for his criticism of the church’s hierarchy and his past critical support of communist regimes. Boff left the Church and the Franciscan Order in 1992 as he considered them to be fossilised.

Some priests saw Jesus as a type of Zealot. Camilo Torres Restrepo, for example, was a Roman Catholic priest who joined the communist people’s army as a soldier in the guerrilla war against the government troops. As he said, ‘If Jesus were alive today, He would be a guerrillero.’

Camilo Torres Restrepo (1929–1966) was a Colombian socialist, a Roman Catholic priest, a predecessor of the liberation theology movement and a member of the National Liberation Army (ELN) guerrilla organisation. He tried to reconcile revolutionary Marxism and Catholicism.

He was on the academic staff of the National University of Colombia; however, his involvement in student and political movements brought him many detractors, especially from the Colombian government and the church itself. Due to the growing pressure to end his involvement with radical politics, Torres saw himself as persecuted and went into hiding, joining the guerrillas in Colombia. He was killed in his first combat experience, and after his death, he was made an official martyr of the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN; National Liberation Army).

In 1970 in the Dominican Republic a revolutionary group that included Catholic clergy and university students was founded under the name CORECATO, which stands for Comando Revolucionario Camilo Torres or Revolutionary Command Camilo Torres.

There are many events in Jesus’ life and parables which show his concern for the poor, oppressed and marginalised.

Luke’s Gospel in particular shows his association with people whom the Pharisees and scribes considered to be sinners. These include tax collectors, dung collectors and prostitutes. He chose his disciples from those whom the Pharisees largely considered to be ignorant, such as fishermen. Also, he ate with people whom the Pharisees would have refused to sit at a table with because they did not observe all the food laws and rituals.

Parable of the good Samaritan

This parable demonstrates that Jesus taught love for all people regardless of their race, religion or social status.

Samaritans

The Samaritans still exist in Israel. They are a group of Jews from Samaria (now largely the West Bank). The first-century Judean Jews regarded them as being ritually impure and the fact that they had built their own temple as heresy.

Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ He said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’ He answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.’ And he said to him, ‘You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.’

But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbour?’ Jesus replied, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?’ He said, ‘The one who showed him mercy.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’

(Luke 10:25–37)

Denarii

The denarius was the usual day’s wage for a labourer.

The healing of a woman with bleeding

Jewish law had very strict rules about contact between a menstruating woman and other people.

When a woman has a discharge of blood that is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. Everything upon which she lies during her impurity shall be unclean; everything also upon which she sits shall be unclean. Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. Whoever touches anything upon which she sits shall wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening; whether it is the bed or anything upon which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening. If any man lies with her, and her impurity falls on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.

If a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in uncleanness; as in the days of her impurity, she shall be unclean. Every bed on which she lies during all the days of her discharge shall be treated as the bed of her impurity; and everything on which she sits shall be unclean, as in the uncleanness of her impurity. Whoever touches these things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.

(Leviticus 15:19–28)

In this account, the woman had been bleeding for 12 years and therefore was an outcast for all that time.

And a large crowd followed him and pressed in on him. Now there was a woman who had been suffering from haemorrhages for twelve years. She had endured much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had; and she was no better, but rather grew worse. She had heard about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, for she said, ‘If I but touch his clothes, I will be made well.’ Immediately her haemorrhage stopped; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. Immediately aware that power had gone forth from him, Jesus turned about in the crowd and said, ‘Who touched my clothes?’ And his disciples said to him, ‘You see the crowd pressing in on you; how can you say, “Who touched me?” ’ He looked all around to see who had done it. But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling, fell down before him, and told him the whole truth. He said to her, ‘Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.’

(Mark 5:24b–34)

So here Jesus raises the status of women as well as healing here even though this was against Jewish law.

Of course, not all scholars or Christians accept the idea of Jesus as a liberator. Many consider that his authority was simply spiritual. They may cite texts in support of this, such as the following:

Then Pilate entered the headquarters again, summoned Jesus, and asked him, ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’ Jesus answered, ‘Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?’ Pilate replied, ‘I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done?’ Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.’ Pilate asked him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.’ Pilate asked him, ‘What is truth?’

(John 18:33–38)

Others would refer to Matthew 19:30: ‘But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first’ – showing Jesus as liberator of the poor and oppressed.

Summary

The historical Jesus

Jesus’ authority as the Son of God

Jesus’ divinity as expressed in his:

Review questions

Look back over the chapter and check that you can answer the following questions:

  1. 1  What were the purposes of the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople?
  2. 2  How did the life of the disciples begin to change after Pentecost?
  3. 3  What did Bultmann mean by demythologising the New Testament?
  4. 4  What different types of Christology can you name and explain?

Terminology

Do you know your terminology?

Try to explain the following ideas without looking at your books and notes:

Examination questions practice

Exam mistakes to avoid: it is very important that you do not confuse autonomous, heteronomous and theonomous. May sure you can give clear examples of each.

To help you improve your answers look at the levels of response.

Sample exam-style question

  1. ‘There is no justification for claiming that Jesus was a Zealot.’ Discuss.
  1. AO1 (15 marks)
    1. •  You might refer to the book Jesus and the Zealots by S.G.F. Brandon. This book argues that Jesus was a freedom fighter and that the Gospels deliberately changed this image.
    2. •  You might also refer to the work and writings of liberation theologians and activists, such as Gustavo Gutiérrez Merino, Camilo Torres Restrepo, Leonardo Boff and Óscar Romero.
    3. •  You could use the preferential option for the poor as an example of putting Jesus’ teachings into practice.
  2. AO2 (15 marks)
    1.   In evaluation the point could be made that there are many different ways of interpreting and understanding the New Testament. There are arguments to support the traditional view of the Church that Jesus was a pacifist and would have nothing to do with politics. Similarly, it is possible to argue in favour of liberation theology. You should also consider what Jesus meant by his teaching about the Kingdom of God.

Further possible questions

Further reading

Chapman, G. (1994) Catechism of the Catholic Church, paras. 422–478.

Maccoby, H. 1987. The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. New York: HarperCollins.

Maccoby, H. 2000. Jesus the Pharisee. London: SCM Press.

McGrath, A. 2011. Theology: The Basics. Oxford: Blackwell.

McGrath, A. (2011) Theology: The Basics, Blackwell, Chapter 4

Theissen, G. 2010. The Shadow of the Galilean. London: SCM Press.

Theissen, G. (2010) The Shadow of the Galilean, SCM Press