Mark 8:27-9:1 – Andrew Lloyd Weber, a Journalist and Three Guys Called Jesus.
Introduction
The odd sermon title is a smoke screen for a question I’d like to ask: “Who is Jesus?” It is the same question that the disciples asked when Jesus’ calmed the waters. Whether you’re an atheist or a believer “Who is Jesus” is a question you must ask yourself. An atheist must know who is this Jesus that I don’t believe in. A believer of course wants to know more about this Jesus who died for their sins. Now there is a problem that imposes itself upon us when we ask the question, “Who is Jesus?”. Because there were a lot of Jews called ‘Jesus’ in 1st century Palestine. The Jewish historian Josephus records two other Jesus’ for us during the period of the Jewish revolt against Rome in AD 70.
Jesus Son of Shaphat (J.W. 3.9.7)
The Roman General Titus was concerned about the city of Sennabris as he had heard that rebel elements were attempting to force them to support the rebellion. So he sent a delegation led by Valerian in order to make peace with the city and ensure their faithfulness to Rome. Valerian and five of his colleagues dismounted their steeds outside the town. They didn’t want to enter in on horse back as it could be perceived as an act of aggression. As they entered in on foot they came across Jesus son of Shephat; a well know leader of rebellious gang who attempted to fight them. Valerian was on strict orders not to fight but to make peace so and his men fled away from Jesus on foot.
Jesus led the Roman horses into the city rejoicing and bragging that he had single handedly defeated some Roman soldiers.
Some perceive Jesus of Nazareth to be like Jesus son of Shaphat. They see him as a zealot. There are some similarities.
1. Both were Galileans
2. Both lead a small group
3. Both were perceived as a threat to peace.
But Jesus of Nazareth was not a zealot or military Messiah. He called people to repent of their program to bring in the Kingdom of God by force. Whereas the Zealots thought that the Kingdom would come with swords, sieges and soldiers; Jesus taught that it would come like a mustard seed, wheat or a lamp stand. It was Jesus’ outright refusal to embrace a nationalistic agenda that led to his rejection by the Jewish people. It’s why they choose Barrabas (an insurrectionist) to be released over Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus, son of Ananus (J.W. 6.5.3)
4 years prior to the revolt against Rome and during the feast of Pentecost a man called Jesus, yelled out in the Temple: “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!” He went about the city crying this out day and night, in all the streets. The local leaders were undignified by him and had him flogged, but still he continued. Finally he was taken before the Roman governor. There Jesus offered no plea, made no case and answered no requestion. When he was flogged, after every last, he cried, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem.” The governor dismissed him as a madman and let him go. Jesus spent the next four years wandering around Jerusalem saying, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem.” During the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans Jesus son of Ananus kept up his ministry by wandering outside the walls of Jerusalem, walking around the city crying, “Woe, woe to the city again and to the people.” And then at one time he yelled, “Woe, woe to myself also.” And as he said that a huge stone from a Roman catapult landed on him and killed him.
Some perceive Jesus of Nazareth to be like Jesus son of Ananus:
1. Both prophesied of judgement and the destruction of Jerusalem.
2. Both were rejected by the Jewish leadership and tried by a Roman governor.
3. Both were silent at their trial and flogged.
4. Both were destroyed by Roman weapons.
But Jesus was just not a prophet of doom and gloom who spoke out against the political establishment and was crushed by under the weight of its fury. Jesus spoke of his future vindication – that his death would be triumph. Jesus also had a message of hope: blessed are poor, the meek, the mourners. “Whoever hears my words and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, he has crossed over from death to life” – Jn 5.21.
If Jesus of Nazareth wasn’t like these other Jesus’, what was he like? The British Journalist A.N. Wilson has attempted to study Jesus using his investigative abilities as a reporter. He concludes that:
1. Jesus was born in Nazareth not Bethlehem
2. Jesus was not literally the Son of God
3. Jesus was killed for blaspheming the Jewish Law
4. And he did not rise from the dead.
But Wilson was not the first to try study Jesus in this way. The last 200 hundred years have witnessed what has been called, "The Quest for the Historical Jesus”. There have been three such Quests.
The first quest was started by H.S. Reimarus who believed Jesus was a Jewish revolutionary and his disciples made up stories about him after his death. There were several other ‘lives’ of Jesus written each one whackier than the last. The attempt was to:
1. Find a Jesus more acceptable to the modern mind. (eg. no miracles)
2. Find a religious hero worthy of admiration
3. And to refute orthodoxy
The Quest ended in 1901 when Albert Schweitzer, the liberal theologian and missionary doctor, pointed out that when the Questers sought to give a true portrait of Jesus, all they were doing was painting a picture of themselves.
The second Quest for the Historical Jesus started in the 1950’s with the purpose of finding a continuity between Jesus and beliefs of the Church. This quest has sadly produced the Jesus Seminar. A group of American Scholars who get together once a year to vote on the authenticity of the sayings of Jesus. Black means he never said it, Grey means he probably never said it; Pink means he may have said something like it; red means there’s a good possibility that he said it. In the entire New Testament they only list 8 sayings as being said by Jesus.
A third Quest has emerged since the 1970’s which is more optimistic in sketching a picture of Jesus that is similar if not identical to orthodoxy. They emphasis that i) Jesus’ central message was on the Kingdom of God; and ii) That Jesus was Jewish. They are more open to the reliability of the Bible. Often the Jesus they come up with is one who is more politically aware but also more politically correct.
When I think of all the Quests for the Historical Jesus I think of the Andrew Lloyd Webber Musical “Jesus Christ Superstar” in particular the song by Judas called “Heaven on their Minds”.
"I remember when this whole thing began, no talk of God then, we called you a man. And believe me, my admiration for you hasn’t died."
Some scholars claim that they can see clearly through the corridors of history. They can see through our naive dogma. They can see without fog of faith and the Jesus they see isn’t God, he didn’t rise from the dead, but he’s still a jolly good fellow.
Should we therefore abandon the question: “Who is Jesus?” and just concentrate on what he means to us and our daily experience of him? I don’t think so. It becomes dangerous, for if the Jesus who is experienced, preached and worshipped by us is not the same Jesus as he was in Palestine, then we are only fooling ourselves and ultimately those to whom we minister. We cannot engage in a Peter Pan theology by sprinkling a bit of pixie dust and believing anything we like about Jesus as long it works for us. For who’s experience or belief in Jesus is to be considered authoritative and normative? Is it to be the Jesus of Catholic Ireland? The Jesus of the German Christians in the 1930’s? The Jesus of the Mormons? Of David Koresh or of Jim Jones? If our belief in Jesus is divorced from the historical person of Jesus we are liable to be led astray and to create a Jesus who is a reflection of ourselves rather than the fullness of God. Thus the question “Who is Jesus” is one we must ask. Lucky for us, the answer is given in Scripture.
Mk 8.27-9.1
8:27-29: The Confession
The question “Who is Jesus” is not a new one. It was at Caesarea Philippi – where Judaism meets Paganism that Jesus asks the question to the disciples. They reply with the possible answers. John the Baptist redivvus, since both had a message of the kingdom. Perhaps Elijah as Jesus performed miracles just like him, or maybe even the prophet as Jesus spoke with divine authority. But all these views were somehow inadequate to describe Jesus. He fits no exact category. He transcends all attempts to classify him. Peter is asked who he thinks Jesus is. Imagine pause as the group looks to him and everyone suspects what he’ll say. The answer is revealed by Spirit when he says ‘Messiah’. Imagine what disciples felt like. A sense of joy, jubilation and triumph. This one is the chosen one. They had backed the right horse and all they had to do now was to ride it in to Jerusalem for a big pay day.
8: 30-31: The Clarification
But Jesus radically redefines what Messiahship means. Jesus reorientates its meaning around his death and resurrection in view of God’s plan. He concentrates on its nature & necessity. Regarding the nature of Jesus’ messiahship, it includes suffering, rejection, death. This ain’t gonna end with no Army marching into Jerusalem. No driving out the Romans. It also has a divine necessity. The word “Must” carries a strong sense of urgency as the Scriptures must be fulfilled. It then becomes apparent that ‘the clearer the mission the darker the vision’. That’s why Jesus’ Messiahship must remain a secret.
8: 32-33: The Confrontation
Peter takes it upon himself to correct the views of his naive mentor. And no surprise Jesus characterizes the response as Satanic. Peter moves from being a vehicle of divine inspiration to a instrument of Satanic temptation. The temptation is for Jesus to inaugurate the Kingdom of God without the cross. The disciples don’t understand the man, because they don’t understand the mission. Why is Jesus so enigmatic, mysterious, undefinable, illusive? They don’t understand the man, because they don’t understand the mission. We discover who Jesus is in his vocation to die as the reconciler of the world to God.
8: 34-9.1: The Cross and its Commission
Jesus calls in the crowd, he will make a public example of Peter. For to reject the cross, to reject the mission is to reject Jesus himself. You cannot have one without the other.
You can’t have the Jesus w. the halo without the Jesus on the crucifix. The phrase “Take up his own cross” has a missiological context. The modern equivalent is: Take up your electric chair and walk the green mile with Jesus or unless you come with me and stand trial before the Taliban you cannot be my disciple. This requires a radical renunciation of self for the sake of Christ and his Kingdom. It means a willingness to follow Christ in His Mission. Thus we see that discipleship means mission. Cross carrying means a willingness to suffer humiliation, shame and mockery as we follow Christ in mission.
We are called to not only celebrate his death, but to participate in his mission. But with the promise of danger, threat of martyrdom and suffering, there comes the promise of vindication. Those who remain loyal in the long death march to the cross will get to see the kingdom of God coming in power.
So who is Jesus?
Whereas liberal scholars think of him as a Zealot or a deluded religious figure, we have a different picture. For we see Jesus in light of his mission, and there at the cross we find him, or more likely, that’s where he finds us. I submit that the question of the identity of Jesus revolves around who YOU are. You must know yourself before you can know him. So
To the artist He is the One Altogether Lovely.
To the architect He is the Chief Cornerstone.
To the astronomer He is the Sun of Righteousness.
To the baker He is the Living Bread.
To the banker He is the Hidden Treasure.
To the biologist He is the Life.
To the carpenter He is the Sure Foundation.
To the doctor He is the Great Physician.
To the educator He is the Great Teacher.
To the farmer He is the Sower and Lord of the Harvest.
To the florist He is the Lily of the Valley.
To the geologist He is the Rock of Ages.
To the horticulturist He is the True Vine.
To the judge He is the Righteous One.
To the juror He is the True Witness.
To the jeweller He is the Pearl of Great Price.
To the editor He is the Good Tidings of Great Joy.
To the oculist He is the Light of the Eyes.
To the philosopher He is Wisdom.
To the Printer He is the True Type.
To the servant He is the Good Master.
To the student He is the Incarnate Truth.
To the toiler He is the Giver of Rest.
To the Sinner He is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.
To the Christian, He is the Son of the Living God, the Savior, the Redeemer and Lord!
Sources
Flavius Josephus, The Jewish Wars
R.H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross.
Albert Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus
Paul Copan (ed.), Will the Real Jesus Please Stand up
