The Historical Jesus: Who Do You Say that I am?

Jesus and his disciples were on the road to Caesarea Philippi when he asked them, ‘Who do people say I am?’ his disciples replied, ‘some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and still others, one of the prophets.’ Jesus then asked, ‘Who do you say that I am?’ And Peter boldly claimed, ‘You are the Christ.’[1] The story quickly turned sour for what was a moment of recognition for Peter turns into a reproach as Jesus calls him Satan for wanting to convince him to follow his own idea of what a messiah’s fate should be. These two questions Jesus asked his disciples are still echoing throughout history today. In many ways, we can answer these questions like the disciples did or like Peter. On the one hand, there are many voices still today that proclaim who Jesus is just as the disciples offered many opinions; on the other hand, there is Peter’s faith assertion. However, we can declare in faith like Peter that Jesus is Lord and in the next breath want to change Jesus into our own idea of who God should be. The search for the historical Jesus places the question, ‘Who do you say that I am?’ at the center of the search.

John Meier sums up his life work on the value of studying the historical Jesus with the following claims. He asserts that the search for the Jesus of history does attempt to prove faith (for that is impossible.) He points to the value there is in understanding something by taking into account the processes of history. In addition, he asserts that the Jesus of history takes seriously the scandal of the Word made flesh and it helps us to avoid any tendency to evaporate Jesus into a ‘timeless gnostic or a mythic symbol.’ The search for the historical Jesus also prevents us from adopting ideologies that seem to capture his essence—for he is in nature eschatological, an end in itself nor a means to anything else. Finally, Meier claims that all these measures serve as a catalyst for renewing theological thought and Church life.[2] In the effort to see the significance in partaking of the discovery of the Jesus of history let us further four of Meier’s  arguments: mainly that Jesus was shaped by his historical context and the study of the Jesus of history allows us to better know not only who Jesus was historically but also help us better understand his message, that our Christological statements of faith are grounded in the doctrine of the incarnation and by encountering the Jesus of history we are able to fully embrace this mystery, that by searching for historical Jesus we avoid turning Jesus into an ideology, and that the process of searching for historical Jesus serves as a catalyst or life-giving gift to the Church. Jesus’ question, ‘Who do you say that I am?’ finds deeper meanings as we meet Jesus in history.

At the fundamental level, the search for the historical Jesus allows us to simply understand who Jesus was taking fully into consideration his Palestinian-Jewish-first-century context. Often times, this means stripping Jesus of a Christian understanding and inserting him into the Jewish environment where he lived. In The Misunderstood Jew, Amy-Jill Levine lays out the risk of interpreting Jesus’ words and deeds from a Christian perspective. Levine explains there are two risks in doing so, first in that the scriptures may create anti-sematic attitudes, and second in that a neglect of Jesus’ Jewishness fails to take the doctrine of the incarnation seriously.[3] In the effort to answer the question, Who do you say that I am? We may resemble Peter and reflect our own wishes or biases of who we want Jesus to be. Encountering the historical Jesus allows us to reflect on this answer. If we fail to take into account the Jewish context of Jesus, we distort who Jesus is and sustains incorrect notions that are simply not historical. Levine claims these notions of Jesus are still proclaimed from the pulpit today. Beliefs that Jesus was against the law or at least how it was understood at the time, that he was against the Temple as an institution and not simply against its leadership, that he was against the people of Israel and favored Gentiles, that he was a rebel who unlike every other Jew, practiced social justice, that he was the only one to speak to women, to teach non-violent responses to oppression or to care for the poor and marginalized.[4] Often, Christians are too quick to remove Jesus from his place and time in history in order to openly criticize Judaism so that Jesus may stand apart from his object of criticism. By not taking into account Jesus’ historical context we not only create erroneous views but also support them and transmit them.

In the pursuit of the Jesus of history, we are invited to deepen our knowledge on the doctrine of the incarnation. The mystery of the incarnation substantiates all efforts to know the historical Jesus. As Christians, we believe that Jesus was fully human. Many are quick to disregard this doctrine of faith in the fear that it might take away Jesus’ divinity. The value on knowing about Jesus’ human side is evident—it provides a physical method of coming to know Jesus. If historians were to answer the question, ‘Who do you say I am?’ they can answer this question with a lot of degree of certainty. Most scholars would agree that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew who was born in Galilea, he gathered disciples, taught and preached and was great in deeds and actions, the center of his message was the Kingdom of God, and he was put to death because he was considered a threat to Jewish authorities. Without making extraordinary claims, historians could assert on these principles on the life of Jesus. A person of faith however, finds value in stepping into first century Palestine to be able to rejoice in knowing about a loved one. The mystery of the incarnation allows us to see, feel, hear, touch and taste what Jesus himself experienced. The value for a person who seeks to answer, ‘Who do you say that I am?’ in faith, is to get closer to the human Jesus as an act of love and in response to see God-in-all-things that are human.

The process of knowing the Jesus of history not only transforms us personally but it also transforms us as a Church—communally. Meier warns us against tendencies to make of Jesus a timeless gnostic or a mythic symbol or to turn him into an ideology that fits our world-view. This is still a reality today. For many Jesus is reduced to a leftist-communist, a mythological figure, an indifferent deity or a self-soothing idea, not only ignoring Jesus’ personhood but making him an idol in an effort to support a cause. In the same way that we may encounter our own personal biases when we look at the Jesus of the gospels, we can also run into conventional ideologies supported by zealots, dogmatists or enthusiasts that seek to sum Jesus into a single thought. The community of believers, the Church, halts these groups and their tendencies in the process of the search of the Jesus of history. In the beginning of Christianity, these ideologies were much more evident perhaps, emphasizing the divinity and neglecting the humanity of Jesus for instance, or visa-versa. However, they still surface today in different shapes and forms. Meier teaches us that by searching the historical Jesus we encounter his personhood to be eschatological in essence, ‘that is, always pointing farther toward the ultimate meaning of who he is and what it means to be human’. [5]Nothing can sum up who Jesus is or what he stands for—for he is an end-in-it-self and the kingdom is here-but-not-fully-here.

All of these processes are a catalyst and a self-giving gift from and to the Church. It is the faithful who harvest the seeds and they too reap its fruits. The search for the historical Jesus provides individual and communal transformation—it enriches our response to the question ‘Who do you say that I am?’ It encourages the faithful to challenge our initial understandings of who Jesus is according to the gospels in order to destroy the idols we make, it invites us to openly embrace the mystery of the incarnation fully, that we may see Christ in-all-things-human, it provides a powerful tool to resist current ideologies that seek to capsule Jesus into an -ism, and it gives us life by constantly renewing our love and commitment to the journey of knowing and being transformed by Jesus. In our efforts to answer the question, ‘Who do you say that I am? It is not enough that we may declare Jesus is Lord, for we might commit blasphemy in our next breath. Instead, the question demands a serious look at our declarations of faith, it motivates us to study their origin, it encourages us to challenge our initial understanding of scripture and in the process it transforms us and refines our notion of the Jesus we know in faith.