Study 10 Jesus - Who was he?
During the history of the Christian Church, there has been great diversity of thought about Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Greek for the Hebrew name Joshua, which means 'Yahweh is salvation'. Christ comes from the Greek Christos, the Greek form of the Hebrew word Messiah which means 'the Lord’s Anointed'.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica states -
The term Jesus Christ designates not only the historical person Jesus who lived in Palestine during the reigns of the Roman Governors Augustus and Tiberius, but also one who has become the object of Christian faith and worship for almost 20 centuries. These two designations may be distinguished but they cannot be separated, for almost everything known about the historical person comes from the reports of those who were his followers. It is therefore impossible to construct a life of Jesus in the conventional sense of biography. Rather, he can be described chiefly on the basis of the way he was remembered by the believing community that took his name.
Turning firstly to the Jesus part, we look at the historical issues surrounding this person. Two early Roman historians, Tacitus and Suctonius, make passing references to a person called Jesus, who was at the centre of a ‘pernicious sect’ called ‘Christians’. A Jewish historian, Josephus, refers to James, who was stoned to death,- as being the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.
In the Talmud, a compendium of Jewish law and commentary, a few 1st. and 2nd. Century Rabbis make passing derogatory comments about Jesus. There can be no doubt that a person named Jesus called Christ, lived in Palestine at the approximate dates suggested in the New Testament.
There have been various times in the Church’s history when the historical accuracy of the details of the life and ministry of Jesus have been questioned very seriously. There have been times when many Christian scholars have said that there is practically nothing about Jesus that we can be sure is historically accurate.
Today, amongst the thousands of Biblical scholars, there is a group of over 200, of whom some would call very radical theologians, The Jesus Seminar. It has been reported that this group has gone so far as to say that they are not really sure that Jesus prayed very much, but they could be quite confident that he probably said ‘Our Father’. Robert Funk, one of the leaders of this group of scholars, has edited a book called ‘The Five Gospels’. At the beginning of the book’s preface, on page ix, it is stated, ‘The Five Gospels’ has many authors.
It is the ollective report of gospel scholars working closely together for six years on a common question, 'What did Jesus really say?’
When dealing with this question they list all the sayings of Jesus in the four gospels as well as the gospel of Thomas, dividing them off into four different categories. In ‘The Five Gospels’ these are printed in different colours.
Red denotes - Jesus undoubtedly said this or something very like it.
Pink denotes - Jesus probably said something like this.
Grey denotes - Jesus did not say this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.
Black denotes - Jesus did not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or different tradition.
Going through all of John’s gospel, there is one saying that is coloured Pink and two sayings coloured Grey. All the rest is coloured Black.
What this means is that the collective opinion of the Jesus Seminar is: -
John’s gospel cannot be taken as historically close to Jesus. Just about everything that is put into the mouth of Jesus represents preaching by others, about Jesus, at a later time.
So the Jesus Seminar scholars might say that the sayinigs of Jesus in John's gospel represent the thinking and beliefs, the faith statements of followers of Jesus that have gained acceptance during the 60 or so years after Jesus’ crucifixion. . It is suggested that John’s Gospel was written about 90 CE or even later, 60 to 70 years after the crucifixion.
That is rather hard to take seriously when I have been brought up not to question the authenticity of the written word, certainly not to that extent. Other Biblical scholars would ridicule the Jesus Seminar conclusions, some suggesting that that group has different agendas to that of the main stream of scholarship. Even if we may not agree with them, I believe their conclusions can not be ignored.
One of the books written early last century which addresses the question of the historical correctness of the gospel stories about Jesus, is ‘The Quest for the Historical Jesus’ written by Albert Schweitzer. At the time of its publication, it was regarded as having put an end to the debate about the possibility of re‑creating an historically accurate picture of Jesus. Schweitzer states that there are just not enough available objective facts about Jesus to create such a picture.
It is the case, that all the detailed teachings and stories written about Jesus in the Bible, are written by believers. What was written, was written to convince others. John’s gospel spells this out quite openly. That gospel in John 20:30-31 states -
There are indeed many other signs that Jesus performed in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. Those here written have been recorded in order that you may hold the faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that through this faith you may possess life by his name.
It is not that such material set out to mislead or to distort the truth, but it was not written as historical fact. It was written to convince, to challenge, to convert.
It is the case, however, that many scholars at present, do believe that a great deal of the gospel material is historically reliable. There are scholars who would vehemently hold that there is plenty of his torical evidence surrounding Jesus. They state that, with so much in common between so many different Biblical authors, there would had to have been a tremendous amount of collusion for such a story to have been concocted. There must be a substantial historical basis. Some state that the teachings and activities of Jesus, as recorded in the gospels, fit very well into the religious thinking and culture of his time.
A contemporary Biblical scholar, N. Tom Wright , in his book ‘Jesus and the victory of God’, undertakes a very thorough and extensive analysis of the things Jesus said, and equally importantly, of the things he did. He argues strongly that many of the sayings and actions of Jesus, which others claim to be faith statements of the gospel writers about Jesus, and not directly connected with Jesus, can in fact be taken as historically genuine and factually correct. He points out that these can all be consistent with the thoughts, ideas, aims and actions of a first century Jew, immersed in the Scriptures and traditions of Israel, however incredible and odd they may appear to a 21st Century person.
The historical accuracy of statements connected with Jesus, his teaching, his ministry and what happened to him, is only one of the issues concerning the subject of ‘Jesus, Who is he?’
Another major issue that has confronted the Church from its beginning, and continues to be an issue on which there is tremendous variety of opinion, is the question of the divinity/humanity of Jesus. Was Jesus human? Was he totally and fully human? Was he only human? Was he human, but with godly characteristics? Was Jesus God? Was he totally and fully God? Was he only God? Was he God, but with human characteristics?
Incarnate, a definition from the Macquarie Dictionary -
embodiment in flesh; invested with a bodily, especially a human, form.
Incarnation is a claim made for Jesus by orthodox Christians. Orthodox belief could be stated as: -
God has come in the flesh in Jesus, God was incarnate.
The word trinity is not found in the Bible. However, the idea of God being a Trinity has its basis in New Testament thinking and phrases. There are many passages that link Jesus with God the Father.
Similarly there are many links between Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The triune formula is used in Matthew 28:19 -
Baptise men everywhere in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The doctrine of the Trinity contains the idea of God in three persons, or three persons in the one Godhead, three in one and one in three, - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Jesus is spoken of as the second person of this trinity - God the Son. Church goers are accustomed to the benediction ‘May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit..........’
What does the Bible have to say about Jesus? From the gospels, What can we suggest Jesus may have thought about himself? It seems from the text that Jesus accepts such affirmations of faith from his disciples as, from Peter in Mark 8:29 -
You are the Messiah.
and in John 11:27 from Martha -
I now believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God who was to come into the world.
It is debated whether or not Jesus did in fact accept Peter’s declaration in Mark 8:29. In Mark, Jesus’ response is to tell his disciples to keep quiet about it. He talks about the Son of Man and then seriously rebukes Peter, maybe because of what Peter had said. Some scholars suggest that in Matthew 16:16-20, the author wrongly tries to turn this negative response in Mark, into a more enthusiastic response by Jesus.
From a study of the sayings of Jesus, it is possible to suggest tentatively that Jesus may have thought of himself as the Suffering Servant/Messiah, or the Suffering Servant/Son of Man. These reflected some of the Jewish expectations of the coming one, the expected one, who would deliver the Jews from their enemies and who would judge the whole world with righteousness. Jesus may have interpreted these concepts of Messiah and Son of Man in terms of the Suffering Servant of God who would, through his personal suffering, bring about God’s kingdom of peace and love.
It is very difficult from the gospels to answer the question, 'What did Jesus think about himself?' All reputable scholars agree that there is a very complicated mixture in the gospels of what Jesus actually said, as distinct from what the gospel writers said about him. There is often disagreement about which is which.
According to the Gospel of John, the author/s did identify Jesus with God in the 'I am' sayings, as we have seen in a previous discussion, but these don’t prevent differences of opinion. There is strong agreement amongst many scholars that these sayings may not have been historically uttered by Jesus, but are statements of faith by the gospel writer, who put them into the mouth of Jesus.
We have numerous statements of faith by the early Christian writers in the New Testament. We can look at but a few of these. The Epistle to the Philippians 2:7 states of Jesus -
Bearing human likeness, revealed in human shape,...
That does not clearly say, that Jesus was a human. It says he was in ‘human likeness’, ‘human shape’.
In Hebrews 1:3, it is stated -
the Son who is the effulgence of God’s splendour and the stamp of God’s very being.....
Effulgence means radiance.
This does not say clearly that Jesus was God. It says that he had ‘the stamp of God’s very being.’
In Mark 1:1 the gospel begins with a comment about Jesus Christ, but it is not a great deal of help; -
Here begins the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
For these quotations, like all others from the Bible, different translations give different wordings and thus slightly different meanings.
In John 1:1 the writer commences with a prologue which has had many different translations some of which are, -
The Word dwelt with God and what God was, the Word was. or
He was with God, and he was the same as God. or
The Word was with God and the Word was God.
This verse, together with verse 14, has been quoted as strong evidence that the New Testament says that Jesus is God. Some translations do say that the ‘Word was God’, and the text of the gospel goes on in 1:14 -
So the Word became flesh; he came to dwell among us,....’
There is also the confession of Thomas in John 20:28 -
“My Lord and my God.”
It would appear that there is no rejection of this because the reply is in the next verse John 20:29 -
Jesus said, “Because you have seen you have found faith.”
There are many other New Testament references that could be discussed. There is not enough room in these studies for them all, but hopefully the above have served as an appetiser. It could be affirmed that the New Testament teaches that Jesus was God. It could also be argued, that the New Testament is not at all clear about this question at all.
We now look at some of the creedal statements of the early church about the question. What do they say about Jesus being or not being God?
Creeds were usually brought into being to set down an orthodox statement of faith, to counteract heresy and correct those in error.
One of the earliest creeds was probably the Apostle’s Creed. Some historians date this creed as early as 180 CE while others suggest it was, in the process of re-writing and refinement, about the 7th or even the 9th Century CE.
The Apostle’s Creed states that -
Jesus Christ is His only Son, our Lord, and then he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried.
The Nicene Creed of 325 CE. goes further and states that -
Jesus Christ is, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one being with the Father ‑ on the divine side,
and then on the human side, he -
became incarnate from the Virgin Mary and was made man... he suffered death and was buried.
The 4th. Ecumenical Council in 451 CE. issued the Chalcedonian Decree in an effort to finalise orthodoxy. ‘The fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon taught that Jesus was true God and true man.’ With many words this decree tried to hold both the complete human and divine natures of Jesus Christ together.
It states -
Wherefore, following our holy Fathers, we all with one voice confess our Lord Jesus Christ one and the same son, the same perfect in Godhead, the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the same consisting of a reasonable soul and body, of one substance with the Father as touching the Godhead, the same and one substance with us as touching the manhood, like us in all things apart from sin, begotten of the Father before all ages as touching the Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born from the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos (or God bearer), as touching our manhood, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way abolished because of the union, but rather the characteristic property of each nature being preserved, and concurring into one person and one subsistence, not as if Christ were parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only‑begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as the Prophets from the beginning spoke concerning him, and our Lord Jesus Christ instructed us, and the Creed of the Fathers was handed down to us.
I’m glad we are not required or requested to say this mouthful in worship!
It was thought that this could keep heresy in check. It probably did for some hundreds of years but many in the Christian church today are not as fearful of judgements that the church might make regarding faith.
Even though heresy trials get quite a bit of publicity today, accusations of heresy do not carry with them the fears that were felt years ago.
For hundreds of years in the history of the Church, the great debate has raged on, as to how the Church should understand and teach an orthodox faith regarding the person of Jesus Christ. Theologians and church leaders argued endlessly about Jesus Christ’s humanity and divinity, as they still do.
There are still those who wish to emphasise Jesus’ humanity to the extent that he was a sinful man yet a great example of human behaviour. Some deny his divinity altogether. Others take a different view and want to emphasise his divinity, suggesting that Jesus was all‑knowing and all-powerful, that he was God. They deny his humanity nearly completely. Some will not countenance any human limitations for Jesus and thus concentrate on his divinity at the expense of his humanity. Some will not countenance any divine attributes for Jesus and thus concentrate on his humanity at the expense of his divinity.
There are others who would wish to say that if you want to know about God, look at Jesus. They may not go as far as saying that Jesus was God, nor would they wish to say that he was only an ordinary, yet marvellous human being. There are still others who would say that the human person Jesus, together with all the stories and faith statements about him, forge an image through which we can see what God is like and by which we can see what human beings can be. Is this a God-man? The limitation that language imposes is our problem. We find it difficult to explain in simple terms what we mean.
Some contemporary church teachers speak in totally different ways when speaking of the human and divine aspects of Jesus Christ. They no longer speak, of natures or substances, as in the Chalcedonion Decree. It is somewhat inadequate to quote theologians who tackle this question because they need more than a short quote to explain what they mean.
However, one of the many who has spoken in these different categories is John Shelley Spong. In his book ‘Why Christianity must change or die’, on page 132 he says; -
So recalling our earlier attempt to speak of God in non‑personal categories as Ground of all Being, the Source of Life and the Source of Love, we now speak of Jesus in these categories. Yes, God is real, intensely real, for me, but God is not a being ‑ external, supernatural or theistic ‑ to whom I seek access. God is rather discovered in the very depths of my life, in the capacity to live, in the ability to love, and in the courage to be. Jesus, the alive one, the loving one, the one who had the courage to be himself under every set of circumstances, was and is the life where God has been seen and can still be seen in human form........ It was the being of Jesus, the full humanity of Jesus, that ultimately revealed the meaning of God.
Spong is not talking in terms of natures or substances of which beings are made. He challenges us to think beyond terms of an essence of some thing or entity.
He is speaking about what makes us really human, not what humans are made of.
He is speaking of what makes God God, and not what God is made of.
Another modern scholar, Marcus Borg , in his book ‘Meeting Jesus again for the first time’, when asking the question ‘What was the adult Jesus like?, gives this comment on page 28 -
Answering this question involves us in the task of historical reconstruction.......The process is very much like a particular stage of detective work: after the evidence has been gathered, analysed and weighed, it has to be integrated into an overall hypothesis. Doing this with the traditions about Jesus produces a ‘sketch’.... I prefer this term to picture or portrait, (because) both these suggest too much fullness of detail. A ‘sketch’ on the other hand suggests broad stokes - a clear outline without much precision of detail.
In his book on pages 30 & 31, Borg explains this further when he talks about his sketch of Jesus; -
My sketch of Jesus consists of four broad strokes.
Borg’s post-Easter Jesus is the one who calls forth our faith. Borg writes at the end of his book on page 137; -
Believing in Jesus does not mean believing doctrines about him. Rather it means to give one’s heart, one’s self at the deepest level, to the post-Easter Jesus who is the living Lord, the side of God turned toward us, the face of God , the Lord who is also the Spirit.
When Albert Nolan, the author of ‘Jesus before Christianity’ speaks of his effort to untangle the mixture of historical fact and faith statement in the gospels, he is really trying to identify what for Borg, is the pre-Easter Jesus.
Nolan argues that there are four significant issues in Jesus’ ministry; -
These have to do with power, prestige, wealth and solidarity. Jesus redefines power in terms of servant-hood; prestige, although incredibly important to the Jew, is basically shallow and meaningless; the accumulation of wealth is both dangerous and self-destructive and solidarity only has real value when it is experienced and fostered in and with the whole human race, no exclusions at all.
Nolan emphasises that compassion was the only motivating factor in the whole of Jesus’ teaching and activity. Everything Jesus said or did was the result of his deep compassion for people as people. Here again, the emphasis is nearly exclusively on the human side of who Jesus was.
Without raising the question of Jesus’ divinity, Nolan deals with the essentials of the teachings of an idealistic Rabbi, who believed fervently that God would act in a decisive way to bring in His kingdom.
Questions and quotations for discussion
Does it really matter what we believe about Jesus?
If you don’t believe that Jesus was God in human flesh you can’t be a Christian.
How can ordinary people be expected to separate what is historical and what is not? Is it important to be sure what in fact Jesus actually said and what his followers said about him?
If we can’t be sure what Jesus said, can we be sure about what he did and what happened to him?
If the Christian life is not about believing the right things, what is it?
It’s not the messenger that is important, it’s the message. The teachings, the profound guidance and wisdom is what is important, not that these actually came from the mouth of Jesus. It is the meaning of the crucifixion and the resurrection that is important, not that it happened to Jesus.
I don’t understand the phrases ‘Jesus of history’ and ‘Christ of faith’. Weren’t they the same person?
Print Booklet (Download and print double-side, flip on short edge) The text of the bookblets has been edited somewhat and because there are many pictures in the booklets, all reference to them has been omitted.