Jesus' Self-Witness as the Messiah by Rodney

JESUSâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; SELF-WITNESS AS THE MESSIAH HISTORY OR FICTION? Seong-Yuen Toh 1

Copyright © 2018 by Seong-Yuen Toh All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher, addressed “Attention: Permissions Coordinator,” at the email below. Seong-Yuen Toh Kelana Jaya, Selangor Malaysia email: rodneytoh@gmail.com

JESUSâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; SELF-WITNESS AS THE MESSIAH HISTORY OR FICTION? Seong-Yuen Toh

Table of contents

Chapter 1 Introduction 1 chapter 2 Jesus and the Samaritan Woman

chapter 3 Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; High Priestly Prayer

chapter 4 The Trial of Jesus

Chapter 5 Conclusion 19

CHAPTER 1 Introduction Christ is the anglicized version of the Greek equivalent Christos. Christos is derived from the Aramaic word messiah. Messiah is in turn derived from the Hebrew word “to anoint with oil.” In the Old Testament (OT), the king was the most important figure who was the anointed man of God. David was considered to be the ideal king. After the death of David and into the exile, Israel anticipated a king who will restore the kingdom to its former glory. Through time this messianic expectation was pushed into the future when the messiah will come at the end of the age to usher in the rule of God over his own people. This is the kingly messiah. During the OT period, the identity of this eschatological figure is not directly related to the son of man figure in Daniel or the suffering servant figure in Isaiah. They were three distinct end-time figures. Then as we reach the early New Testament (NT) period, we discover that Jesus combined the three eschatological figures in the OT into one personality. At the risk of being simplistic, we can roughly say that during the intertestamental period however, these messianic expectations evolved and generally forked into two main categories. First, the Jew were 1

looking forward to a nationalistic figure, a human messiah, from the lineage of David who will deliver Israel from its oppressors. Second, there was an expectation of a divine messiah who will establish the kingdom of God on earth. At the popular level, this messianic hope centres on a political figure, a person who would garner the people around him and topple the Roman oppressors. We now look into the use of the Christ title in the gospels. The question we are asking is whether Jesus directly claimed to be the Christ? In the NT we can find only three instances where Jesus is shown to have explicitly claimed to be the messiah (John 4:26; 17:3; Mark 14:62). Jesus was reluctant to apply the title to himself openly because of the popular idea of the messianic expectation, which carried strong political and military overtones. This however in no way means that Jesus denied he was the messiah. Jesus’ concept of the messianic figure is radically different from that of the popular appeal such that asserting himself openly to be the messiah would be a departure from his central mission, “to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). We shall investigate each of the three instances separately and defend their historicity against sceptics.

Chapter 2 Jesus and the Samaritan Woman The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” 26 Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.” (John 4:25-26 ESV) 25

In very few instances do we find Jesus as explicit and direct as this. The question we seek to answer is whether this passage in the Gospel of John is authentic. Did Jesus actually make this claim? Or did John expand the account to support his predetermined purpose for writing the gospel (John 20:31)? What is the case against its authenticity? The claim is that John was not writing history. This is obvious from the very start of the his Gospel as he uses pregnant theological and philosophical concepts (e.g. the logos) to describe Jesus. His own statement of purpose for writing the gospel tells us that he aimed at presenting Jesus as the Christ (John 20:31). Besides there seem to be marked differences in the chronological order with the synoptic gospels. John’s gospel was written later than the synoptic gospels giving rise to the possibilities for baseless enhancement. 3

This passage (John 4:1- 42) itself can only be found in John’s gospel. We are apparently confronted with some doubt as to whether Jesus really did claimed to be the Christ as explicitly stated. Therefore, is John 4:25-26 a historically trustworthy account? I think there are at least five reasons to support John’s narrative is historical and accurate. 1. First of all we should be clear that just because the event is recorded only in John does not necessarily justify the claim that is not historical. 2. Likewise, just because an account occurred only once does not necessarily mean it is historically inaccurate. In fact, for Jesus (a Jew) to engage a Samaritan in fellowship is unheard of in a Jewish community that ostracized the Samaritan as outcast. It is unlikely that if this event did not actually take place John could have thought it up to support his story about Jesus as the Christ. The criteria of dissimilarity, attributed to New Testament scholar Ernest Kasemann, states that when a incident in the gospels is distinct from Jewish tradition or primitive Christianity, it is evidence of its original form.1 This means that the narrative could not have been an extrapolation of Jewish or early church 1 Kasemann, Ernest. 1965. Essays on New Testament Themes. London. SCM Press.

teachings, then the narrative is authentic. Therefore, based on the criteria of dissimilarity this account should can be categorized as authentic. A Jewish writer like John would probably not invent such story if it did not actually take place. 3. Furthermore, as we have explained earlier, Jesus was able to make the unmistakable directly claim of messiahship precisely because the context did not lent to misconception of the claim. According to Merrill Tenney, “There was a Samaritan tradition that the prophet predicted by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15 would come to teach God’s people all things.” 2 This expectation is in congruent with Jesus’ messiahship claim. There was no risk of Jesus’ messianic claim being politically or militarily misconstrued. 4. No one denies that John’s gospel is a mature reflection on the life of Jesus but we should recognize the important point that if the historical contents were in doubt then its theological contents are undermined for in John both theology and history are closely linked. For example: the incarnation is a theological interpretation of a historical event. Without the event in space and time there will be no theology of the incarnation. The sceptical attitude that history must 2 Tenney, Merrill C. 1995. Expositor’s Bible Commentary: The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 56.

uncover brute facts detached from interpretation is a discredited philosophy of history known as historical positivism.3 According to Wolfhart Pannenberg, brute facts do not exist because historical facts come together with some context of meaning. The interpretation of historical facts occurs together with the events. John’s theological understanding did not come from a foreign source but rather directly from the historical events of Jesus. “It would be a mistake to think that the fact occurs on history and the interpretation comes from somewhere else.”4 5. Finally, comparing with the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) discrepancies in chronology are by no means irreconcilable. F. F. Bruce claims that there is no fundamental discrepancy between the Jesus of the Synoptic gospels and John. John’s gospel is broadly historical but predominantly theological and we have argued that we cannot split the two. Furthermore, I. Howard Marshall adds, “... John does not contradict the other Gospels but interprets the Person who is depicted in them. While the other Evangelists have given us a photograph of Jesus, John has given us a portrait.” 5 3 Nash, Ronald. H. 1984. Christian Faith and Historical Understanding. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 4 Nash, Ronald. H. Ibid., 162 5 Marshall, I. Howard, Millard, A. R., Packer, J. I. and Wiseman, Donald J. (E.) 1996. New Bible Dictionary. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 602.

Both historically faithful portrayals are required to have an adequate understanding of the life of Jesus.

Chapter 3

Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (John 17:1-5 ESV) 1

John 17:1-5 is Jesus’ prayer for himself. In this prayer, John tells us that Jesus addressed God as Father and referred to himself as “your Son”. Did Jesus actually referred to himself in the prayer as Jesus Christ or did John understood Jesus as the messiah and later attached the title Christ to Jesus in the prayer? There are two arguments to suggest that this usage of Christos title in this passage by John is a late addition. 1. Jesus never openly in public or semi-public claimed to be the messiah. This compound name usage by Jesus 8

in semi-public prayer is aberrant. It is not authentic. 2. The development of John’s Christology in terms of Jesus’ messianic status is prominent to this gospel. The compound name is used once already at the end of the prologue (John 1:17) reflecting John’s own understanding. It appears the second time (John 17:3) just before the passion of Jesus. Later in John 20:31, John expressed his purpose for writing the gospel, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ”. Altogether Christos is used 19 times in John. Larry Hurtado6 suggests: “… the comparatively greater frequency of Christos in John and the emphatic way the term functions in the narrative make it clear that Jesus’ messiahship is a major feature of the author’s faith.” It is not surprising therefore that John deemed it appropriate to utilize the title here and attribute it to Jesus in the prayer. Therefore, John add redacted the prayer narrative. However, I think there are sufficient grounds to suggest that these objections are not serious. Following Robert L. Raymond7, there are three points that can

6 Green, Joel B., McKnight, Scot, Marshall, I. Howard. (E.) Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 114. 7 Raymond, Robert L. 1990. Jesus: Diving Messiah, The New Testament Witness. New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 49.

be delineated to maintain this titular usage by Jesus as historical. 1. Jesus frequently spoke of himself in the third person therefore we should not be surprise to find this compound name in this prayer. For example, in Matthew 16:13, Jesus refers to himself in the third person as the Son of Man. In fact, Jesus refers himself as the Son of Man numerous times (e.g., Luke 6:22; 12:8). 2. Although this passage shows the single occurrence of the Christos title as used by Jesus himself, this does not negate the possibility of Jesus being the first person using it. First instance usage does not prove inauthenticity. 3. The symmetry of 17:3 (“the only true God” and “Jesus Christ”) shows the two phrases go together. Given that in the earlier event in John 4: 25-26 which shows explicit identification of Christos, the use of the title here supports the historicity of Jesus’ prayer and also reveal’s John’s understanding of Jesus’ divinity. Knowledge of God and knowledge of Jesus Christ cannot be separate (Carson, 1990, p. 556)8, and this knowledge is “eternal life” (v. 3). Verse 5 tells of Jesus 8 Carson, Donald A. 1990. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

praying to God the Father asking to be returned to the glory Jesus shared with the Father. This clearly indicate the pre-existence and equality of Jesus with God the Father. Given the historicity of the gospel of John as a whole in these two passages, and the arguments for the inevitable coupling of historical events and their inherent interpretation discussed above, the onus of proof is on the sceptics to show evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, it is entirely reasonable to favour the authenticity of Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; self-witness as the messiah in the two passages of John.

Chapter 4 The Trial of Jesus But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? 64 You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. (Mark 14:61-64 ESV c.f. Matthew 26:63-66; Luke 22: 67-71) 61

Jesus was brought before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Supreme Court. He remained silent throughout the session until the high priest asked him directly who he was. Mark and Mathew have almost the same wording for the high priest’s question, “Are you the Christ, the Son of God”. Luke’s account is shorter, “If are you the Christ, tell us”, but there is absolutely no contradiction with Mark or Matthew. It is noteworthy that it was necessary for the high priest to put such a direct question to Jesus as to whether he indeed claimed to be the messiah precisely because Jesus did not publicly and unambiguously proclaimed 12

himself as such during his public ministry due to the distorted popular understanding of the title at that time. If Jesus persistently used the title in public, there should have been sufficient witnesses to testify against him. Since there weren’t any, we can rest a case for Jesus’ messianic secrecy. In Mark’s account, Jesus answered with the expression “I am”, applying the divine name of God to himself, and at the same time affirming to be both the Christ and the Son of the Blessed one. Blessed one is a Jewish circumlocution for God out of reverence for his sacred name. Jesus further used his favourite title the son of man in this context is significant. The son of man saying comprises of a combination of Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13. Daniel 7:13 tells of a supreme ruler over the whole earth whose kingdom is everlasting. Psalm110:1 reflects a sovereign judge with the authority of God. Jesus claimed to be both in one breath. The tearing of high priest’s clothes is a normal reaction to blasphemy. The high priest assumed correctly that Jesus assumed divinity by using the title and concluded incorrectly that her blasphemed without realizing that perhaps who Jesus claimed to be might be true after all. Whether the reaction was due to Jesus’ claim to be the messiah using “I am” as a reply or the son of man title or due his claim to sit at the right hand of the Mighty one, we cannot be sure. The decision was inevitable

for a blasphemy of this magnitude (equality to God) surely deserve death. Nothing less would suffice. The critical question in the trial of Jesus has to do with its historicity. It is suggested that the account of the Sanhedrin trial was an attempt by the early Christians to transfer blame for the death of Jesus to the Jews where in fact it was the Romans who tried and crucified him. There are basically two lines of argument made for it. 1. There appears to be discrepancies between the accounts of the trial in the gospels and the formal court procedures found recorded in Jewish literature. Particularly, the tractate Sanhedrin notes a set of judiciary procedures that are at irreconcilable odd with the gospels’ accounts. Robert H. Stein9 lists five of these most significant ones: • A verdict of condemnation could not be reached on the day as the trial. • No cases dealing with capital punishment were to be heard at night. • A death penalty could not be passed except at a special meeting place in the temple. • A trial could not be held on the eve of the sabbath or the eve of a festival day. 9 Stein, Robert. H. 1996. Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ. IVP Academic, 235.

• An attempt had to be made to find witnesses for the defense These discrepancies caused some to doubt the historicity of the gospel’s accounts. 2. There is the further suggestion that the Sanhedrin had the authority to exercise capital punishment and need not refer to the Roman authorities for permission to do so. If this were the case, the Sanhedrin trial would be enough to execute the death penalty upon Jesus without reference to Pilate. The indisputable fact that the Roman authorities crucified Jesus indicates that there was no Sanhedrin trial in the first place. The trial is a Christian sham created to pin point the Jews for blame of Jesus’ death to justify their antiSemitism, The question of the historicity of the trial is important for us here because if it can be shown that there was no such trial, obviously then we cannot say that Jesus made such messianic claims as recorded in the gospels. But the evidence supporting its historicity is strong. First, to reply to trail procedural discrepancy argument, chronologically, the tractate Sanhedrin was written at a later date (2nd to 3rd century B.C.) to describe the Jewish legal procedure in Jesus’ time whereas the Synoptic gospels were written in the first century

during the lifetime of eyewitnesses. If it is merely a matter of integrity of one source over the other, the Synoptic should carry more weight based on its earlier date alone. Furthermore, we have no evidence that such procedures described in the tractate were in service during Jesus’ time. The direction of scholarly discourses on the issue seems to view the set of procedures as an idealized form of the first century system that was no longer in place. According to Stein, there is also the question raised as to whether a “Sadducean-dominated Sanhedrin during Jesus’ time would try criminal cases according to the Pharisaic rules found in the Talmud”10 And the discrepancies are not to be isolated as against the gospels alone for discrepancies exist against other Jewish sources as well11 (e.g. Josephus and later Jewish literature). In the last analysis, it cannot denied that the possibility even if those procedures were in force during Jesus’ time they were not employed stringently particularly so in this case because there was malice in the court in the first place. Second, on the issue of the rights of the Sanhedrin to pass the death penalty, the evidence suggests otherwise.

10 Stein, Robert. H. Ibid, 235. 11 Blomberg, Craig L. 2009. Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey. Tennessee: B&H Academic, 344.

1. Josephus, the Jewish historian, describes the situation where the Jews have the right to put to death any Gentile (even Roman) who intruded into the inner court of the temple. But we should note that this was a special concession made by the Romans, which expressed their readiness to recognize the rights and customs of the Jew. Precisely because it was a concession for a particular instance linked to the temple of the Jews suggests that the Jews did not have the general right to exercise capital punishment in other instances. At most we can claim this example as one in which delegated authority was granted for a specific purpose only. 2. The stoning of Stephen recorded in Acts 6-7 is often utilized as an example of the Sanhedrin exercising such power. However, it is not established that the stoning of Stephen was due to the Sanhedrin’s authorization. It was rather the lynching mod in moment of fury stoned Stephen to death before the legal process was concluded. 3. Josephus’ account of James martyrdom is another case frequently cited. James was tried and put to death by the high priest Ananus. But this case only demonstrates the opposite. The martyrdom of James was carried out during the interval of time before the new Roman governor took power after the former one

died. Ananus was in fact removed from his high priest position soon after the new governor Albinus arrived for acting beyond the power. Careful reading reveals Josephus stated that the convening the Sanhedrin by Ananus without the consent of the new governor is unlawful. Certainly the Roman government’s zealous monopoly over the right to terminate a person’s life reflects well the unchallenged sovereignty the Roman empire seek to maintained over its subjects. In this argument, it seems that John 18:31 remains the best description of the situation: Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” “But we have no right to execute anyone”, the Jews objected.

Chapter 5 Conclusion We have in Mark 14:61-64 one of the most direct and undeniable self-witness of Jesus to his messiahship. There were no reasons for Jesus to hide his messianic identity any further and a refusal to answer would result in breaking of the legal oath applied by the high priest. The end was near where the divine Christ is about to lay down his life as a ransom for many. This is the first time Jesus openly revealed himself as the long awaited messiah, the one who would usher in the kingdom of God, though not the kind of messiah nor the kind of kingdom the Jews were expecting. Jesus knew he was about to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28). John knew and wrote about it, “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). And Mark knew Jesus was here “to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). The question confront each of us is the question Jesus asked Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you

believe this?” (John 11:25-26) Our reply should be the same as Martha’s, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world” (John 11:27).

Soli Deo gloria

This book answers the questions, “Are there any historical documents where Jesus directly claimed himself to be the messiah?” The focus is specifically on significant passages in the Bible where the title Christos was used directly by Jesus. Particular attention is paid to the historicity of the events in the accounts.

Seong-Yuen Toh (PhD) writes and teaches on Business Ethics & CSR and Leadership. He is an autodidact who reads philosophy and sociology. He and his family worship at City Discipleship Presbyterian Church.