Jesus of Nazareth
Page 42
Finally, there is a third modification, and an especially important one: it is ordained of the Human One in Daniel 7 that “all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him,” as it says at the end of the vision. But Jesus says of himself, “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). On this point Jesus has again surpassed the historical projection of Daniel 7. Jesus’ rule is based on his service, his surrender even to death. So Jesus altered the statements made in Daniel 7, but those very changes—palpable especially in the motif of service—show that in speaking of the “Son of Man” he is referring directly to Daniel 7. For what one changes is already presupposed, and evidently the very symbol of the “Son of Man” was a welcome expression for what he had to say about himself. Why?
The concept of “Son of Man/Human One” could not be politically misinterpreted like that of “messiah.” It was not meant to arouse passions.
Already in Daniel 7 this concept was associated with a majesty equal to that of the hoped-for messianic king if not even surpassing it: “His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away” (Dan 7:14).
With this concept Jesus could simultaneously express his lowliness, his humility, for the Human One in Daniel 7 is also the end of all societies based on self-exaltation and violence. And a rule that abandons violence can only rely on God; it is helplessly delivered over to the powers and rulers of history. Thus the symbol of the “Son of Man/Human One” allows the linking of statements of majesty and those of lowliness.
In Daniel 7 the Human One is Israel’s representative. He embodies the “people of the holy ones of the Most High” (Dan 7:27). This reference to Israel touches on something that is essential about Jesus. His purpose was to gather the eschatological Israel, something that had already begun with him and his group of disciples.
But what is crucial is that what Jesus says about himself thus remains coded. Talk of the Son of Man preserves his reticence. It remains enigmatic to a certain extent, and thus it provokes its hearers, who must ask themselves who this Son of Man really is. We have already noted Jesus’ restraint in speaking of himself in a number of places.
In this connection we should look especially at the double saying in Luke 12:8-9 about confessing Jesus. Those who now, in the present, confess Jesus publicly will also be publicly acknowledged by Jesus at the final judgment. But here it seems that Jesus and the Son of Man are separate:
“And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God.”
“but whoever denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God.” (Luke 12:8-9)
This double saying even today plays a central role in the endless and confusing debates over the “Son of Man.” Rudolf Bultmann and others have concluded from Luke 12:8-9 that Jesus saw the Son of Man as a heavenly figure distinct from himself.15 But that would be a deceptive conclusion. The shift from first to third person is by no means an indicator of a change in the figures but is part of the style of reticent, enigmatic speech. It was long the custom for an author, in beginning a book, not to say “I” but instead “the author.” The direct use of “I” was considered impolite. In fact there are things that are better said in “he/she” style than in “I” style. We can see this exact usage in Paul when he writes in 2 Corinthians 12:1-5:
It is necessary to boast; nothing is to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows. And I know that such a person—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows—was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat. On behalf of such a one I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weakness.
Paul here shifts twice between “I” and “he,” and then speaks in “I” form again. In that form he speaks of his “weakness.” In the “he” form he talks of things one prefers to keep back, things one cannot talk about in the same way as everyday, visible matters. He does not want to boast.
Thus there are situations in which tact and a sense of style demand that one speak in “he/she” style. Jesus betrays this very tact, discretion, and sense of style when he speaks of the Son of Man and thus of himself in the third person. It is superfluous to suppose he is speaking of two different figures.
With this note on Rudolf Bultmann I have taken a tiny step into the simply endless history of scholarly discussion about the “Son of Man/Human One.” But I do not want to continue the discussion in this form here. My position on the titles of majesty such as “prophet,” “messiah,” and “Son of Man/Human One” should have become clear by now, and nothing more is necessary for this book, because in the end the question of Jesus’ claim to majesty need not be made dependent on whether Jesus used those titles or not. Much more important is the claim that emanates indirectly from Jesus’ words and actions. I will now speak of this hidden and yet unmistakable and immense claim as a whole.
The Time Fulfilled
Eschatology speaks of the last things, of the hour toward which everything is moving, and thus also of the hour in which everything will be fulfilled and reveal its ultimate meaning. This utmost, ultimate hour includes judgment, because the confusions of history must be cleared up. All injustice must be uncovered, all evil revealed, and all guilt transformed. Jesus often spoke of judgment—not only the judgment to come, but also the judgment already in the making (see chap. 10). But more frequently and more fundamentally, he said that now all the time of Israel’s waiting and longing was being fulfilled and as overflowing salvation (chap. 14). Jesus’ appearance is shot through with the assurance that the promised time of salvation, of liberation, of fulfillment of the promises given by God is dawning. Let me quote once more the blessing of the eyewitnesses, which is so important: “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it” (Luke 10:23-24 // Matt 13:16-17). In both Luke (10:23) and Matthew (13:10) this word is explicitly addressed to the disciples. Those called blessed are the disciples because they hear most directly what Jesus says and see what is happening in him.
How did the disciples understand the words spoken to them? They could only have understood them in the sense that now, with Jesus, the time of messianic salvation has come. The word “messiah” does not appear, of course, any more than does an equivalent of “messianic time.” But both lie concealed behind this beatitude. The Psalms of Solomon describe the messianic time as follows:
Happy are those who shall live in those days, to see the good things of Israel that God shall accomplish in the congregation of the tribes. (
PsSol
17:44)
Happy are those who shall live in those days, to see the good things of the LORD, which he will perform for the coming generation. Under the rod of discipline of the LORD’s anointed in fear of his God, in wisdom of spirit and of righteousness and strength… (
PsSol
18:6-7)
The Psalms of Solomon speak directly of the expected royal messiah, and they describe the messianic time, but the texts quoted show that this messianic time still lies in the future. It is only against the horizon of such future expectation that the whole explosive force of Luke 10:23-24 is evident. It is not future participants in the messianic time who are called blessed, but Jesus’ disciples. That means the future is already here. The time is fulfilled. Jesus’ saying about “new wine” also speaks of this fulfilled time: “No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins” (Mark 2:22). Normally wine was kept in amphorae, that is, in large, two-handled clay jars. Only for purposes of transport would one use “wineskins” made of tanned hides of goats
or sheep. No rational person would transport young wine that was still fermenting in old wineskins. They were no longer elastic enough to sustain the shaking on a donkey or in a cart. In his images and similitudes Jesus loved to speak realistically; he even insisted on it. The same is true here.
The new wine points to the time of the reign of God that has now begun, its newness enrapturing, destroying everything that is worn out and broken. Compromises are impossible. The reign of God is full of power and bubbling like new wine. Jesus’ answer to the question of fasting works within the same field of associations: “The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they?” (Mark 2:19). As we saw already in chapter 14, Jesus regards the time that has dawned with his preaching of the reign of God as a wedding, God’s wedding with God’s people. The metaphor presumes that the wedding has already begun. The bridegroom has already brought the bride home. The wedding banquet is in full swing, and the days of the wedding will not end very quickly.
It would have been very natural for Jesus, when he was speaking within this metaphorical field, to have said: I myself am the bridegroom. This would have been a new and moving statement about the messiah. But Jesus holds back even here. He only says that the bridegroom is already here, and that itself is indirectly formulated. He certainly does not say, “It is I.” With similar reticence he avoids saying that he himself is the messenger from Isaiah 52:7, and yet his talk about the good news that is now being preached makes it clear indirectly that he himself is that messenger of joy (cf. chap. 11 above). This way of speaking, which holds back and yet can be understood by those who trust, is characteristic of Jesus. He is the center of everything that is now happening; he pours the new wine (John 2:1-11), and he has the bride (John 3:29). Through him comes the fulfillment of everything Israel has desired to hear and see for many generations. He himself is the bringer of the time of salvation. What a claim to sovereignty that is!
A Time of Decision
But what is now coming with Jesus is not merely a time of salvation; it is also a time of decision—for the very reason that the reign of God, if not accepted, will become division, separation, and judgment. Therefore Jesus is concerned not only with rejoicing in the reign of God but also with radical conversion. The similitude of the barren fig tree is about the time of decision into which Israel has now entered:
A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came looking for fruit on it and found none. So he said to the gardener, “See here! For three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree, and still I find none. Cut it down! Why should it be wasting the soil?”
He replied, “Sir, let it alone for one more year, until I dig around it and put manure on it. If it bears fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.” (Luke 13:6-9)
In those days in Palestine shoots and vines were not trained on trellises as they are today. They simply proliferated on the ground or wound their way up the trunks of other trees. That is why trees, especially fig trees, were often planted in vineyards, making them doubly useful. Of course, that only made sense if the fig trees bore fruit and did not produce too much shade. In Luke 13:6-9 the barren fig tree gets a year’s reprieve through the dialogue between the owner and the worker in the vineyard; after that it is threatened with the axe. A single year! It is clear that the point of the similitude lies here: Israel has only a short time left to repent; if it does not make use of the time it will have missed its own meaning and mission.
What is crucial in our context is that in this similitude of the barren fig tree the time is strictly limited. It becomes a provisional time, a time for ultimate decision, a deadline. We could also say that it is a grace-given deadline. Everything depends on whether the fig tree will produce fruit after all. The gospels contain a whole series of similar texts that call for radical conversion and so speak of the last chance to secure one’s own existence.16
While the parable of the barren fig tree is only about the truth that the decision for conversion must happen immediately because God is allowing just a short period of time, the following little composition goes a step further:
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth;
I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I have come to set a man against his father,
and a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.”
(Matt 10:34-36; cf. Luke 12:51-53)
“I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” This saying of Jesus has led a whole series of twentieth-century writers astray, making them see Jesus as a social revolutionary—examples include the Social Democratic politician Karl Kautsky (1854–1938), the Austrian cultural historian Robert Eisler (1882–1949), or the English historian of religion Samuel G. F. Brandon (1907–1971). They, and others, saw Jesus as a kind of Marxist preacher of revolution who relied on violent exercise of force.17 Why else would he have talked about a “sword”?
But this interpretation mistakes the metaphor in Jesus’ words. “Sword” here stands for division, separation. That sense of “sword” needs explanation, of course. The discourse composition does this by means of a quotation from the prophet Micah, who depicts the judgment that will befall faithless Israel. That judgment includes the fact that no one can trust another any longer. The land is torn apart by fear and mistrust:
Put no trust in a friend,
have no confidence in a loved one;
guard the doors of your mouth
from her who lies in your embrace;
for the son treats the father with contempt,
the daughter rises up against her mother,
the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
your enemies are members of your own household. (Mic 7:5-6)
This quotation from Micah within the composition of Matthew 10:34-36 says that this very condition has now arrived. Division and rejection are everywhere! But why? The reason is directly connected with Jesus himself. Jesus has come to unite the people of God under God’s rule, and he has indeed brought many people together in this new condition. He has bridged chasms. He has assembled toll collectors and Zealots, sinners and saints, poor and rich at one table. His colorfully mixed band of disciples is a sign of this gathering movement.
But Jesus’ work in Israel has another side: it has led to divisions. Jesus has come up against bitter opposition, and that opposition has cut across the land and even across families. His own family attempted to bring him back home by force and put him under house arrest. His relatives said, “He has gone out of his mind” (Mark 3:20-21). But unfortunately it is not only that his appearance has led to separation and division. The metaphor of the sword that Jesus flings into society18 contains still more. Jesus has not only factually evoked division; he has desired it. Consider: “I have come to.…”
So Jesus intended the division; he desired the cleaving sword blade in the sense that he wanted decision, unambiguity, clarity before God. For him the reign of God is not some vague mist; it has clear contours. “No one can serve two masters,” Jesus says (Matt 6:24). He demanded that his hearers make a clear decision for the reign of God, and that necessarily led to divisions, indeed, to such as reach deep into the milieu of the closest social relationships, the home, the community of the extended family. Behind the little composition in Matthew 10:34-36 is the experience that, in light of Jesus’ appearance and his call to discipleship, the most intimate human connections have been broken. Jesus himself had to undergo that experience and it continued after Easter; it has not ceased even today.
The proclamation of the reign of God thus not only introduced a final time of decision; to say that would not be enough. Matthew 10:34-36 says also that Jesus himself is the reason why the time is coming to its end. He himself is the cause of the crisis. He himself tears apart the closest social ties. He himself compels decision. “I h
ave come to set… against.…” Jesus would have had the opportunity to speak of this final decision in various other ways. He could have said, “You have to decide for or against repentance. You have to choose to believe in the good news, or not. You must decide for the reign of God and thus for God, or against God.” And he did say all that. But Jesus dares to go beyond this and say: you have to choose for me—or against me. “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Matt 12:30 // Luke 11:23).
We have already had (in chap. 4) an overview of all that echoes in the concept of “gathering.” Every one of Jesus’ hearers who was even slightly familiar with Sacred Scripture necessarily associated this concept with the prophetic hopes for the “gathering of Israel,” something that had become a central concept for salvation from the time of the exile. Gathering Israel from its Diaspora then was often paralleled with “uniting,” “liberating,” “saving,” and “redeeming.” Thus it was clear that it is God’s own self who gathers Israel. That God is the one who gathers Israel even became a predicate, an attribute of God.
When Jesus now says that he is gathering Israel, he is claiming to do precisely what God himself will do at the end of time: gather, sanctify, and unite Israel. Then the word can only be interpreted to mean that Jesus speaks and acts as if he is standing in God’s stead. In any event the saying “whoever is not with me is against me” betrays a claim that had to cause irritation, the claim to unconditional and direct authority. No prophet could ever have spoken that way. A prophet would have to say:
Thus says the Lord GOD:
I will gather you from the peoples,
and assemble you out of the countries
where you have been scattered. (Ezek 11:17; cf. 28:25; 34:13)