The Fascination Continues: Part 2

The so-called Historical Jesus movement was founded on the belief that we still can find in the Gospels sufficient data to reconstruct the portrait of Jesus as a historical figure, notwithstanding the theological tampering by the early church (as alleged by Enlightenment thinking). The new approach to studying Jesus was seen by its advocates as scientific, and thus in keeping with the mood of the times.

The trend held sway until the twentieth century, when new studies helped undermine this whole movement, showing how this historical Jesus idea was utterly unscientific and subjective. Studies exposed the entire rationalistic enterprise as a miserable failure.

The history of Jesus studies are long, winding, and complicated; and they need not detain us further, except to mention the so-called Jesus Seminar, a contemporary group of radical scholars determined to succeed where other historical quests before them failed. Their goal is to "'rescue Jesus from the spin doctors' who wrote the Gospels"—Roy Hoover, in Kenneth L. Woodward, "The Death of Jesus," Newsweek, April 4, 1994, p. 39.

Few today take the Jesus Seminar people seriously. (After all, how seriously can you take people who argued that instead of being resurrected, Jesus, after His death, was eaten by dogs?) Today, the prevailing Christian position insists that Christianity stands on a firm, historical foundation. Notwithstanding two millennia of criticism and controversy, Jesus remains the undisputed Master of the centuries.

In one of his most penetrating rejoinders to the intellectual sophisticates of his day, Paul zeroed in on the essence of the Christian proclamation: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18, NIV). Why is the message of the Cross so important for us today, as well?

Read also 1 Corinthians 1:18-27. What message is there for us in those verses? What are some of the things we believe that just cannot be explained by the "wisdom of the world" (vs. 20, NIV)? In what ways has "God made foolish the wisdom of the world" (vs. 20, NIV)?

The New Testament does not speculate about Jesus. It simply presents Him as the divine Son of God. Nor does it answer the numerous concerns about Jesus' being and person that would occupy succeeding generations. Yet, in all the discussions and arguments, there was a rock-bottom acceptance of the centrality of Scripture and the basic identity of Jesus Christ.

But the so-called Age of Enlightenment (of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) would change all that. No longer would Scripture constitute the foundation of discourse about Jesus. Instead, new methods and criteria being applied to the study of other ancient documents also would be applied to the Bible. With everything now subject to rational analysis and criticism, supernaturalism, a foundational presupposition of biblical faith, was rejected. The traditional biblical view of a human race steeped in sin and needing Divine rescue was replaced by humanism, an optimistic belief in human capacity and progress.

The change of outlook was so radical and far-reaching that many thought they were witnessing the end of Christianity. Religion was considered obsolete, and reason, once the handmaid of theology, became its acknowledged mistress. The result was that the focus now shifted from the Jesus described in the Gospels, the Jesus of our salvation, to the historical Jesus, supposedly the real Jesus as He actually existed without the theological baggage superimposed by the Gospels and later Christian piety. In other words, this Jesus, whoever He was, surely was not the Savior of the world.

As you reflect on these developments, consider the following: (1) The Gospel writers were very confident in the truth of what they had written (see Luke 1:1-4). What does Luke say about what he is writing? Why can we trust it? (2) One of those eyewitnesses that Luke speaks about was Peter, who himself had to confront doubters and skeptics (see 2 Pet. 1:16-21). Though Peter is speaking here about issues wider than the single one about Jesus' identity, how might we use his approach to secure ourselves against the Enlightenment onslaught we are discussing here? (3) Paul also needed to address the issue of Jesus head-on. How did he argue the case? (See 1 Cor. 1:18-27, 15:3-7.)

Not Elijah or Jeremiah or Some Other Prophet

Read again Matthew 16:14. That people should mistake Jesus for John is one thing. But for Elijah? Or Jeremiah? Or some other Old Testament prophet? Where did such ideas come from?

Elijah was the fearless prophet of Mount Carmel fame, the firebrand who had the temerity to confront Israel's recalcitrant king and demonic wife. He was the one who held forth alone against the combined religious establishment in Ahab's corrupt regime (see 1 Kings 18).

Jeremiah ("the weeping prophet"), coming upon the scene at a time of intense national ferment and crisis, conveyed a message to his compatriots that could not have been more unwelcome to the national mood—and he paid for it, too (Jer. 20:1, 2, 7, 8).

As for the rest of God's faithful prophets in the Old Testament, Jesus in His scathing woes upon the scribes and Pharisees left Israel's treatment of these godly stalwarts for the last, as if to suggest that it was the central point He wished to make: "So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets" (Matt. 23:31, NIV).

What significance do you see in the fact that Jesus' contemporaries identified Him with these particular personalities?

To have been mistaken for any of the characters included in Peter's response in Matthew 16:14 was clearly a high compliment. These were spiritual giants whose sterling character held deep resonance in Jewish society. But however flattering, such comparisons (as we have come to know) fell utterly short of truth. If Jeremiah had said, for instance, that he was the light of the world, history would have considered him demented. And however spectacular the victory on Carmel, had Jesus quailed in the face of threat, as did the ancient hero of Carmel, we now would not be falling at His feet in reverence. The confusion of Jesus with these ancient stalwarts, however gratifying and intriguing, falls completely short of the reality portrayed in the Gospels.

What is the main difference between Jesus and all these other prophets, and why is that difference so important to us? (See John 1:1-5, 17:5; Heb. 1:1-3.)

Not the Baptist (Matt. 16:14)

The question raised by Jesus' own townsfolk (Matt. 13:54, 55) came up repeatedly during His public ministry, and in a variety of ways, as people in the different areas of Palestine encountered Him. Thus, as He went through the region of Caesarea Philippi with His disciples, some six months or so before the final showdown of His life, He felt the need to draw them out on the critical question of the day: "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" (Matt. 16:13, NIV).

Read the disciples' response in Matthew 16:14. What does this say about their familiarity with the theological questions of the day? Why do you think Jesus wanted to bring up this issue at this specific time?

The report on what people were saying about Jesus probably provides insight into how different individuals and groups experienced His ministry in their own setting. How was it possible for some to think that Jesus could be John the Baptist when the two were contemporaries? And what aspects of Jesus' ministry may have resembled that of the Baptist?

For possible answers, consider the following passages: Matt. 3:1-3; 4:12, 13, 17; 14:1, 2; Mark 1:1-5.

Today, of course, we hardly can understand how it was possible to confuse Jesus with John the Baptist. But given the absence of mass communication in the first century and the abundance of secondhand information and rumor, confusion came easy. After all, the ministries of John and Jesus were not without parallels, as the passages above show. But those who actually encountered John should have been left with no uncertainty (Matt. 3:11, 12; Mark 1:6-8).

It is easy to look back at the mistakes of others and wonder how they could have done what they did. What lessons can we learn from watching these mistakes that can help protect us from making the same kinds of mistakes?

SABBATH AFTERNOON

Read for This Week's Study:

Matt. 16:13-16, John 20:26-28, 1 Cor. 1:18-27, 15:3-7.

Memory Text:

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say the Son of Man is?'" (Matthew 16:13, NIV).

From the earliest days of His ministry, there was discussion and debate about Jesus. How interesting that those discussions continue, even today. They began with the people of His own times and from His own town. "'Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?' they asked. 'Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary. . .?'" (Matt. 13:54, 55, NIV).

It is what might be called the scandal of the particular: The Messiah had to come from somewhere, all right, but not from a place so familiar to us, and certainly not from a family that is just like the rest of ours! In one form or another, the same fundamental concerns expressed by these local townspeople concerning His identity have framed the debate about Jesus across the centuries, heightening the mystique around Him.

Who, indeed, was Jesus? Why was He confused with other prominent Jewish characters? What were the challenges to Jesus' integrity and identity in the centuries following the New Testament era? How convinced were the Bible writers of His identity, and why? These are some of the questions that our first week's lesson will examine.