Who Jesus Is (REL 320 Paper #4)

The following is a paper I wrote last night for my Historical Jesus course.

Who Jesus Is

For many, a course about the “Historical Jesus” may shake one's faith that existed prior to taking such a course. After all, there seem to be many apparent contradictions that are, at first glance, impossible to harmonize with one another. Such examples of inconsistencies are Judas' death, Jesus' last words, and even the style of picture that is painted of Jesus by the writers of the gospels. However this course has done nothing to cause me to lose my faith in the New Testament or in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. As I look back on the last few months, I can see that my view of Jesus of Nazareth has changed very little, if at all, as a result of this course.

Having to describe Jesus using ten words or fewer, my answer would still be, “Jesus' death and resurrection provided the only way to God.” That wasn't my exact answer as it was in September, however it is extremely close. Despite spending a lot of time on various aspects of Jesus' ministry-- his teachings on the Kingdom of Heaven, his relationship with some of his followers, or even his last words during his crucifixion, all of these seem to fall short of his very reason for the incarnation. Jesus came to provide the way to the Father, to provide eternal life. Not merely “a” way among many, but the only way (Jn 14:6). However, I truly wish I could have more than 10 words (or less) to tell someone about Jesus. I highly doubt that the 10-word sentence would get across everything I feel I should be able to impart in the person I am conversing with about Jesus of Nazareth. An alternative to the 10 words I provided might be “Jesus commands all to repent and believe the gospel,” this time pulling the primary message I wish to give the other person not from John 14 but from Mark 1:15. Again, I strongly desire to use far more than 10 words to describe arguably the most important historical figure mankind has ever known.

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to know exactly what Jesus' personality is. In the vast majority of the gospels, Jesus is portrayed as a very serious individual, lacking much emotion. This is particularly noticeable in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. This can be explained by taking a look at Stoic philosophy and its popularity in the period and culture to which the writers of the gospels were writing. Stoic philosophy modeled a man who did not show much emotion and was a rather somber individual. So while some of the gospel writers focused on the aspects of Jesus' personality that depict a kind of Mr. Spock, this may not be the extent of Jesus' personality. When writing any work, the author must take into consideration his audience. To portray Jesus as an overly emotional figure to a culture that held to Stoic philosophy would to have been portraying a man that is as an alien, possessing little the audience would idealize or care about. So while the writers of the four canonical gospels never penned the words “Jesus laughed” (so far as we know), it is within the realm of possibility. Jesus was very social, surrounding himself with many followers and frequented the homes of many sinners to dine and socialize with them.

One aspect of Jesus' personality that seems to be in question however, is whether or not Jesus was a shy messiah. There is an idea of a “Messianic Secret” that is very prominent especially in the Gospel of Mark. Mark includes passages stating Jesus charges those whom he has healed to tell no one of the miracle that had been performed (Mk 1:42-43, 7:36). However the miracles and signs recorded in John's gospel indicate that Jesus was far less secretive with those to those whom he had demonstrated his miraculous healing power to. The Gospel of John includes the healing at Bethseda (Jn 5:1-17), where a sick man, presumably lame, was healed by Jesus on the Sabbath. One can surmise from the text there was most likely a crowd near the pool (v.3) at that time, and saw Jesus healing that 38 year old man. Mark seems to be portraying a Jesus that is very much against anyone knowing who he is, while John portrays a Jesus that desires for all to see who he is and his miraculous works and signs he performs. However, there is a way to harmonize this apparent contradiction. One explanation is that Jesus' revelation as the Messiah had to begin rather discreetly and progress. Had Jesus been open and not discreet about his early miracles recorded in Mark, God's plan for the death of Jesus may have been in jeopardy due to his immense popularity among the crowds that flocked around him. After Jesus fed the five thousand, John includes the detail of Jesus having to hide in the mountains for a time. Jesus knew those whom he had been fed desired to take him by force and make him king (Jn 6:15). This would have interfered with Christ's mission to lay down his life willingly for his sheep (Jn 10). The vast majority of instances that contribute to the Messianic Secret occur very early on in Jesus' ministry, prior to for instance, Jesus' raising Lazarus from the dead (Jn 11). It was imperative Jesus be more secretive early in his ministry, so that he would indeed do the will of his Father. This view may not adhere strictly to the Historical Critical method, but I feel it is increasingly important to seek ways to harmonize scripture rather being overly critical, seeking to make a great deal out of slight discrepancies.

The central teaching of Jesus seems to be the first recorded words of Jesus in Mark 1:15. “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Personally I believe that repentance is the essential aspect in Jesus' ministry. Without repentance, one cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven and will not be able to get to the Father. Yet from the Historical Critical Method, the majority of sermons and teachings of Jesus that were recorded dealt specifically with the Kingdom of Heaven. While only mentioned once in the Gospel of John, this is a frequent topic within the synoptics. Along with Jesus' teaching in parables, even the most liberal scholars may be able to concede that Jesus did speak of the Kingdom of Heaven in some point of his ministry. The vast majority of the criterion are met for this topic-- multiple attestation, dissimilarity, coherence, and rejection are all strongly present (with possible embarrassment). According to the online concordance at BibleGateway.com, “Kingdom of God” or “Kingdom of Heaven” is mentioned by name 56 times in the gospels. The texts indicate this kingdom is near (Mk 1:15), will grow (Mt 13), is a treasure (Mt 13:4), and has something to do with children (Mt 19:14). However I am still unclear as to what exactly is meant by the “Kingdom of Heaven.” I have always wondered if it is referring to Heaven, or the Church, or some social order on Earth. While I was hoping this course would provide a definitive answer to these questions that have plagued me since childhood, unfortunately I was not blessed to uncover such an answer in the past four months. Even when reading what Paul wrote about the Kingdom of God, I feel I am only confirmed in knowing it is received as some kind of inheritance (Gal 5:21). Also, Paul's description of the Kingdom of God is one that is not inherited by flesh and blood (1 Cor 15:50). However this is not a definitive answer as to what exactly it is.

As in the beginning of the course, I do stand by the gospels and believe they are “the gospel truth.” While there are other historical sources that mention Jesus or his followers, none are dated as early as the canonical gospels. Again, any slight contradiction can be harmonized with a little effort. There are recourses available that harmonize many such contradictions, such as Judas' betrayal of Jesus, his death, and even the difference in the last recorded words of Jesus during his crucifixion. In dealing with this last one, I would propose that Jesus' final words prior to his resurrection were, in a loud cry, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Lk 23:46). When comparing the gospels side-by-side, Luke's account includes, “And having said this he breathed his last.” This statement, “and having said this,” has a sense of finality to it the other accounts do not possess. While John's account of Jesus saying, “It is finished,” bowing his head and giving up his spirit, Luke's account includes the dialog of Jesus actually giving up his spirit to the Father. Mark's and Matthew's accounts stop recording Jesus' spoken words just after he cries in a loud voice, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mk 15:34; Mt 27:36). They do, however, include Jesus “uttering a loud cry” (Mk 12:37). Luke's account just accurately records exactly what uttered in that loud cry. Harmonization of the biblical text is essential in the study of the gospels. Without such a practice, one will be likely to end up in a position that mirrors Bart Ehrman, comparing the gospels to a mere collection of “stories” that were passed around in the 1^st century among Christians like little children playing “The Telephone Game” (Ehrman).

The question that has been posed throughout this course is “Who is the Historical Jesus?” as if the “historical Jesus” and the “faith Jesus” are incompatible with one another. Modern-day liberal critical biblical scholarship approaches the biblical text with predetermined bias that the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth was only a mere man. This approach denies Jesus the ability to heal, to foretell the future with any accuracy, to fulfill prophesy written hundreds of years prior, or to resurrect himself from the dead. Such an approach automatically labels Jesus as a liar, as his claim to divinity is recorded in John 8:58. Because of this bias, such scholarship leads to casting lots and determining, by their own standards, that such a phrase was not said by Jesus and was later added in by scribes with an agenda who cared nothing for historical accuracy. However, such a critical and skeptical study of God's Word is going to be less than fruitful. While there may be instances when the Historical Critical Method for analyzing the biblical text is not on my side, I can confidently say without doubt that the historical Jesus of Nazareth is Jesus Christ, as portrayed in the Holy Bible. He was born of a virgin, is one with the Father and at the same time the Son of God, and the only way to the Father. Personally, I will go by the red letters in my English Standard Version of the Holy Bible over the arrogant lot-casting of the Jesus Seminar any day.