Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE MISSION OF JESUS §12.5
the watershed between Judaism and the gospel came with (the message of) the
death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus' own mission and message already marked
the dividing line. John represented the period of preparation, Jesus the period of
fulfilment. In other words, between the missions of the Baptist and Jesus a decisive
'shift in the aeons' had taken place. 333 John could indeed be regarded as the
greatest man ever born; but in comparison with the blessings of the kingdom,
what John stood for was of much less importance.
Such language is striking indeed, though its rhetorical character should not
be forgotten. It is of a piece with Jesus' concern for 'the little one', as attested
elsewhere in the Jesus tradition. 334 More to the point here, it attests an amazing
sense that something of final significance (the kingdom of God) was being unfolded
through Jesus' mission. 335 As we have already noted, this was not the language
used by the early Christians to articulate their equivalent sense of the final
significance of Jesus' mission. The saying should probably be regarded, therefore,
as one of Jesus' own remembered bons mots.
(4) Matt. 11.12-13/Luke 16.16 is one of those sayings which is so puzzling
that it can have been retained only because it was remembered as a saying of Jesus.
336 What could it mean that the kingdom was being 'violently treated' or 'entered
by force' (biazetai)? Who could the 'violent/men of violence (biastai)' be
who were trying to seize it forceably? The best solution may be that 'men of violence'
was a jibe used by those hostile to Jesus' mission: Jesus encourages the
disreputable to think they can just push their way into the kingdom, can take it by
storm! 337 Jesus would then be remembered as teaching ad hominem: the king-
333. Bornkamm, Jesus 50-51, 56-57, 66-68; Robinson, New Quest 116-19. See also
N. Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM, 1963) 121-24. Of recent
writers, Becker presses the point most consistently {Jesus of Nazareth 108-15); here 'the
statement clearly excludes John from the Kingdom of God' (114).
334. Mark 9.42/Matt. 18.6; Matt. 10.42; 18.10, 14; Luke 9.48; 12.32; 17.2; cf. Mark
4.31/Matt. 13.32. On the unlikelihood that Jesus is to be identified with 'the least in the kingdom'
see Meier, Marginal Jew 2.208-209 n. 132.
335. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism 92-93, 140. The already/not yet tension is sufficient
explanation for the antithesis; it does not follow that 'there was already an anti-apocalyptic theology
operative' (pace Crossan, Birth 310-11, 316).
336. On a possible Aramaic underlay see Dalman, Words of Jesus 139-43; Young argues
for a Hebrew underlay, giving the translation, 'From the days of John the Baptist until now, the
kingdom of heaven breaks forth and those breaking forth are pursuing [seeking] it' (Jesus 51-
55).
337. F. W. Danker, 'Luke 16.16 — An Opposition Logion', JBL 11 (1958) 231-43; followed
by Jeremias, Proclamation 111-12; Wink, John the Baptist 20-22; W. Stenger, biazomai,
Hastes, EDNT 1.217; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus 271. It is the recognition that Jesus
may have been turning a negative criticism to positive affirmation which resolves the problems
posed, e.g., by Fitzmyer, Luke 1117-18 and Meier, Marginal Jew 2.216 n. 180. Pace Meier we
452