Chapter 5—Was Jesus a Zealot?
The Real Aims of Jesus
When historians consider Jesus, they try to classify him. They do this with all historical figures. Here are a few examples: Aristotle was a philosopher, but his famous student Alexander the Great was a military commander and empire-builder. The first-century Jewish aristocrat Josephus was an apologist and historian. The early second-century Simon ben Kosibah, who became known as Bar Kokhba (Aramaic, meaning “Son of the Star”), was a charismatic messianic claimant who gave leadership to Israel’s last great rebellion against Rome. Defining, or classifying, these figures helps us to interpret their activities more accurately.
Classifying figures of history is part of the historian’s attempt to place them in the appropriate context. This is very true in the case of Jesus of Nazareth. Because of his multi-faceted activities and teachings, classifying Jesus has not been easy. Emphasizing his role as teacher, some see Jesus as a rabbi. Others think he was more of a prophet or a martyr. Others see him as a political leader, perhaps a king of sorts. More eccentric proposals include Jesus as a Pharisee, an Essene, a magician, or even an Eastern mystic. Another proposal made from time to time argues that Jesus was a zealot.
In this chapter we shall consider the zealot classification, which in one form or another has been proposed from time to time. To understand why it has been proposed, it will be necessary to review not only the evidence that has been offered for it but also the history and biblical background to zealotry. The topic is an important one, to be sure, but it is not always understood.
Jesus as Zealot
One of the earliest and most influential expressions of the idea that Jesus was a zealot appeared in the posthumous publication of parts of a manuscript by Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768). This work is often given credit for launching what became known as the “quest of the historical Jesus.” In the seventh installment, entitled On the Aim of Jesus and His Disciples and published in 1778,1 Reimarus suggested that Jesus and his disciples attempted to seize control of the temple precincts in Jerusalem and establish a new government. Jesus was defeated and executed; his disciples were initially scattered but later regrouped and invented the story of the resurrection in order to re-energize the movement. Almost no one followed Reimarus.
In 1929–30, German scholar Robert Eisler revived the zealot theory, relying heavily on Josephus and the dubious Old Slavonic version of Josephus’s Jewish Wars, in which are found a number of references to Jesus and his disciples.2 No scholars today think these references were part of Josephus’s original work. Rather, they are regarded as later insertions into the text in the early medieval period. As for Eisler’s work itself, it is regarded as eccentric at best. Some have described it as perverse.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the zealot hypothesis was reformulated, this time with a bit more nuance, by comparative religions scholar and World War II veteran S. G. F. Brandon of the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom.3 Like Eisler, Brandon argued that Jesus attempted to seize control of Jerusalem by force of arms. But his views gained no scholarly following.
In 1970, Martin Hengel, a well-known and respected professor of Christian origins at Tübingen University in Germany, published a brief but devastating critique of the zealot hypothesis.4 Today this hypothesis is advanced by no scholar with expertise in the field. When in 1985 E. P. Sanders published his highly regarded Jesus and Judaism, he could say, “Brandon’s view…will get no airing at all, since I consider that it has been sufficiently refuted,” and then in a footnote cites Hengel’s incisive study.5 No one objected to what Sanders said.
The point of all of this is that the zealot hypothesis has been laid to rest. Scholars may talk about political unrest and banditry in Israel in the time of Jesus and how that potentially clarifies some of the dynamics and dangers that Jesus and his followers faced,6 but they rightly recognize that Jesus himself was no zealot. This is why Reza Aslan’s recently published Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth,7 which resurrects the zealot hypothesis, strikes us as odd and strangely dated.
Aslan’s version of the zealot hypothesis contains little that is new. Part of his interpretation rests upon the idea that the world of Jesus was one of zealotry, understood as a fervent nationalism that strongly desired an end of Roman and Herodian rule and the restoration of the Davidic royal dynasty. Aslan assumes that Jesus fits right into this picture, as one of dozens of wandering prophets and would-be Messiahs proclaiming the kingdom of God. To justify his classification of Jesus as a zealot, Aslan focuses on Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem and his demonstration in the temple precincts. Jesus’ actions were such that his disciples recalled the words of Psalm 69:9: “Zeal for thy house will consume me” (John 2:17). Aslan brushes aside learned scholarship that interprets this event very differently from the way he does as “centuries of exegetical acrobatics.”8 He does the same with the ancient sources themselves, dismissing the many passages in the Gospels that contradict the zealot hypothesis as “fanciful,” “absurd,” “fictional,” “ridiculous,” and “preposterous.” The closed-minded bias is hard to miss.
In the balance of this chapter, we shall briefly explore Jewish zealotry in the time of Jesus and then inquire into the aims and goals of Jesus and his disciples. Our purpose is to define the zeal of Jesus and interpret it in context. We shall see that at points Jesus is similar to some of his predecessors and contemporaries, but at many points Jesus is quite different. We begin with a review of the history of zealotry in Israel.
Jewish Zealotry in Old Testament Times and in the Time of Jesus
The Old Testament zealot par excellence is Phinehas. He makes his first appearance in Exodus 6, where he is identified as Aaron’s grandson (Exod 6:25; 1 Chr 6:4, 50; 9:20; Ezra 7:5). He next appears in Numbers 25, in the episode where many Israelites join Moabites and Midianites in worshipping the god (or “Baal,” presumably Chemosh; cf. Num 21:29) of Peor while they are encamped on the plain within sight of Mount Peor (cf. Num 23:28; 24:2; 31:16; Deut 3:29; 4:3; Ps 106:28). These activities, which involve sexual promiscuity and feasting in honor of the god of Peor, result in a plague. While Moses and others are weeping before the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, an Israelite man brings a Midianite woman into the camp. He does this in the very sight of the grieving Moses. The reader should infer that this man has no regard whatsoever for Moses or for Israel’s sacred covenant with God.
When Phinehas sees this outrage, he takes a spear, kills both the man and the woman, and so brings the plague to an end. The reader learns why when God tells Moses,
“Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy. Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace; and it shall be to him, and to his descendants after him, the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the people of Israel.’” (Num 25:11–13)
What is translated “He was jealous with my jealousy” could also be translated “He was zealous with my zeal.” So also in verse 13, “jealous for his God” could be translated “zealous for his God.” On account of this episode, Phinehas is remembered for his zeal. God gives this priest a “covenant of peace” and his descendants a “covenant of a perpetual priesthood.”
Phinehas reappears in the war with Midian (Num 31:1–12). He joins the army and is entrusted with the holy vessels and the trumpets (v. 6). Israel routs the kings of Midian, taking spoils and captives (vv. 7–12). Again Phinehas appears in Joshua 22, in which he is sent as an emissary of sorts to rebuke the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh (vv. 13–20). When the leaders of these tribes convince the priest of their fidelity, Phinehas is pleased and is able to give the rest of Israel a favorable report (vv. 30–34). Phinehas is mentioned later, in Judges 20, when readers are reminded that he used to stand before the ark of the covenant and minister (vv. 27–28). In his recounting of the