A Change of Heart

``Isn't love enough'' [Jesus] asked.

``No,'' answered the Baptist angrily. ``The tree is rotten. God called to me and gave me the ax, which I then placed at the roots of the tree. I did my duty. Now do yours: take the ax and strike!''

``If I were fire, I would burn; if I were a woodcutter, I would strike. But I am a heart, and I love.''

``I am a heart also, that's why I cannot endure injustice, shamelessness or infamy. How can you love the unjust, the infamous and the shameless? Strike! One of man's greatest obligations is anger.''

``Anger?'' said Jesus, his heart objecting. ``Aren't we all brothers?''

``Brothers?'' the Baptist replied sarcastically. `` Do you think love is the way of God—love? Look here—'' He stretched forth his bony, hairy hand and pointed to the Dead Sea, which stank like a rotting carcass. ``Have you ever bent over to see the two whores, Sodom and Gomorrah, at her bottom? God became angry, hurled fire, stamped the earth: dry land turned to sea and swallowed up Sodom and Gomorrah. That's God's way—follow it. What to the prophecies say? `On the day of the Lord blood will flow from wood, the stones of the houses will come to life, will rise up and kill the house owners!' The day of the Lord has set out and is coming. I was the first to discern it. I uttered a cry, took God's ax, placed it at the root of the world. I called, called, called for you to come. You came, and now I shall depart.'' [#!ltoc!#, pp. 241–2]

Is this conflict of values accurate? Or is it simply part of Kazantzakis' interpretation of the Jesus story? Too a certain extent, the answer to both questions is ``yes.'' Certainly, the extent to which the conflict between the two approaches to Jesus' mission exists is primarily part of Kazantzakis' interpretation of the story, but that the conflict existed would be difficult to deny; Bertrand Russell, in A History of Western Philosophy notes:

The Jews believed that the Messiah would bring them temporal prosperity, and victory over their enemies here on earth. [#!russell!#, p. 309]

The Gospel shows Jesus at this critical moment abandoning his policy of the messianic secret ... and unequivocally accepting the title of Messiah, although making clear that he is Messiah not in the traditional sense of a political liberator, but in the sense of the glorious personage whom Daniel has seen in vision.[#!new-j!#, p. 1655]

This Jewish perception of what the Messiah was certainly makes the conflict in Kazantzakis' work somewhat more clear; by acting as a social liberator, Jesus was, in effect, reacting to certain market pressures. That is, to obtain the following of certain supporters of the zealots, he needed to adopt some of their policies.

The next question we should ask, then, is can we find any supporting text of the Jewish messianic personality of Jesus in the scriptures? We can infer from how Christianity developed in the years after Jesus' death that the Messiah-as-liberator-of-souls view of Christ was the one that shaped how Christian beliefs, and from reading the four canonical Gospels, we see that for the most part, the teachings of Christ appear in that light. However, in Matthew, we can read:

``Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth; it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword. For I have come to set son against father, daughter against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law; a person's enemies will be the enemies of his own household.'' [Mt 10:34–6]

Look, he is destined for the fall and for the rise of many in Israel, destined to be a sign that is opposed. [Lk 2:34]

``I baptise you with water, but someone is coming, who is more powerful than me, and I am not fit to undo the strap of his sandals; he will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire. [Lk 3:16]

``I have come to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were blazing already.'' [Lk 12:49]

When the time of the Jewish Passover was near Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and in the temple he fond people selling cattle and sheep and doves, and the money changers sitting there. Making a whip out of cord, he drove them all out of the Temple, sheep and cattle as well, scattered the money changers' coins, knocked their tables over and said to the dove sellers, ``Take all this out of here and stop using my Father's house as a market.'' [Jn 2:14–6]

That there is little indication of Jesus as revolutionary in the Gospel according to Mark is not as remarkable as it might seem; it is generally agreed that Mark is a later gospel than Matthew and John. Rather than giving an image of Jesus as a liberating Messiah, ``the real point of its message is the manifestation of the crucified Messiah.'' [#!new-j!#, p. 1605] The commentator of The New Jerusalem Bible comments on the conflict between the expected and actual rôles of Jesus:

Jesus laid down a way of humility and submission; but the Jews, expecting a victorious warrior-Messiah, were ill-prepared for this answer to their hope; the reason why the Jesus wanted silence about his miracles (5:43) and his identity (7:24; 9:30) was to avoid an enthusiasm which would have been as ill-advised as it would have been mistaken. [#!new-j!#, p. 1605]

The gospels, if they do not present Jesus as a social agitator, do indicate that the conservative Jews did view him that way. Luke has Pilate say of Jesus:

``You have brought this man before me as a popular agitator. Now I have gone into the matter myself in your presence and found no grounds in the man for any of the charges you bring against him.'' [Lk 23:14]

Meanwhile a large number of Jews heard that he was there and came not only on account of Jesus but also to see Lazarus whom he had raised from the dead. Then the chief priests decided to kill Lazarus as well, since it was on his account that many of the Jews were leaving them and believing in Jesus. [Jn 12:9–11]

We can find some external evidence that lends some credence to this theory; for example, Shirley Jackson Case writes:

Even the meager formalities of John's movement seemed soon to have proved unsatisfactory to Jesus. Apparently he heartily espoused John's cause, so far as it represented a new attitude of consecration and a renewal of confidence in God's readiness to deliver his people...[Unlike John the Baptist, Jesus] took his stand in the midst of society where he might conduct an aggressive propaganda on behalf of his new interests.

This aggressive policy of Jesus had its advantageous as well as its disastrous possibilities. It gave him a much wider range of social contacts than would have been available had he followed the plan of John. But at the same time it greatly augmented the possibilities of opposition...

The impression made be Jesus upon his contemporaries was so unusually forceful that it aroused a public opposition which presently cut short his public career...it was the unconventional methods by which Jesus sought to bring these results to pass that constituted the real basis of opposition between him and his contemporaries. The problem at issue was not so much the question of what end was to be sought, as of the safe path to be pursued in order to arrive at the desired goal. It was on this emblem of safe procedure that Jesus and his enemies came to deadly grips. [#!case!#, pp. 52–4]

Richard Cassidy is one writer who reads a revolutionary Jesus out of the gospel of Luke. He writes of the temple disturbance (Lk 20):

Luke shows Jesus acting against ``those who sold'' and accusing the traffickers of having made the temple a ``den of robbers.'' The chief priests exercised tight control over all temple activities and very likely derived a portion of their personal incomes from the buying and selling that took place within temple precincts. In the passage above, Luke does not explicitly state that Jesus' actions actually placed him in conflict with the chief priests; but it does clearly portray Jesus as acting against the prevailing economic practices. [#!cass!#, p. 35]

Case expresses the view that Jesus was not sympathetic to the position of the revolutionists:

In all probability Jesus' earlier popularity had been partially due to the presence of such hopes among the common people of Galilee. On the other hand, it is apparent that Jesus himself never seconded these ambitions, and on occasion very definitely expressed himself as out of harmony with the revolutionists. When this fact became known among his sympathizers many turned away from him and thus reduced the strength of his popular following. [#!case!#, p. 58]

We set out to see if we could justify Kazantzakis' characterization of Jesus in The Last Temptation of Christ; to see whether there is any justification for Kazantzakis writing of John the Baptist passing the axe on to Jesus. Cassidy would think that perhaps this is justified. The attacks against the temple and Jewish establishment are certainly quite clear, but did he also rise up against Rome? Cassidy says,

Although Jesus did not constitute the same type of threat that to Roman rule as the Zealots and the Parthians, the threat that he posed was, ultimately, not less dangerous. Unlike the Zealots, the Jesus of Luke's gospel does not make the overthrow of Roman rule the central focus of his activity, nor does he support any of the other forms of government (including that probably advocated by the Zealots) that might have been considered as replacements for Roman rule. Nevertheless, by espousing radically new social patterns and by refusing to defer to the existing political authorities, Jesus pointed the way to a social order in which neither the Romans nor any other oppressing group would be able to hold sway. [#!cass!#, p. 79]

Certainly in the years between Jesus' death and the time of Luke's writing, there were ample opportunities for errors to be made and for those who handed on the traditions about Jesus (including Luke himself) to alter them in such a way that Luke's final account could contain as much distortion as accuracy. On the other hand, we know that Luke wanted to write ``an orderly account,'' and we also know that Luke's descriptions relative to empire history are, in fact, amazingly accurate.

We find these latter two considerations persuasive and are thus inclined to hold that the stance Luke attributes to Jesus corresponds to the stance that Jesus actually had. It can be argued, however, that such a position is as much a matter of perspective as it is of reasoned analyses and judgment, and this we are willing to admit. Do Luke's descriptions give an accurate portrayal of Jesus' stance? In the end, given the lack of conclusive evidence, it is likely that any reply will hinge on one's personal perspective. [#!cass!#, pp. 85–6]

However, in examining the teachings of the founding fathers of the Church, we find that the preachings tend more towards the morals of individuals than towards the movement for social justice that Cassidy finds in Luke and Kazantzakis' John the Baptist calls for from Jesus. In the apocryphal Acts of Paul, Paul is credited with preaching the following aphorisms in the house of Onesiphorus:

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Blessed are they that keep the flesh chaste, for they shall become the temple of God.

Blessed are they that abstain (or the continent) for unto them shall God speak.

Blessed are they that have renounced this world, for they shall be well-pleasing unto God.

Blessed are they that posses their wives as though they had them not, for they shall inherit God.

Blessed are they that have the fear of God, for they shall become angels of God.

Blessed are they that tremble at the oracles of God, for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are they that receive the wisdom of Jesus Christ, for they shall be called sons of the Most High.

Blessed are they that have kept their baptism pure, for they shall rest with the Father and the Son.

Blessed are they that have compassed the understanding of Jesus Christ, for they shall be in light.

Blessed are they that for love of God have departed from the fashion of this world, for they shall judge angels, and shall be blessed at the right hand of the Father.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy and shall not see the bitter day of judgement.

Blessed are the bodies of virgins, for they shall be well-pleasing unto God and shall not lose the reward of their continence (chastity), for the word of the Father shall be unto them a work of salvation in the say of his Son, and they shall have rest world without end. [ActsPl 2:5–6]

Let love be without any pretence. Avoid what is evil; stick to what is good. In brotherly love let your feelings of deep affection for one another come to expression and regard others as more important than yourself. [Rm 12:9–10]

Keep away from sexual immorality. All other sins that someone may commit are done outside the body; but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Do you not realize your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you and whom you have received from God? You are not your own property, then; you have been bought at a price. So use your body for the glory of God. [1 Co 6:18–20]

Let us examine the question of why the founding fathers of the Church might have abandoned the social revolution portion of Jesus' teachings to the degree that they did (many of the quotes from the New Testament cited above have non-social-reform interpretations generally ascribed to them).

Perhaps the main reason for the abandonment of Jesus as the warrior-Messiah in the teachings of the Christian church is that

Not only was the social environment of the Christian movement largely gentile well before the end of the first century, but it had severed almost completely and earlier bonds of social contact with the Jewish Christians of Palestine. During the first generation, in the time of Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, the Christians of Jerusalem were treated by their gentile brethren at least as peers, if not as superiors. But after the year 70, when the Jewish war against Rome resulted in the destruction of the Temple and inspired a new disdain on the part of the Gentiles for all things Jewish, Palestinian Christianity rapidly lost prestige. It made few if any gains in membership, while the gentile communities constantly increased. By the year 100 Christianity is mainly a gentile religious movement. [#!case!#, pp. 27–8]

I, Paul, give you my word that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you at all. I give my assurance once again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law; once you seek to be reckoned as upright through the Law, then you have separated yourself from Christ, you have fallen away from grace. [Ga 5:2–4]

Case believes that

Henceforth the gentile field offered Christians their only hope of success. Their efforts to win Jewish adherents proved increasingly futile ... its prospects of further success now lay exclusively in its power to perpetuate itself through appeal to the non-Jewish population of the Roman Empire. Unless it had been able to integrate itself successfully as a movement in gentile society, its hope of survival would have been in vain. [#!case!#, pp. 67–8]

All about them was a veritable welter of religious cults offering to their devotees a wide variety of satisfactions and presenting a great many different forms of appeal. There was hardly a single area of interest that had not been already cultivated by some older cult. [#!case!#, p. 69]

In addition to the desire to exclude unfavorable beliefs from Christianity to aid in evangelizing the gentiles of the Roman empire, there was desire inside the Christian movement to gain the support of the empire itself:

On more than one occasion Christians had sought to bring their cause into favor by calling the attention of the authorities to the fact that the Empire's beginnings, and its continued glory, had been conincident with the rise and growth of the Christian movement. One was to infer that the prayers of the Christians and their presence in society were genuine elements of safety which should be nourished if future prosperity were to be assured. [#!case!#, p. 209]

Why should whether this interpretation is valid matter to us at all? Biblical hermeneutics has been a central feature of Western theology for quite some time.The earliest attempts to understand the Bible grew out of the Reformation:

Since Protestant theologians believed, not only that Scripture was infallible, but that it had been written with specific reference to the needs of all subsequent time, they thought it both profitable and necessary to derive therefrom a body of normative teaching specifically applicable to their own problems. No primary importance was attached to the particular circumstances under which a scriptural document had been composed, nor were any questions asked regarding the special interests that might have been dominant when the original author and his first readers lived. Without hesitation, it was unconsciously assumed that the biblical writer had centered attention upon the particular issues with which the reformers themselves were so vitally concerned. [#!case!#, p. 5]

More specifically, the hermeneutic circle is especially important in understanding Kazantzakis' novel, which can be taken to be more-or-less as an interpretation of the New Testament. As was noted above, Kazantzakis' spiritual growth went began with ``revolutionary ardor'' followed by an ascetic Christianity then through Nietzsche, Buddha, Lenin, Odysseus, and back to Christ. In effect, The Last Temptation of Christ is Kazantzakis' own liberation theology. His Jesus' change of heart mirrors very much Kazantzakis' own pattern of intellectual growth. While Jesus, for a time, adopts a ``revolutionary ardor'' of his own, he after a time returns to the way of love, in a manner similar to that of Kazantzakis. The Last Temptation of Christ represents not only Kazantzakis' interpretation of the New Testament, it represents his interpretation in the light of his own experiences.

• References