In recent decades there has been the rediscovery of a truth so self-obvious that it is strange that it was ignored.

Jesus was a Jew in lineage, culture, and faith

If you say, “Well of course he was,” that is good. But the implications are a bit more profound than what it first appears. Embracing the tendency to put Christianity in stark relief with all other belief systems, there has been a tendency to see Jesus Christ as clearly, and only, on the side of Christianity, and in opposition to all else.

James Dunn speaks of this,

“As Susannah Heschel observes, liberal theologians painted ‘as negative a picture as possible of first-century Judaism’ in order ‘to elevate Jesus as a unique religious figure who stood in sharp opposition to his Jewish surroundings.’ A classic example is Ernest Renan, who wrote: ‘Fundamentally there was nothing Jewish about Jesus’; after visiting Jerusalem, Jesus ‘appears no more as a Jewish reformer, but as a destroyer of Judaism. …Jesus was no longer a Jew.’ And Albrecht Ritschl drew a line in the sand, which was not decisively questioned for most of the twentieth century, when he pronounced that Jesus’ ‘renunciation of Judaism and its law … became a sharp dividing line between his teachings and those of the Jews..”

James D. G. Dunn in “The Historical Jesus: Five Views,” eds. James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 217.

I am not sure why Heschel focused on liberal theologians. The same was true, with subtle differences of course with Conservative, Moderate, and other theologians as well. I was raised in a very conservative church. We did not deny that Jesus was a Jew, but Jesus was always portrayed artistically looking very different from the Jewish people around him. He looked different in physical appearance and bearing, in hair style, and in dress. Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Herodians, and Sanhedrin members, were almost always presumed to be bad people with evil aims. If one was seen as good— like the priest Zaccharias, or the Pharisee Nicodemus, they would be identified as being good DESPITE their role. We tended to look at the way of Christ and the way of Judaism in dualistic terms— the way of grace that leads to life, and the way of law that leads to death.

Nevertheless, things have been changing. Eddy and Bielby (pages 48 and 49 of the book referenced above) note that theologians have really gone away from centuries of this thought. Theologians revolted against the “Aryanizing” if Jesus by the German Nazis (and the theologians that supported their regime). Learning more about late Second Temple Judaism showed that much of what Jesus taught was harmonious with the teachings of others in Palestine. Further, the growing interest in learning more about “the Historical Jesus” meant that one had to study him in his context (in 1st century Judea, born into Jewish culture or Jewish lineage, and instructed in the Jewish faith).

This growing concensus does not solve all problems however. The old argument of whether Jesus was the most influential (Jewish) rabbi in history (as Reformed Jewish Rabbi describes him… see This Article) or first Christian” does not go away with this.

I would rather leave some of this to others— but I would like to address a somewhat related question:

If Jesus saw himself as a rabbi, a prophet, and as Messiah, did he see himself those roles with an implied “Jewish” in front of each role. Did Jesus see himself as a Jewish rabbi only for the Jews? Did he see himself as a Jewish prophet only for the Jews? Did he see himself as a Jewish Messiah only for the Jews?

There are those who would affirm this noting some statements such as in Matthew 15:22-24, “And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed.” ²³ But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and were pleading with Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting ^[a]at us.” ²⁴ But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.””

Now I would note argue the setting (Jesus chose to go to a predominantly Gentile region), that he used the woman as an example of faith for Jew and Gentile alike, and then followed up with his biggest Gentile ministry (the feeding of the four thousand) immediately after. These certainly undermine taking Jesus’ statement too literally. It seems to be more rhetorical for the sake of his disciples, rather than a self-identification of his personal calling. Still, most of his work was within the Jewish context. Because of this, some argue that the Great Commission (Acts 1:8 version especially) is an odd add-on that lacks a certain continuity with the rest of his ministry.

My argument was that in addition to (Jewish) rabbi and prophet (and I must add Messiah as well), he was the First and Great Internationalizer of the Jewish faith.

Of course, non-Jews joined the Jewish faith prior to Jesus. When Moses left Egypt with the mixed multitudes (Exodus 12:38). There is some question of who these are, but generally they were non-Israelites (by lineage) who joined the exodus and most likely became incorporated into the Israelite identity. Over the centuries, others did as well. Rahab and Ruth are well-known. The Gibeonites gradually became part of the Jewish identity. A similar thing could be said of the Idumeans. There were also formal procedures for non-Jews to be proselytes to the Jewish faith, including ritual bathing and circumcision.

In all of these cases, joining the Jewish faith (whether during the time of the Tabernacle, First Temple, or Second Temple eras) meant a loss of outside identity. Being Jewish (Israelite) in faith means becoming, gradually at least, Jewish in culture.

The examples before the time of Jesus of non-Jews embracing the Jewish faith without necessarily becoming Jewish in cultural identity is a bit more uncertain. The story of General Naaman, of the Arameans, seems to describe one who changed his faith to the God of Israel, and even took dirt from Israel (presumably to scatter around his courtyard) to identify with Yahweh. He probably did not visit Jerusalem for sacrifices and festivals. However, in the end we don’t really know. The Phoenician sailors in the story of Jonah, and King Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel are others who changed their worship to the God of Israel. It is uncertain of what happens next. There did not appear to be any real way for one to be Jewish in faith while Gentile in culture. With the Exile, this changed a bit, as Jews spread to Mesopotamia and Egypt (and then beyond) ad found ways to practice their faith in a region where their faith identity was different from that of the broader populace. The growth the the synagogue helped this— a gathering place for the faithful that was not only in Jerusalem. Still, even here, being a Jew in terms of faith, meant being part of the Jewish sub-culture.

An example of becoming Jewish in faith without becoming Jewish in culture, is the Samaritans. Presumably of “mixed race” background, they embraced the God of Israel, without identifying themselves as Jewish in self-identity or in culture. Broader Judaism, however, rejected this (although in more recent centuries, attitudes have changed and most see Samaritanism as a sect of Judaism).

In other words, before Jesus, to follow the God of Israel generally meant becoming a Jew in terms of culture… with rare and uncertain exceptions.

Jesus did not target Gentiles (non-Jews) in his ministry (with a few exceptions), but he did internationalize the faith so that the God of Israel could be worshiped “in spirit and in truth” and not limited by ethnic/national identity, or location (John 4).

Part 2 will explore this more.