Who Do Men Say That I Am?

In the 16th chapter of Matthew, the apostle records, "Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, 'Who do people say that the Son of Man is?'

"And they said, 'Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets'" (vv. 13-14).

The question Jesus asked, as well as His follow-up (see "Who Do You Say That I Am?", page 15 of this issue), are as relevant today as when first asked. Never has there been more time, money, scholarship and speculation devoted to the discovery of just who Jesus was than there is at present. The answers, while less rooted in Biblical ideas than those of Jesus' day, are as varied as ever. Jesus is presented as a Jewish mystic, a Jewish "stand-up comedian," and everything in between. There are endless volumes of books and articles explaining who, in the minds of the authors, Jesus was and why He could not have been who He said He was (or, as we shall see, who others claimed He said He was).

It should be realized from the outset that most of these scholars and authors have certain presuppositions at the heart of their discussions. These presuppositions heavily influence and flavor the way they read both scripture and history. ". . . the control-beliefs of a scholar determine what kind of Jesus he or she is looking for by defining what kind of Jesus is and is not possible. For (John) Crossan and (Burton) Mack (two leading members of the Jesus Seminar_ed.), this entails that the notion that Jesus was the Son of God . . . is ruled out. . . ."¹

Thus, when the Jesus Seminar's founder, Robert Funk, goes looking for a Jesus who is "a Jewish Socrates" we should not be surprised to see that he finds exactly that. When Marcus Borg, another of the Seminar's members, studies the mystical literature of Carlos Castenada, the psychology of William James and the philosophy of Buddha, we should not be surprised to see that he discovers " . . . a Jesus who was more concerned about this life than the afterlife, who taught subversive wisdom and who was intent on revitalizing Israel. He was also . . . something of a Jewish mystic."²

Whenever some "new" view of Jesus is presented, care should be taken to understand the direction, intent and presuppositions of the author. Some views can be easily dismissed simply by applying "a little heat" to the preconceived notions of the author. It may be that ulterior motives have fueled these ideas, as witnessed by Mr. Funk's comment that it is time to ". . . reinvent Christianity."³

We cannot forget that those in the days of Jesus also had difficulties dealing with the question Jesus asked in Matthew 16. Therefore, we should understand that we still have people questioning the deity and Lordship of Jesus. In truth, the argument of C.S. Lewis that Jesus was either Lord (who He said He was), Liar (not who He said He was) or Lunatic (incapable of understanding He was not who He said He was) is as valid today as when he wrote it. These attempts to place Jesus in some "in-between"" place (great teacher, prophet, or sage) fail at every turn. The quest, any quest, for the historical Jesus must be rooted in His words, especially those He spoke concerning Himself.

In addition, we should not be offended by true attempts to discover the Jesus of history, however misguided they may be. In our efforts to defend the gospel, we may find new evidence to strengthen our own faith, and any time that is possible, we are greatly benefitted in the struggle. There is also the hope of teaching others to know the Jesus we know, the risen Savior of all mankind.

Jesus asked the question of His disciples in order to further question them concerning what they believed. It is incumbent upon us to ask the question of the world today in order to ask the same question of our own belief. And it is imperative, whatever we answer, that we are able to stand and defend that belief with more than just rhetoric.