It was time for the Passover Feast, so Jesus gathered his disciples as they headed for Jerusalem. Jesus knew that this trip to Jerusalem would be his last. Large nos. of Jews would flock to Jerusalem on their annual pilgrimage. It was a most volatile time as religious and political sentiments over the coming messiah were high.

As Jesus rode on a borrowed donkey down to the city gate from the Mt. of Olives, he might have been aware of a prophecy in Zechariah 9:9, "Rejoice, O Daughter of Zion, see, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey".

The crowd who had gathered with palm fronds (a symbol of victory)..greeted Jesus.."Hosanna to the Son of David. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD (Matt 21:9); "Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the LORD (Luke 19:38). The atmosphere was highly charged with messianic overtones. The crowd had a strong need for a king, the rightful ruler who will restore Jerusalem. They were expecting a messiah who will liberate them from Roman occupation.

Jesus' reputation as a holy man, teacher, healer and miracle-worker from Galilee would have preceded him. He had been proclaiming the coming of God's Kingdom with its era of justice and peace.. This might have stirred up the crowd's expectations that Jesus could be the messiah foretold by the ancient prophets.

What did Jesus a 1st C Galilean Jew, understand by these terms, `Son of David', `king' which the crowd attributed to him? What was Jesus own understanding of his identity, role and mission?

The Jesus of the Gospels represents the early Christian's collective experiences and faith responses to an actual historical person, a Galilean Jew known as Jesus of Nazareth. To such titles as `Son of Man', `Son of God', `Son of David', `Messiah', the writers of the Gospels bring in their own distinct emphasis and concerns to give us diverse images of Jesus. eg.
When the High Priest questioned Jesus, "Are you the Christ (messiah)"? We get the following different responses:
Mark's Jesus, "I am" (Mark 14:61)
Matt's Jesus, "You have said it yourself" (Matt 26:64)
Luke's Jesus, "If I tell you, you will not believe me" (Luke 22:67)
The ambivalence of the Gospel writers adds to the mystery surrounding who Jesus really is. Given the multiple interpretations and witnesses, it is difficult to arrive at a complete picture of who Jesus really is.

In addition, there's the problem of distinguishing between Jesus' own claims from the claims made on his behalf by the early Christian community.
"It is impossible to disentangle in the N.T accounts what the
later church believed Jesus to be, or believed Jesus thought himself to be, from what the historical Jesus actually thought himself to be" - Shaye Cohen, Prof of Judaic, Religious Studies

I wish I could say that I emptied my mind of prejudices and preconceptions, and approached Jesus as if for the first time.. The truth is we all relate to the Jesus of the Gospels through tinted lenses. To comply with the theme of this sermon series, "The First Time…..", I've engaged in an exclusive interview (my first) with Jesus of Nazareth just before he left for Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover Feast.
[JN]: Jesus of Nazareth [I]: Interviewer

[I]: Jesus, your disciples claim you to be Son of God, Messiah, Son of Man, Savior and yet others claim you to be one of the prophets..Elijah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist.. But who do you claim yourself to be? Who do you say you are?

[JN]: Well, who do you say I am?

[I]: C'mon Jesus, don't answer a question with another question. Let's try again. Of all the titles ascribed to you, which is the one which gives a most complete picture of you? (Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah, Savior, Lord.. to name a few)

[JN]: I am all of these and much more.

[I]: Are you the Son of God?

[JN]: It is as the voice from heaven proclaims me to be.

[I]: And whose voice would that be?

[JN]: That you have to ask God.

[I]: Are you God's Messiah?

[JN]: Which messiah are you referring to? A political messiah? a priestly messiah? an anointed prophet? or a heavenly son of man?

[I]: I was hoping you will tell me.

[JN]: I am none of the above-mentioned. I prefer the designation of the `suffering son of man'. I have to go now. My destiny awaits me in Jerusalem

[I]: Well thanks for your time Jesus. I guess I'll never know who you really are, or how I am supposed to relate with you.

[JN]: My child, what is it you really want? Who do you expect me to be?
[End of Interview]

The kind of image of Jesus we're looking for is shaped by our central beliefs, our needs and expectations. Depending on our background, situational context, preferences. . our images of Jesus can be as disparate, complex, contradictory. They may range from the ultra-conservative, liberal, radical, post-modernist, emerging, feminist, to transgender or queer.. We all have our favorite image of Jesus. Some may have a preference for a more politically, socially engaged Jesus when issues like justice and equity are our main concerns. Others may gravitate towards a more inclusive image of Jesus, who transcends all boundaries and distinctions.

At one time it was fashionable to engage in the quest for the `real' Jesus.. but this has been displaced by the quest for the `relevant' Jesus. Scholars have been able to find in Jesus almost anything they want to find. Jesus has been routinely reconstructed, rediscovered, repackaged to suit our contemporary needs.

We expect Jesus to fit in to our agenda, to fulfill our needs and desires, to support our prejudices, to reflect our concerns… What we end up with is `a congenial Jesus' as Robert Funk puts it . A Jesus shaped in our image and likeness. As a result, we have a wide range of portraits of Jesus. None comes close to the historical Jesus of Nazareth who lived more than 2 thousand years ago.

Just to mention a few… there is John Dominic Crossan's Jesus as `social revolutionary' , E.P Sanders' Jesus as `the prophet of the end times', N.T.Wright's Jesus as `son of Israel's God', Geza Vermes' Jesus as `charismatic holy man'.. There's also Pope Benedict's book, "Jesus of Nazareth" which he described as "his personal search for the face of the Lord". Not forgetting, the Jesus Seminar group of scholars, whose Jesus is liberated from scriptural formulations, stripped of its interpretive overlay – and allowed to speak for himself. So we have a Jesus liberated from the Gospels.. The problem is how would one recognize Jesus or know him apart from the Gospel writers' representation of who Jesus is.

I've decided today to share a bit of my own quest for Jesus. They are strictly my impressions and not to be taken as reflective of the church's views and stand... How does the Jesus of the Gospels help me to relate with the Christ of my faith? (Are they one and the same?) Who is Jesus in relation to me?

In any pursuit of a Jesus relevant to our situation and times, we need the twin disciplines of theology and historical research. We form our impressions about Jesus' character and personality through the Gospel writers' theological portraits of Jesus. This is based on the real, collective experiences of the early Christians. We also rely on historical data or research which acts as an essential check and balance to ward off theological excesses.

Now if we choose a strictly historical approach, then our image of Jesus remains static, flat and one-dimensional. .
"The humanity of Jesus of Nazareth is not simply that of an individual in the past but lives and suffers and transmits grace now in the lives of those who have committed themselves to him."
- Rowan Williams, Jan 2009, speech given at Cambridge Uni.
Conversely if we adopt a strictly theological approach, we may end up with an image of Jesus who supports our prejudices and agendas.

On Jan 24th, the Vatican announced it would revoke the excommunication of 4 bishops from SSPX (Society of St.Pius X, an ultraconservative order). They were earlier excommunicated in 1988, as they were made bishops through unrecognized channels. One of those reinstated was Bishop Richard Williamson, an avowed Holocaust denier. Bishop Williamson claimed he did not believe the Nazis had used gas chambers or killed 6 million Jews as a deliberate policy. Although he conceded that 200 to 300 thousand European Jews had perished in Nazi concentration camps. The following excerpt is taken from an interview conducted by Spiegel International, 9th Feb.
[S]: Spiegel International [W]: Bishop Richard Williamson

[S]: The Vatican is demanding that you retract your denial of the Holocaust

[W]: Historical evidence is at issue, not emotions. If I find this evidence, I will correct myself.

[S]: How can an educated Catholic deny the Holocaust?

[W]: I had read various writings at the time (in 1980's) which seemed plausible to me. One such is the Leuchter report which claimed that Nazi gas chambers were technically impractical
(The interviewer from Spiegel pointed that this theory had been scientifically refuted)

[S]: You could travel to Auschwitz yourself

[W]: No, I will not travel to Auschwitz. I've ordered a book titled, "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers".. I will study it (and review the historical evidence)

[S]: Your position on Judaism is consistently anti-semitic

[W]: St.Paul put it this way, the Jews were beloved for the sake of Our Father, but our enemies for the sake of the gospel.
[End of Interview]

This verse is taken from Romans 11:28, "From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers". Here Paul was attempting to account for the mystery of the Jews' non-acceptance of Jesus as messiah. However he was convinced that this partial hardening of Israel was temporary, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come.

In no way does this verse support anti-Jew sentiments. How did Bishop Williamson justify his anti-semitic views? Certainly not through historical evidence, but through a warped theology backed by erroneous theories which have long been debunked.

When theology take precedence over historical research, the former can be made to support anything. From a portrait of an anti-semitic Jesus, to the denial of the holocaust and even a portrait of a homophobic Jesus.

Yes we all can have our favorite image of Jesus, but if our theology does not stand in the light of historical evidence, then its best to re-examine our presuppositions. It is essential to remember our historical roots. The Christian faith is jewish in origin, and our founder was born a jew, lived as a jew and died a jew. When we are mindful of our history, this will give us a sense of humility and help us keep our faith in perspective. To recap: In any attempt to understand the identity of Jesus, we need the twin disciplines of theology and historical research.

Now I'd like to read a few verses from Matthew chpt.16, from which I'll pick up some key terms for us to reflect on.

As Jesus and his disciples arrived at Caesara Philippi, shortly before he began his fateful journey to Jerusalem, he asked his disciples what others were saying about him..
vs.13: `Who do people say the Son of Man is?'
vs.14: (The disciples) said, `Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets'
vs.15: (Jesus) said to them, `But who do you say I am?'
vs.16: Simon Peter answered, `You are the Christ, the Son of the living God'

Son of Man, Son of God, Messiah.. these are the key terms which may help us to understand the identity and role, the purpose and destiny of Jesus of Nazareth

SON OF MAN

What did Jesus mean by the word `Son of Man' which he used as a self-designation?

The title `Son of Man' appears 82 times in the NT. It is commonly linked with Daniel 7:13-14 (`one like a son of man' or "one like a human being')

The `Son of Man' also has a reference to a glorified figure having power and authority, seated at God's right hand returning in clouds of glory (Mark 13:26, 14:62)

Jesus as the `Son of Man' could mean the representative of God and humankind, who is given the divine authority to engage in a specific task. He understood his role as the `Son of Man' who will suffer, die and be vindicated.. as part of God's plans for bringing about a new era, the promised Kingdom of God. (Mark 8:31)

Jesus also believed that as the `Son of Man' he was given the authority to forgive sins. (see Mark 2:9-11, where Jesus healed a paralyzed man and forgave his sins.. `My son your sins are forgiven'). It was Jesus' claim to forgive sins which angered the priestly authorities who accused him of blasphemy.

SON OF GOD

How did Jesus perceive himself as God's beloved son? What was his role and mission as the `Son of God'?

The word `Son' is a metaphor for a special relationship between God and certain individuals or group of people. eg. in the OT, Israel was referred to as God's Son. Or, the title `son of God' has been associated with a king anointed by God. There's a special relationship which the king had with God, akin to being God's child (see Psalm 2)

In the baptism of Jesus, the Synoptic Gospels testified to this special relationship between Jesus and God. Jesus would have been struck by the voice he heard from heaven affirming him as `my beloved son' (Mark 1:11, Matt 3:17). At some point of his life, Jesus would have reflected deeply on his own identity and purpose in life. He might have pondered on such questions.. Who am I? Why am I here? What is God's will for me?

These might have been questions which Jesus brought with him to the desert wilderness where he remained for 40 days. It would have been a time of intense spiritual struggle, soul-searching. . even as he came to grips with his unique identity and calling as God's beloved son.

In Jesus' transfiguration experience, (Mark 9:1-8, Matt 17:1-8) Jesus' identity as `the beloved son' was disclosed to 3 of his closest disciples (Peter, James and John).. (Mark 9:7, Matt 17:5). This event was significant in bringing together Moses the Law giver, Elijah the prophet and Jesus. (Tradition has it that Elijah will return to the world and announce the imminent arrival of the messiah). The presence of both Moses and Elijah confirmed Jesus' destiny as the messiah, who will suffer, die and be raised in 3 days. Here we see Jesus' acceptance of his identity (as Son of God) enabled him to discover his purpose and fulfill his destiny (as the Messiah)

Jesus encouraged his disciples to relate to God as `Abba' (Father) when he taught them how to pray (Matt 6:9, Luke 11:2) His use of the term `Abba' (Father) while praying, indicated mutuality, familiarity, deep and close relationship with God.

Jesus' intense love for God is seen in the close alignment of the human will with the divine will. Jesus desired nothing more than to do the will of the Father (John 4:34). Nothing Jesus did was apart from (or independent of) the Father (John 5:19)

As the Son, Jesus reveals God in an intimate manner.. "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son" (Matt 11:27).

How is Jesus God's beloved Son for others? What was his role and mission?

Jesus knew he was blessed with special abilities.. to heal, prophesy, cast out spirits and even raise the dead. But Jesus also knew that these gifts were not his to possess but to be used for God's kingdom purposes. Jesus accepted his role as the messiah not out of compulsion or a sense of duty as the Son, but out of Love for the Father, for his people and his land. In Jesus' life as we see the evidence of God's presence and power breaking into the lives of the many who were healed, restored and transformed.

MESSIAH

The Jewish concept of the `Messiah' (Mashiach in Hebrew) is one who is `anointed' or having received power and authority from God to perform some special task. In the OT. the term `anointed one' was applied to kings or priests to designate their royal or religious role. There were different types of messiah, which included a priestly messiah, an anointed prophet, a heavenly son of man. (some of which are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls).

In Jesus' time the prevalent concept of a messiah was that of a militant and triumphant kingly figure modeled after David. The messiah would deliver Israel from foreign rule and oppression, and usher in the new reign of God.

How did the others including Jesus' disciples perceive him as the Christ (messiah)?

Jesus did not fit into the profile of a political messiah. Majority of his fellow-jews were not convinced that Jesus had the makings of a messiah. Jesus was pretty ordinary by standards, a Galilean Jew and a carpenter's son. He was not associated with any rebel movement and did not appear to have political ambitions. Even in his hometown Nazareth, Jesus did not leave deep impressions among his townsfolk. He was never accepted as a prophet, healer, preacher, miracle-worker, let alone a messiah in Nazareth. "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" was Nathanael's response to Philip. (John 1:46)

As Jesus was preparing his disciples for his coming Passion in Jerusalem.. "(he) began to teach that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again" (Mark 8:31, Matt 16:21, Luke 9:21) The disciples reacted with shock and disbelief. Peter proceeded to correct Jesus' wrong perceptions of his messianic role. Mark and Matthew recorded that Peter was rebuked by Jesus who said, "…you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men" (Mark 8:33, Matt 16:23).
Peter objected to the idea of a messiah who would be humiliated, defeated and put to death. The concept of a suffering messiah did not appeal to their situation and needs.

How relevant is a messiah who appears to be weak, helpless, vulnerable, powerless?
The disciples too were expecting a messiah who would liberate Israel from the oppressive Roman regime; they were longing for a savior to rescue them from their misery and restore the kingdom of Israel back to its glory days.

Even John the Baptist, cousin of Jesus (Luke 1:36) was baffled over Jesus' messianic role (Matt 11:2-5). John the Baptist had certain expectations of Jesus. He had hoped for some visible signs and evidence of the new kingdom which Jesus as a messiah was expected to bring. As John the Baptist was rotting in prison about to lose his head, he dispatched 2 of his followers to verify with Jesus whether he was the messiah. "Are you the one who is to come, or are we to expect some other?" (Matt 11:3) Jesus did not give a straightforward Yes or No. Instead he would only point to what he was doing, quoting Isaiah.. The blind, the lame, the deaf, the lepers were healed, the dead were raised, the good news preached to the poor (Matt 11:5) What more evidence should John the Baptist hope for?

Jesus avoided the title `messiah' because of its political overtones. He did not want to be mistaken as a political messiah. For this reason, Jesus instructed his disciples to maintain strict silence over his messianic identity. But where Jesus used this title, it was always in the context of `one who will suffer, die and be raised in 3 days'.

Where did Jesus get the idea of a dying and resurrected messiah? Was the concept of a `suffering messiah' prevalent in early Judaism in Jesus' time?

A NY Times article dated 6th July 2008, reported on the discovery of an ancient stone tablet with Hebrew inscription near the site of the Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to the 1st C.BC This Dead Sea stone tablet carried the name of a `Simon' who would die and rise again in 3 day. This caused some scholars to speculate on a possible tradition of a dying and rising messiah figure existing in early jewish literature.

A professor at the Hebrew University who had been translating the script contend that the Dead Sea stone tablet,
"..should shake our basic view of Christianity. Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus… what happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story"
- Prof. Knohl, (Dept of Biblical Studies, Hebew Uni, Jerusalem)

What this piece of evidence would mean is that the dying and rising messiah was not a novel idea nor unique to the Christian tradition, since its source could be predated before the birth of Christ. Perhaps Jesus would have been familiar with this tradition as well as the prophecies in Isaiah 53, Daniel 9, Psalm 22, which mentioned a messiah who would die and be resurrected. Jesus would have appropriated this messianic role for himself. His mission was to proclaim the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. His destiny would involve the shedding of his blood as a means of bringing redemption to Israel and to the Gentiles.

KINGDOM OF GOD

The phrase `kingdom of God' occurs 122 times in the NT. 90 of these texts report words of Jesus. It formed the core of Jesus' teachings.

What is this kingdom of God which Jesus dedicated his life to proclaiming and which he called the `Good News'?
When Jesus was interrogated by Pilate as to the nature of this Kingdom of God, Jesus replied that he did not intend an earthly kingdom. "My kingdom is not of this world.. (but) is from another place." (John 18:36). It is a kingdom not achieved through violent means.

Jesus' vision of the kingdom of God encompassed both the present and the future states. It is `here and now', a process that has already begun as evidenced in Jesus' ministry; (Matt 12:28, "….has already come upon you"; Luke 17:21, "….in the midst of you.") At the same time, it is a future state yet to be consummated. (Mark 1:15, "….the kingdom of God is near; Matt 6:10, "..your kingdom come,your will be done")

The kingdom of God is to some extent the evidence of God's presence and power seen in the life and ministry of Jesus. Jesus realized that somehow through his words and actions, lives were transformed, hope restored, miraculous healing occurred, spirits were cast out, the dead were raised.

There were those like the Temple authorities (which included temple priests, Sadducees, Scribes, Elders) who regarded Jesus as a threat. Jesus' preaching of an alternate kingdom based on God's rule and power appeared politically subversive in the context of Roman occupation. The Temple authorities were worried as to how Jesus intended to set up a theocratic govt. if not through violent means. They did not want any trouble with the Roman authorities who might decide to clamp down on temple activities, curtail the freedom and privileges of the temple priests. Majority of Jesus' fellow-Jews remained unconvinced by his message of the coming Kingdom of God. As Marcus Borg puts it, there was no "imminent divine intervention in which the objective state of affairs would change so dramatically that everybody would have said, `Yes the Kingdom of God (or the Messianic Age) has arrived" - Marcus Borg, in Profiles of Jesus, ed Roy W Hoover.

For me, I'm drawn to Jesus because of the `transparency' in his life and teachings, in his manner of living and dying. He practices what he preaches. He not only proclaims the way to this kingdom life, but he embodies this kingdom life.

Jesus' message is `authentic' because he internalizes this message. The bearer of Good News (messenger) and the Good News (message) are one and the same. Jesus shows us that it is possible to live by the presence and power of God's reign in our lives.

The Good News of the kingdom of God speaks of `radical equality' across social, economic, political, religious, ethnic and gender divides. This can be disturbing to the political and religious elite of Jesus' days. They include those who are intent on maintaining distinctions and boundaries, protecting their vested interests.

The Good News speaks of `radical inclusion'. Jesus demonstrated a `radical inclusivity' which went beyond the conventional notion of hospitality. There was an openness and honesty about Jesus' relationships with others. He was totally accepting of others' differences. Jesus' fellow-jews were either offended or embarrassed by Jesus' behavior as he mixed with tax collectors, prostitutes, outcasts, Samaritans.. Jesus was sensitive to the needs of women whom he treated with respect and equality. In spite of his jewish upbringing and inhibitions, Jesus never rejected any person with needs, even if they were non-jews. He showed mercy and compassion to the Canaanite woman who pleaded with Jesus to heal her demon-possessed daughter (Matt 15:23-28); Nor did Jesus reject the Roman centurion who sought his healing for one of his loyal servants (Matt 8:5-13).

The God of Israel is the God of all nations, an `inclusive God'. Jesus echoed the words of Isaiah with reference to the temple of Jerusalem, "… it is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations" (Mark 11:17, Isaiah 56:7). The `inclusive nature of God's Kingdom' is seen, when Jesus likened it to a banquet, an open table fellowship where all are invited… Be they jews or gentiles, male or female, rich or poor, slaves or free, the outcasts, the minorities, the marginal groups (Luke 14:16-23).

Jesus lived by the kingdom ethics of God's `radical love'; a love which is all-embracing and unconditional. He invites us to do the same. The reign of God has already begun in the lives of men and women, who live by the kingdom ethics of radical love, radical inclusion and radical equality.

But kingdom living is risky and does have its costs. In Jesus' case, living by the ethics of the kingdom led him to be rejected, misunderstood, misinterpreted, ridiculed, judged, condemned and crucified. Such were the costs of kingdom living which Jesus willingly accepted.

I've just shared with some thoughts and impressions of who Jesus is. Our images of Jesus will always be dynamic, evolving as we change in our perceptions, needs and expectations. The identity of Jesus will continue to elude and baffle us. I find it helpful to ask, how does my particular image of Jesus help or hinder my response to God's ways in the world. Each encounter with the Jesus of the Gospels will bring new challenges to grow, explore, to risk, to love.. If we regard Jesus' presence as real and life-transforming now, then our questions pertaining to Jesus' identity, his role and mission…will take place on a different plane.

"If Jesus is alive.. then he is not simply a figure of the past, but a person in the present; not merely a memory that we can analyze and manipulate, but an agent who can confront and instruct us. What we learn about him must therefore include what we continue to learn from him."
- Luke Timothy Johnson, "Living Jesus"

To you, Jesus says, "Who do you say I am?"