A Facebook friend recently posted this portrait of Jesus, who in spite of a darkened complexion (the lighting perhaps), exhibits Caucasian features, styled hair and a trimmed beard. His bluish eyes do have a certain intensity and the overall effect seems quite dramatic. But you don’t have to be a historian to realize that this is not how Jesus appeared in the 1st century. I’m guessing, however, that historical accuracy is not what the artist was going for. And we can sympathize. It must be extremely difficult to create a Jesus that appeals to everyone.
In good humor, my friend added the caption, “Kenny Loggins, perhaps?” I saw the real Kenny Loggins at the Hollywood Bowl a few years ago. And although he’s in his 60’s—it’s been nearly 30 years since his popular album photos were published—I suppose there are worse models for the face of Jesus.
It seems that Jesus is constantly being invented and reinvented, and not just with regard to his looks. Ideas about who Jesus is and what he stands for continue to adapt and evolve. That’s not always a bad thing. But you have to wonder sometimes if all of our versions of Jesus are just projections of our own biases. Liberals believe in a Jesus who is all about social justice, conservatives invent a Jesus who approves of free market capitalism, and football fans everywhere invoke the blessing of Jesus for their favorite team. The convenient thing about inventing Jesus is that whether in sports, politics, or religion, Jesus is always on our side. He will help us win!
The continual reinvention of Jesus, however, raises a serious historical question. Is it possible that the followers of Jesus invented the idea of Jesus as “Messiah?” Could it be that the gospels and letters are simply wishful thinking; that the writers made up and manipulated their stories so that a beloved teacher could be regarded by themselves and later generations as Messiah or anointed one? In other words, is the Jesus we know simply a product of human imagination and expectation? It is not a trivial question. It goes to the heart of who Jesus really is and what he stands for; not to mention, the reliability of the New Testament itself.
The crux of the issue involves a comparison between what was expected of a messiah, and the way first century writers described Jesus. If the idea of Jesus as messiah was indeed invented by his followers, we should see evidence that the gospel writers made Jesus attractive to all the right people, and successful in doing what messiahs were supposed to do. As good publicity writers, they would be motivated to construct a plot in which their hero saves the day, and the bad guys get their just deserts. It was a familiar plot, as it is today, having been engrained in Jewish thought from the time of the great anointed one, King David himself. Favorite songs thus gave the anointed one a royal warrior identity. “He [Yahweh] gives his king great victories; he shows unfailing love to his anointed, to David and to his descendants forever” (Psalm 18:50).
The expected anointed one, the Messiah of Israel, was described in a variety of ways; as a shepherd, king, prophet, and warrior. But common to all of these was that Messiah would give enduring success to the house of David. The New Testament appears to affirm and at the same time break with this story line; and even makes it obvious that David’s most obvious descendants, the Jewish leaders, did not accept Jesus as their anointed one or messiah.
But was that rejection written into the story because Christian authors needed a foil, a convenient group of bad guys, who would make Jesus look good? Or were there such obvious discrepancies between Jesus and his messianic job description that they would make any sincere and patriotic Jew question his legitimacy?
Historically, Christian authors have often displayed a naive understanding of Jesus’ opponents. They have often used the Jews generally, and the leadership specifically as a convenient foil in their dramatic accounts of Jesus. This casting of Jews as the bad guys—even “Christ killers”—has fueled much of the anti-Semitism evident from the second century on. And that in turn has given some legitimacy to the critical claim that the stories of Jesus were crafted to serve the needs of persecuted Christians. Paul’s letters, the rabbinic writings, and especially Josephus, however, corroborate the Gospel writers’ view that the leadership in Jesus’ day was corrupt and capable of inciting violence to protect their interests. The animosity of Jewish priests, nobles, and teachers toward Jesus was real.
Significantly, however, all the sources, including Paul and the Gospels, point to an underlying assumption about the coming messiah that was common to all of the Jewish factions and even the peasant population. It was a general consensus, rooted in scripture, that Yahweh’s anointed one would save his people, which unlike what “getting saved” means in today’s revivals, meant reversing the effects of Israel’s captivity. It meant that once again the house of David would be successful economically, militarily, and spiritually. Those in leadership, then, were anything but convenient as dramatic foils. They represented the house of David. They had basically the same messianic expectations as everyone else. They just had more of a personal stake in the outcome since they saw Jesus as their rival. And that seems completely understandable given their supposed birthright to palace and Temple.
Understanding the nature of first century messianic expectations can accomplish two things. First, it can make us sympathetic rather than prejudiced and hostile. The Jews of Jesus day were not caricatures. They were a lot like us. Some were good, some were bad, and most were in between, wanting to believe but having a hard time accepting a radically new kind of messiah. And second, it can demonstrate that the real Jesus as Messiah could not have been invented either by his friends or by his enemies.
So, the New Testament describes a fundamental disconnect between Jesus’ characteristics and the characteristics of the expected messiah. And rather than downplay this disconnect, the writers put it front and center. Certainly, they also highlight points of congruence between Jesus and messianic expectations. But they seem to go out of their way to highlight the more controversial and troublesome aspects of Jesus and even feature them. Why would they do that? To answer that we need to look more closely at those characteristics of Jesus that appear out of step with the society in which he lived.
See: “Not the Messiah We Wanted,” February 2015.
