“JESUS WAS A REFUGEE?”
Someone has been running a series of “religious commercials” on national television for some time now trying to bring Jesus into our national consciousness in a fresh way. Aside from the fact that these messages are written almost too small to be read by the human eye at normal television distance, in general I have no complaint about someone trying to send their message in a different manner. However, the specifics of some of these messages strike me as quite a bit “off key.” One that gets repeated often is “Jesus Gets Us.” I admit that this effort to use the current vernacular strikes a familiar, upbeat chord in our contemporary mode of conversation, but it seems to me inevitably to ring untrue, if not downright corny, in relation to the seriousness of its content.
For instance, in one of the messages it is claimed that “Jesus was a refugee.” The point of this claim appears to be that because he was born in Bethlehem, or perhaps because he was raised in Galilee, Jesus was somehow a social “outsider” and thus knew what it was like to be mistreated and ignored. While these claims are in themselves quite on the money, they are also quite misleading when he is spoken of as a “refugee.” Indeed, not only did Jesus never travel outside of his Palestinian homeland, but he was a full citizen of the Jewish nation even though it was at that time in the control of the Roman Empire. In the end, of course he was treated as an enemy of both the Jewish leadership and Roman State.
As the scripture says, “He was despised and rejected of men,” but this was not because he was a refugee, but rather because he took the part of those who themselves were outsiders. This posture put him in a good deal of danger at the hands of both the Jewish leadership and the Roman authorities. Indeed, he “got” those who were being ignored and punished by the Jewish and Roman authorities alike. That is, he understood and stood with the outsiders of his community even when in the end it cost him his life. “He came unto his own, but his own received him not.” Indeed, one might call him a refugee in the sense that he was an itinerate teacher, but still not a politically “displaced person.”
I find the way the author of the Gospel of John puts the matter most significant. “He came to dwell among us and we saw his glory…full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14) This was not “Jesus Christ Superstar” showing off his superior insight and power among the peasants, but rather a light who was “in the world shining in the darkness.” (John 1:5) Or as Paul put it: “Though the divine nature was his from the first, he made himself nothing. Assuming the nature of a slave…he humbled himself, accepting even death on a cross.” (Philippians 2: 7-8) Indeed. We must not forget that Jesus spent the first 30 years of his life working as a carpenter in the area around the town of Nazareth. Hardly a refugee.
Somehow his “glory” was expressed in his ability to identify with and take seriously those around him who found themselves as outsiders. The Gospels are replete with stories of Jesus bothering to take seriously as neighbors those who had been set aside by their society. He “got” them in the sense that he understood their plight and sought to address them exactly where they were. This was the Jesus we saw in “Godspell” but not in “Superstar.” He came alongside of people in need, not above them. It was all explained by his refusal to allow the disciples to wash his feet but insisted on washing theirs, insisted on calling them friends rather than servants.
So I guess I have to admit that I am more comfortable with the spirit of these contemporary religious ads than I at first indicated. I just find it important not to overplay his superiority when he himself seems clearly to have sought to underplay it. “He came unto his own, but his own received him not” (John 1:11), both in his day and also in our own. He was not so much “hip” as he was genuine, real. In the end, when he faced both Pilate and the Jewish leaders, he refused to explain or defend himself but simply received whatever they had to give and bided his time. And he is still doing so.
(A footnote. For what it is worth, it has now been revealed that the organization behind these commercials is an extreme right-wing, politically conservative group.)

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
OK – here’s a first-rate detective puzzle for us to work on. As you know, there are four Gospels in the NT that tell the story of Jesus’ life. However, they each tell it a bit differently. John is quite different (more theological and with a different timeline) and is usually studied separately. The other three, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are very much alike and are usually referred to as the “Synoptic Gospels” because they seem to see Jesus with a uniform eye. However, when we look closely, we see that they differ quite a bit. Sometimes they say the same thing exactly, while at others they say things a bit differently, while at still others they are very different from one another. Why? This is what the scholars call the “Synoptic Problem.”
So here’s the deal. In many places both Matthew and Luke repeat Mark verbatim. Scholars are agreed that Mark was in fact the earliest Gospel. In other places they each seem to be drawing on their own sources or information. And here’s the kicker: There are places where Matthew and Luke are exactly the same, but differ from Mark. This raises the question, what was their common source in addition to Mark? Scholars tag this mystery source “Q,” from the German word ‘Quelle’ for “source.” No one has ever claimed to have found this other source.
However, by extracting all the passages where Mathew and Luke agree but differ from Mark we come up with “Q.” Professor Marcus Borg, a first-rate NT scholar, has put these passages together in book form: The Lost Gospel of Q, so you can read it for yourself. Q is mostly accounts of Jesus’ ethical teachings and spiritual insights. It contains no miracle stories or conflicts with the Jewish leaders. Also, it has nothing to say about Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.
An important thing to remember is that Paul’s letters, which make up the majority of the NT, were written well before any of the Gospels (by twenty or thirty years). Thus, consulting his letters casts no light on the “Synoptic Problem.”
All of this does bear on the problem of the synoptics in relation to the issues surrounding the authority of the Bible, especially with respect to any questions having to do with its so-called “inerrancy.” It would seem to make no sense to claim that the Bible is without error when we are uncertain as to which documents, along with their scads of copies, we are talking about. Whatever authority the scriptures have lies in their historical context and spiritual content.
What Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16 about all scripture being “inspired of God” must apply only to the Old Testament since none of the New Testament had been written yet. In addition, it must apply to all the copies and ancient translations thereof since that for practical purposes is all any people had. The notion of inspiration must somehow apply to the message of the scripture, not to its words.