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.

Apparently I’m Practically Nonexistent Species? LOL!

Yesterday I sat in STRONG (Hall) #204 in my REL 320: Jesus of Nazareth course a bit more than slightly frustrated with the clips our class had just watched from The Last Temptation of Christ. We were comparing this fictional re-telling of Christ’s life to the gnostic Gospel of Judas. I’m not sure which notion was more difficult to stomach– the gnostic view that YHWH is the evil creator that we need to defeat (essentially), or the notion that Jesus and Judas… cuddled… (and more?) Yuck.

ANYWAY.

A student in the class brought up a point that he had always struggled with growing up: If it was foreordained that Judas would have to betray Jesus, and it had to happen for Jesus to save the world, why should Judas suffer and be held to blame for his actions? I just sat there in my silence fully confidant of the answer. And yes, I too had wondered this before — he was supposed to do this, and yet he is held to blame? But after years of maturing in the faith, I was able to see that it doesn’t matter that he was supposed to do this, foreordained by God. The question is: DID JUDAS SIN? Answer: YES! He betrayed the Savior — a sin against God. Because he sinned, he along with EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING, DESERVES DEATH AND PUNISHMENT IN HELL!! No one deserves Heaven — if they did, it wouldn’t be grace, would it? It would be earned merit. They are not the same. Besides, are not all men his? Can he not do with his creation what he wishes? Apparently this gentleman (and other fellow students) had never read/fully understood Romans 9.

But instead of pipping in I just sat there with a sort of grimace on my face… amazed that someone would imply that another DIDN’T deserve Hell because of their sin. However this notion continued to flow about the room as Dr Baynes too seems to imply that it is somehow unjust that Judas should be cursed, when this was all predestined to happen. “Many people today have a problem with this notion of Predestination.” I just sat and quietly rolled my eyes to myself. THEN came the statement that nearly knocked me out of my seat — “And very few (if any) believe in this idea of Predestination today.” :-O The manner in which she said this implied, to me, that she felt Predestination is some irrelevant archaic product of the Reformation that really has an average of maybe 8 or 9 that accept this as truth. I am not denying that the majority rejects this fundamental concept upon which the Reformation was built upon (this may not even bother me so much — Mt 7:13-14)

However the idea that she seemed to convey that practically NO ONE believes in such a doctrine anymore is quite silly, and really showed her ignorance on the issue IF she was implying practically no one upholds such doctrine. Maybe she hasn’t heard of RC Sproul. John MacArthur. John Piper. Dr. James White. Mark Driscoll. Phillip Johnson. Those are just a small handful of leaders within Christendom who recognize the biblical doctrine of Election. However Dr. Baynes seemed to just pass the idea off as something that could be compared to the old belief that the world was indeed flat.

Eventually I did speak up from the back of the class and proclaim, “Well, they are out there,” to which she did acknowledge this is true — they are out there. I just smiled and said, “Yes, WE are!” “We?” she asked. “We.” She seemed a bit taken back and some in the class got a little laugh out of that– I think even more of the class may have turned to see what a Calvinist ACTUALLY looked like. As if I had an extra head or something and was needing to be locked up in a cage and stared at by paying onlookers. “Well then, I guess I’ll have to watch what I say now.” … I am not sure about this statement– what bad could she say about such a view. Although she’s right– it is uncommon for good sound biblical doctrine to grace the presence of the liberal-leaning Religious Studies Dept. @ MSU.

I guess I’m not one to embrace much man-centered theology…

<

Firmly grounded as a student.

I find it odd that I am not the normal college student. I do not speak of my decision to not smoke, get drunk, or have premarital sex. I am glad I have resisted temptation for these (though most have never really even been an issue for me), though I am not speaking specifically of m relm of belief. I may be one of a few handful of students whose beliefs, values or convictions have not crumbled ‘neath the weight of the ivory walls of the University.

One such example is my stance on politics. I was raised in a very conservative home where I learned of the importance of defending the lives of unborn babies from a slaughter at the hands of some who consider themselves “doctors” (more like death dealers). So conservative yes, but I was, by my own admission, truly a 2-issue voter by the time I was 18. The issues I was concerned about were biblically social issues — abortion and the defense of the institution of marriage between man and wife (as God created it). Sure I cared about the liberation of the Iraqi peoples from the hands of an evil regime… but it was not as important as the life of an innocent and defenseless unborn babe.

Then I got to a political science course once in college and my teacher explained to me the economic system of our country. He even went on to explain the differences between how the conservatives do the economy and how the liberals do the economy. I was astonished at how controlling and money-hungry the liberal approach to the economy is! So instead of turning me into a godless tree-hugging hippie, this course (& instructor) fortified my convictions and made me an even STRONGER conservative!

Along those lines, I also have not crumbled in my beliefs when it comes to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I am currently enrolled in a Historical Jesus course that attempts to look at the gospels historically and critically… or more accurately, “How much can we attack the validity and reliability of the Bible, and prove that a Winnie-the-Poo book contains more truth than these accounts of Jesus’ life.” Blah. I still continue to be amused at how liberal the course tends to be, even though the current instructor is no where near as left-winged as the previous one. Even so, the approach taken to the Holy Scriptures is appalling.

When I approach a passage in a gospel that does not perfectly line up with another gospel, I think, OK, how can I make this work logically? The instructor wishes us to think, AHAH! An error– no way this book is divinely inspired! After a while, this approach just gets rather boring. For instance, just yesterday our class was called to vote (Jesus Seminar style– colored beads and all) on whether or not Judas kissed Jesus when he turned him over to the Jewish authorities. This event is recorded in Mark 14:45 and Matthew 26:49. Luke 22:47-48 do not mention Judas’ kiss, but say that Judas drew near to Jesus to kiss him. From this, we were supposed to arrive at the conclusion that Luke has Judas not kiss Jesus, even though this is not explicitly written. Our instructor mentions (as any good studier of the scriptures) not to read one’s own meaning into the text itself. However she was guilty of doing just that! Kevin and I did challenge this, observing that Luke never says that the kiss DIDN’T happen. The word “but” is problematic though, so our instructor looked up the passage in her Greek NT. There are, in Greek, two kinds of “but”s. One is a very final BUT, implying someone went to do something BUT it did not happen. The other “but” may also be translated as “and.” I was glad she was looking it up, but I was rather nervous… as if it was the former more final “but,” my point would be completely void!… THANKFULLY, it was the later but. w00t! Had it been the other one, scripture would have claimed in Luke that Judas did not kiss Jesus. But God, in his sovereign will, inspired the author to pen the other “but.” Funny how one word can have such an impact on meaning, aint it?

This has also happened elsewhere in this class… for instance, dealing with “Is John the beloved disciple who wrote the Gospel of John?” I know it does not matter really if John did or didn’t pen the Gospel of John, as his name is not attached to the gospel. However it does seem to be a BIG part of church tradition from very early on.

I am pleased that despite my liberal environment, God has keep my mind grounded in truth (instead of leaving it open for my brains to spew out). I pray I will be able to continue in defending the truth when called upon to do so.

<