A LAYMAN SPEAKS,
SOME VIEWS FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PULPIT
J. Philip Landis, BSEE MIT 1948
Prepared for WCTS Meeting November 14, 2001
The problem is clearly stated by two very prominent Catholic scholars of our times.
...Jesus was totally other-directed; he did not make himself the direct object of his proclamation. .... He gives no indication of suffering an identity crisis or of a desperate need to define himself. He seems to have been quite sure of who he was.
Unfortunately, no one else was. As the whole of the New Testament, Josephus, rabbinic writings, and pagan literature attest, friends and foes alike groped toward understanding him by using various categories and titles, but without complete satisfaction. .... [John P. Meler, NEW JEROME BIBLICAL COMMENTARY page 1323a]
One should also take Into account that the tradition supplies scarcely any attempts by Jesus to define his own role. Such reticence may flow from the fact that he did not claim to know exactly what God had In store for him. [Raymond E. Brown, DEATH OF THE MESSIAH page 479]
While it seems that Meler's comments apply mainly to the Synoptic Jesus (John's Jesus seems to proclaim himself at great length), these statements neatly summarize the problem. The Jesus we read about in our gospel sources is enigmatic indeed. There are clearly aspects of divinity indicated in all the sources, but of varying types and degrees of clarity.
The Church Fathers apparently felt obliged to construct a Christology that incorporated all of the biblical "data". In the process they seem not to have been embarrassed by their extrapolations well beyond the data. These are justified by the notion of "improved understanding" which developed long after Jesus' earthly life.
In developing the high Christology of the doctrine of the Trinity, the Gospel of John is the primary source. It contains two of the three textual references which identify Jesus with God (Heb 1:8-9 being the third).
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"
One must wonder where the evangelist obtained his information for the first reference. There is no indication that Jesus, even in this gospel wherein he makes very clear his close affinity with the Father, made any such statement about his pre-existent role. It would seem that John has merely pre-empted the mythical role of Lady Wisdom.
In the case of Thomas' confession, this seems to be a very weak method of conveying such a vital proclamation. Jesus merely lets stand an assertion of Thomas. One would expect "the Word" to have been more clear in presenting this message to the world if it is true. In addition, the evangelist, a few verses later sums up the role of Jesus.
John 20:30-31 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; {31} but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
One would expect that if his message truly is that Jesus is God, here would be the place to include that explicitly in his summary. However, we are presented only "Christ" and "Son of God", both very far short of being "God", titles which do not exceed the Christology of Mark.
One is tempted to think that the Church Fathers, when confronted with a Jesus in all gospels having some aspects of divinity, may have concluded that there was no "middle ground" (his being an angel was quickly rejected) considering the strict monotheism of the Jewish background. On the other hand, absent John's gospel, one must wonder what Christology would have been developed "to fit the data". Remember that aspects of divinity were clearly associated with Enoch and Elijah, and yet their roles were reconciled with monotheism. Likewise Melchizedek of Genesis 14 and the son of man of Daniel 7:13. In addition, Jesus himself ascribed aspects of divinity to his disciples in indicating that they would occupy twelve thrones judging the tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28) and hold the keys to the kingdom (Matt 16:19, John 20:23). Clearly Judaism had room for supernatural entitles in its scriptures and thinking without embarrassment to itself or to the Church Fathers.
Some of the major contributions of Jesus, in this writer's view are:
1. Liberation of his followers from the onerous demands of the Oral Law
2. Teachings on improved application of the Written Law to the great betterment of human relations
3. Revealing to his followers a loving and intimate God with the characteristics of a father, counteracting the increasingly transcendent and distant Jewish view of God
4. Bringing hope to the very humble elements of society and giving them the joyous knowledge of their inclusion in the Kingdom of God
5. Clearly living a life in keeping with his teachings
6. Teaching a concept of forgiveness of sins which seems totally incompatible with Paul's later notions of mankind's hopeless sinful state.
Building on these, and similar attributes of Jesus, it seems that a Christology and doctrine could have been developed which would have permeated Christianity with love, joy, and fellowship with God rather than the guilt-ridden sacramental mystical doctrine which actually arose. Such a "low Christology" version of Christianity would seem to have had the potential to enhance the brotherhood of man far more successfully than the Christianity of Paul. We might then not so often hear it said of Christians, "Jesus left them with such wonderful teachings. It is too bad they never follow them".
If Jesus was truly "the Word (which was God) become flesh", and if the utter necessity of our so believing is essential to salvation, one can scarcely escape the conclusion that he was unbelievably cruel to future mankind that he did not "tell us plainly..." (John 10:24).
On the other hand, if the "high Christology" is an erroneous interpretation, it is a dreadful mistake and a monumental affront to God.