Who do men say I am?

by Pat Collins CM

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." (Matthew 16:13-19)

This incident occurred at a turning point in the life of Jesus when he decided to end his ministry in his native Galilee in order to head South to Jerusalem, and his eventual passion and death. Caesarea Philippi was an entirely Gentile city founded by Philip the Tetrarch. It contained many pagan temples devoted to such divinities Pan, Caesar, and Baal.

It was at this significant time and place that Jesus asked the disciples, Who do people say the Son of Man is? They responded by mentioning a number of opinions that were current at the time. Some said that Jesus was John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets who had returned. It goes without saying that, while there was a grain of truth in these different responses, they were all incorrect.

Down the centuries, Jesus could have asked the same question time and time again and there would have been many heretical answers. In the contemporary world many heretical answers are still being given in response to the same question, who do men say that the Son of Man is? I will refer to four influential but mistaken ones.

The naturalist world view rejects the supernatural. It sees God as a code word for human potential, and the devil as a code word for the darkness of the human unconscious. When naturalists are asked who Jesus was, they answer that he was a great man, a remarkable teacher of ethics and spiritual values such as the Golden Rule in Mt 7:12. However, atheists and agnostics reject any claim that Jesus performed healings or miracles. Needless to say they do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Albert Einstein, the best known scientist of the 20th century espoused a naturalist point of view. Speaking about Jesus he said: As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. Although it is clear that Einstein revered Jesus the man, he did not believe he was divine.

Some of the great world religions have interesting things to say about Jesus. For example Islam accepts that the Old Testament was inspired. It believes that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and was one of the greatest of Gods prophets, who performed healings and miracles. That said, Islam teaches that Jesus was raised into heaven at the end of his life, but it neither accepts that he was divine or that he died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. It also believes that although the New Testament was inspired when it was written, its interpretation was subject to corruption from the beginning. The revelation made to Mohamed, the last and greatest of the prophets, superseded the teachings of the New Testament.

Some Hindus also reverence Jesus as a person who manifested the presence of God to an unusual degree. They see Jesus as either an Avatar, i.e. a bodily manifestation of the Supreme Being, or a Guru, i.e. a wise teacher. Mohandas Gandhi, the well known Hindu leader, stated: What then does Jesus mean to me? To me, He was one of the greatest teachers humanity has ever had. To his believers he was Gods only begotten son. Is all the grandeur of His teaching and of his doctrine to be forbidden to me? I cannot believe so. To me it implies a spiritual birth. My interpretation, in other words, is that in Jesus own life is the key to his nearness to God; that He expressed, as no other could, the spirit and will of God. While this is a great testament to Jesus, it is clear that Gandhi did not believe in Jesus as the unique Son of God.

In recent years so-called New Age spirituality has had considerable influence in the Western world. As you may know, Catholic bishops asked the Vatican to publish a document on the subject. A few years ago it published Jesus Christ Bearer of the Waters of Life: A Reflection on the New Age. The document offers a well-informed, balanced and sympathetic description of the world-view informing the New Age movement. For example, speaking of its beliefs, it says succinctly:

1. The world, including the human race, constitutes an expression of a higher, more comprehensive divine nature.

2. Hidden within each human being is a higher divine self, which is a manifestation of the higher, more comprehensive divine nature.

3. This higher nature can be awakened and can become the centre of the individual's everyday life.

A few points are worth noting here. Firstly, New Age spirituality is pantheistic. It maintains that everything that exists, including ourselves is God. In other words, there is no transcendent God separate from the world. Secondly, New Age spirituality does not believe in a creator. Thirdly, New Age spirituality does not see God as a Person, but rather as an energy. New Age spirituality says that human beings can get in touch with the divine energy that is in all things by looking into the deepest recesses of human consciousness. It uses all kinds of psychological techniques in order to do this, such as Transcendental Meditation, Jungian methods of introspection, and the use of mantras. As a result, New Age spirituality believes that it becomes aware of God within.

Three years ago I had to teach a course in a theological college in Dublin, that was intended to describe and critique New Age spirituality. Without introducing what I was intending to do, I decided to start by outlining some of the main New Age teachings, including what it says about Christ. When I asked for feedback nearly everyone and there were a number of Charismatics among them said that I had just given expression to their beliefs. They were shocked and a little indignant when I pointed out that although New Age spirituality often uses Christian language its beliefs are pagan rather than Christian.

Only recently, I got into theological conversation with a relative. When I heard what he had to say about Jesus I could see that it owed a lot to New Age thinking. He felt that Jesus was merely a highly gifted person who had developed his divine potential, one we all share. He saw him as a spiritual pioneer like Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Zoroaster, Mohammed, and the like. He could not agree that Jesus was uniquely divine by nature, or the sole mediator between God and man. Needless to say, he also rejected the claim of the Catholic Church to be the one true Church founded by Christ. In a relativistic way, he felt that all the great religions were equally valid ways to God, there is one great river of religious experience, and many wells in the forms of that experience.

Many liberal scripture scholars offer their own mistaken response to the question, Who do men say that I am? Perhaps the most influential of them all in the 20th century was, that of Rudolf Bultmann. He was well aware of the scientific and rationalistic approach of modern culture. He felt that the bible should be stripped of its supernatural and mythical elements if it was to make sense to the people of our time. In Mythology and the New Testament he wrote: Man's knowledge and mastery of the world have advanced to such an extent through science and technology that it is no longer possible for anyone seriously to hold the New Testament view of the world."

Bultmann maintained that the Gospels tell us what the early Church believed about Christ, but that we know very little about the historical Jesus. Bultmann denied that Jesus was divine. He also rejected the doctrine of the virgin birth, the existence of good and bad angels, and accounts of Jesus healings, miracles and exorcisms. They were a mythological way of understanding purely natural events. Bultmann maintained that if Jesus healed people, those accounts could be understood as psychosomatic cures; if he exorcised people, it was merely a primitive form of psychiatry.

Bultmann and his followers have had a big influence on theological colleges. Many of the lecturers are influenced by his de-supernaturalized interpretation of Jesus and his message. For example, I can remember a particular Sunday when the gospel reading was about the multiplication of the loaves and fishes. The homilist explained in the college chapel that the story should not be interpreted in a literal way. He explained that many of the people in the crowd had food but they were not prepared to share with those who had none. But when Jesus blessed the five loaves and two fish, people were deeply touched and shared what they had. This kind of liberal interpretation, which is the result of an anti-supernatural bias, has no basis in the text.

It seems to me that, because they espouse a supernatural perspective, the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements are the most effective in challenging the liberal Christian bias. For instance, a well-known Pentecostal leader, David Du Plessis has recounted in his book Simple and Profound how he was once asked by a disciple of Rudolf Bultmann, What is your approach to the Bible? To demythologize it, he replied. Surprised by this answer, the questioner asked, How do you do this? It is very simple, Du Plessis responded, we Pentecostals take the things in the Bible that you say are myths, and we make them happen today so that they are demythologized!

The question Jesus posed to the disciples about who men say that he is has produced many well-meaning but mistaken answers. We need to recognize what is true and false. For example, although Napoleon Bonaparte was raised as a Catholic he was an agnostic. When asked who he thought Jesus was, he responded:

Everything in Christ astonishes me. His spirit overawes me, and his will confounds me. Between him, and whoever else in the world, there is no possible term of comparison..I search in vain in history to find the similar to Jesus Christ, or anything which can approach the gospel. Neither history, nor humanity, nor the ages, nor nature, offer anything with which I am able to compare it or to explain it. Here everything is extraordinary. The more I consider the gospel the more I am assured that there is nothing there which is not beyond the march of events, and above the human mind.

It is a beautiful answer, but is it orthodox? I dont think it is. Notice how he says nothing about the divinity of Jesus or the fact that by faith in his death and resurrection we are saved from our sins. In the next talk I will briefly outline what believing Christians say when they are asked, who do you say I am?

This is the first of a number of talks given by Fr Pat Collins at a conference on the 'New Evangelisation' in Birmingham, England, 11-15 August, 2008.