The Essence of Jesus

By Arthur Rowe

Jesus of Nazareth, the Nazarene, Jesus Christ, the Christ, the Good Shepherd, the Redeemer or the Deliverer? To this day, the identity of Jesus remains an unfathomable mystery for non-believers and a glorious open book of hope for the devout. Who really was this figure and why are his life and sermons so pivotal to the core of Christianity, the religion founded in his name and in honour of his sacrifice to humankind?

The Essence of Jesus tackles such fascinating subject matter in ground-breaking form, turning to sources as diverse as the Bible, iconic art, Church reformers, religious ritual, as well as other religions, leaders and holy texts, in order to offer a well-rounded discussion about the power of Jesus' word and his legacy.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Arcturus Publishing
• Release date: Jan 1, 2006
• ISBN: 9781848584051

Arthur Rowe

Arthur Rowe graduated from Cambridge in History and Theology and followed this with postgraduate studies in Nottingham and King's College London. He has taught in schools and colleges and worked for the Inner London Education Authority and Thames Polytechnic before coming to teach at Spurgeon's College. Here his responsibilities have included teaching New Testament and World Religions. He has contributed to reference books on the Bible and Religious Education and written articles and reviews for a number of periodicals in this country and abroad.

Book preview

Preface

My heartfelt thanks go to those who read drafts of chapters or the whole book and offered me invaluable advice, encouragement and correction. They include my patient wife, Pam, always my first critic, who has saved my blushes with others. The others included: Roy Boyer, David Golder, Pieter Lalleman, Judy Powles, Ian Randall, Debra Reid, Paul Scott-Evans, Alison and David Southall, and Stephen Wright, colleagues at Spurgeon's College, London, and friends. My thanks also to Dr Penelope Hall for permitting me to include matters from our talk during her visit to Spurgeon's College.

Three technical matters. First, in dating people's lives and events I have followed the fashionable convention of replacing BC and AD with BCE, standing for Before the Common Era, and CE for the Common Era. But as F. F. Bruce pointed out some years ago, 'the fact remains that the reckoning of the years runs forward and backward from the date of Jesus' birth, as calculated (not as accurately as might have been wished) by Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century' (The Real Jesus, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1985, p. 209). Secondly, I am very indebted to the books and resources listed in the bibliography. References to writers or quotations in the main text are to these sources. Thirdly, references to the Bible in the form 1 Corinthians 15:3 mean Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians Chapter 15, verse 3.

Preface to the Second Edition

The printed version of the first edition of this book did not consistently represent my original text. I am grateful to the publishers for the opportunity to correct this in a second edition.

Introduction

What is meant by 'the essence of Jesus'? What is meant by 'the essence' of anything? Cassell's New English Dictionary includes in its definition of the word 'that which constitutes the nature of something, that which makes it what it is'. In the case of most world faiths, the essence of the faith lies in its teachings. So, for example, when the Buddha was dying (or 'passing into Nirvana' as Buddhists put it), he pointed his disciples to his teachings, not to himself. This makes the attempt to understand that faith in some ways more straightforward than the attempt to understand the essence of Jesus. You can only understand a person by getting to know that person. Certainly the essence of Jesus involves more than his teaching. It is bound up with who he is in himself. And notice that this statement is written in the present tense – who he is – because it is essential to the Christian faith that Jesus is not just a figure of the past, but continues to be present where his disciples meet (Gospel of Matthew, 18:20), and in the lives of individuals who invite him in (Revelation, 3:20).

But how can we get at the essence of Jesus? The approach in this book is to try to see Jesus as people have seen him from the 1st to the 21st centuries. He has made powerful impressions on the lives of men and women down the centuries, impressions reflected in their words, art, music, drama, worship and scholarship. My intention is to provoke a sympathetic, but not uncritical, appreciation of many different expressions of faith in Jesus. We will walk in the footsteps of believers of different kinds, including followers of other faiths and our contemporaries. One of the underlying assumptions in this book is that sceptics, too, are believers. The content of their beliefs may be different from those of people committed to one of the major faiths, but no human being can think about anyone or anything without some kind of framework of faith. At the same time, it is open to everyone to test all these ideas about Jesus and their various expressions by comparing them with the New Testament portraits which are available to people in every continent today.

Why should the New Testament be given this defining role? Its writings, all from the 1st century CE, are our earliest sources. These include the four Gospels which are remarkable documents. Although they were written after that most extraordinary of historical events, the resurrection of Jesus, they reliably reflect memories of Jesus' closest friends. For example, they show how little these friends understood Jesus and what he was saying during his ministry. After the resurrection and the gift of God's Spirit, they came to understand more, as the book of Acts illustrates.

But they did not then revise their earlier misunderstandings when they told the story of their first three years with Jesus, they let them stand. Neither did they read back issues which arose in the early churches into the ministry of Jesus, or invent possible solutions he might have given to later problems. For example, the question, should Gentile Christians be circumcised, led to the Council of Jerusalem and was an issue which Paul addressed in his correspondence with the churches of Galatia. Had Jesus spoken about this, they could have appealed to his words. But no such words existed and the Gospels do not anticipate this problem. The letters which follow the book of Acts in the New Testament explain the Christian faith and how it was to be lived out in practice. The New Testament constitutes the defining elements of a Christian understanding of the essence of Jesus.

Following the first chapter of this book, which examines the evidence for Jesus and the reliability of the New Testament documents, the next two chapters summarize those defining elements. They show us the earliest accounts of who he was, what he did and what he taught. From Chapter 4 onwards, we sample great slices of history: from the beginning of the 2nd to the end of the 5th century, from the 6th century to the invention of printing in the 15th century, the Reformation and its aftermath (16th–17th century), the Enlightenment to the end of the millennium (18th–20th century). One chapter is given to views of writers from other faiths and then the last chapter deals largely with the new century.

Inevitably the boundaries of these historical periods are rough and porous; the periods sometimes overlap. Within particular chapters a lack of discipline to strict chronology may offend some historians. But my objective is to open up pictures of different kinds and to introduce readers to encounters with people and their experiences of Jesus which might create possibilities of coming to see him more clearly.

Chapter 1

Jesus, the evidence

He is the most famous man in history and he has more followers in the world today than at any time since he lived in Palestine over 2,000 years ago. He has the reputation for being a good man, a teacher and healer who went about doing good. Yet he was arrested, tried and executed as a terrorist by the Roman authorities. Execution by crucifixion was one of the most brutal ways of killing ever invented, and it was used to put to death enemies of the Roman state. It was an advertisement, which carried a government health warning to deter potential rebels. So why did Jesus, the good man, die on a cross? And how did it come about that this apparently ignominious failure was not the end of the story as far as Jesus of Nazareth was concerned?

HOW DO WE KNOW ABOUT JESUS?

Do we really know anything about Jesus? How do we know anything about any historical figure? We study such evidence as survives from as close to his time as possible. We relate this to other knowledge we have of the place and time in which he is said to have lived, and gradually we construct a picture of what he was possibly or probably like. So what evidence do we have for Jesus? Our principal sources are the four Gospels and other writings that make up the New Testament. We will consider the nature of these in a moment but first it is interesting to consider some of the references to Jesus outside of the New Testament. There are references in both Jewish and Roman writings which are evidence for the life of Jesus and some surprising aspects of his life.

Jewish references

The Jewish historian Josephus [37–100 CE] makes two references to Jesus in his history of the Jewish people which was published in 93–94 CE. In the longer one, he wrote something like:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who loved him previously did not cease to do so. And, up until this very day, the tribe of Christians (named after him) has not died out.

(Jewish Antiquities 18.63–64)

I say 'something like' because many scholars think that the text was edited by Christians, but this version of what Josephus probably wrote, which has filtered out possible Christian phrases, is widely accepted (Dunn, p. 141). The second mention of Jesus refers back to this passage and is an account of the execution of James, who is described as 'the brother of Jesus who is called the Messiah' (Jewish Antiquities, 20.200). So Josephus tells us that Jesus lived and was a respected teacher and someone who did surprising things (miracles?). He was accused by the Jewish leaders and Pilate ordered his execution. His death did not lead to the end of his followers for they continued to be active at the time Josephus was writing.

In other Jewish writings of the rabbis, which are difficult to date, there is a reference to Yeshua (Jesus), which describes him as a magician who led Israel astray and says he was hanged on the eve of Passover (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 43a). Here again is a possible allusion to his miracles, his teaching which was not approved by the Jewish authorities and his execution at Passover time.

Roman references

The Roman historian Tacitus [55–120 CE], writing early in the 2nd century about the fire in Rome in the time of Nero [64 CE], says that blame was put on certain 'Christians. Their name comes from Christ who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate' (Annals 15.44). Since 'Christ' was another name for Jesus this is a clear reference to his crucifixion. Another Roman historian, Suetonius [70–130 CE], writing about an incident in the time of emperor Claudius [c. 49 CE], says: 'Since the Jews were constantly causing disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome' (Claudius 25.4). This coincides with a note in Acts 18:2 that Aquila and his wife, Priscilla, who were Jews, had recently come to Corinth from Rome 'because Claudius had commanded all Jews to leave Rome'. But the reference to 'Chrestus' is thought to be a mistake for 'Christus', that is for Christ, and the disturbances may have been caused by someone preaching that Jesus was the Messiah.

These references from writers outside the New Testament do not add anything to what we can learn from the New Testament itself and might be said to add up to rather thin testimony. But they indicate that Jesus was known as someone who did remarkable deeds, gained followers and was crucified during Pilate's jurisdiction. They also indicate that, following Jesus' death, Christians had not ceased to exist. There were disturbances among the Jews over this man and some people were saying that he was the Messiah.

The first reference to Christians in official correspondence appears in a letter of Pliny the Younger [61–113 CE], the governor of Bithynia, to the emperor Trajan in 112 CE. The governor asks for advice about how to deal with Christians. He says that they claimed 'their fault or error had been this, that it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite in turns a form of words to Christ as a god; and they bound themselves with an oath, not for any crime, but not to commit theft or robbery or adultery, not to break their word' and so on. Pliny adds that the spread of 'this superstition' was threatening the livelihood of farmers who supplied animals for sacrifice in temples. It is clear that these Christians worshipped Christ and they were regarded as subversive, a threat to the state and the economy. The governor thought they should be executed if they did not renounce their faith. When evidence like this is combined with references to churches in Palestine, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, some of the Mediterranean islands, Egypt and North Africa by the beginning of the 2nd century, we have a clear picture of the vigorous growth of the Christian Church despite persecution and the original execution of Jesus.

The New Testament

For more information about Jesus' life, we turn to the New Testament. The earliest documents are the letters of Paul and he quotes beliefs about Jesus which he himself had been taught, probably as early as two years after the crucifixion. So, for example, his first letter to the Corinthians tells us not only that Christ died but begins to explain why he died. But for accounts of the life and work of Jesus, we turn to the four Gospels, all of which were written within the 1st century.

Who were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Matthew and John are the names of two of Jesus' closest disciples, men who had left their homes and livelihoods to follow this new teacher. Matthew was called from the tax office and John and his brother, James, had been fishermen. They were among the Twelve whom Jesus called 'apostles', people he trained to go out and extend his work and his message. Mark was apparently a young man who made a fleeting and unnamed appearance in his Gospel. His mother's home was a meeting place for the early church in Jerusalem, where Peter turned for refuge when he escaped from prison. Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas for part of their first missionary journey. Luke was also one of Paul's friends and accompanied him on several of his important journeys. In his letter to the Colossians, Paul refers to him as 'my dear friend, the doctor'.

HOW SHOULD WE TREAT THESE SOURCES?

There was a view of the historian's work which lasted from the 18th into the 20th century that the task of an historian was to sit down before the evidence, examine it and write an objective and impartial account of what had happened, based on the facts before him. Since then, it has been realized that no human being can write a purely objective account uncontaminated by that person's values and beliefs. While there are some objective facts which are true for most people, the bigger questions, such as those raised about Jesus, require acts of judgment, and judgment is coloured by one's view of the world, one's beliefs and values.

Consider two examples. It might be argued that one of the objective facts of history is that Jesus Christ was crucified. As we have seen, this is attested in both Jewish and Roman sources, as well as the New Testament. But the majority of Muslims refuse to accept this on the basis of a reference in the Qur'an (Surah 4.157) which denies Jesus was crucified. Since, for Muslims the Qur'an is divine revelation, no amount of historical evidence or research can contradict or qualify it for them. In addition, they cannot accept that God (Allah) would have allowed one of his prophets like Jesus to die an accursed death. That crucifixion would have meant death under a curse they deduce from Deuteronomy 21:23. They accept that this verse has the status of divine revelation because both Jews and Christians have received authentic revelation from Allah in the past. In the Qur'an, when a prophet is ignored, or insulted, or threatened, Allah punishes the village or town responsible and defends his servant. So, according to their worldview, it is illogical to suppose that Jesus was crucified. As a second example, consider the 19th century German theologian David Strauss [1808–74]. In his Life of Jesus, he denied that the supernatural elements in the Gospels were historical events because he held a view of the universe as a closed system of cause and effect from which miracles or divine interventions were totally excluded. He called these accounts 'myths', that is stories written to demonstrate the compassion of Jesus in action.

Both of these examples show that people's world views influence their assessment of historical evidence irrespective of the fact that it comes from different sources, Christian or non-Christian. This is true of historians writing today, which is why we get different accounts of the lives of historically significant people. It is also true of the writers of those documents which survive from the past. Therefore there is no neutral, impartial place for anyone, past or present, to stand, nor is there enough objective evidence for anyone to write a completely impartial history. Any attempt to do so would leave out the most interesting parts. Consequently we have to recognize that Jesus, like any other historical figure, is inevitably interpreted and understood by different people in different ways; everyone approaches him, and the evidence about him, from their own particular world view. Even concrete evidence has to be interpreted within a framework.

This does not mean that no one agrees about anything, or that some might not present a more believable portrait of Jesus than others. But even the judgment that one portrait is more believable is influenced by the values and beliefs which a reader brings to a reading. It is natural for communities with similar beliefs to share a similar understanding. It does not follow from this that the study of history is a waste of time. Some facts can be established on the basis of evidence and good reason. The claim that what writers produce is coloured by their view of the world does not tell us anything about the value of the information they provide. It simply prepares us for the fact that we must take their personal views into account. We can correct and adjust our understanding of events by reading