Who Do You Say Jesus Was?

Jesus asked in Matthew 16:13-20, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” (“Son of Man” was one of the ways he referred to himself.) Then he asked his followers who they thought he was.

I have a similar question for any reader here who is not a follower of Jesus Christ. It’s not quite the same question, though; it’s not “who do you think Jesus was?” I expect many of you would say that he was a legend or something of that sort, and that we have no reliable information on who he was. My question instead is this: given the account we have of Jesus’ life in the New Testament, who is he presented to be in that context and what was his central message?

Jesus followed up his first question that day by asking his followers who they thought he was. I will ask followers of Christ a similar follow-up question in a day or two, and I’m requesting that you hold off on answering this until then. First we’ll allow others to express their views.

You may also like...

29 Responses

  1. Geoff Arnold says:

    What a curious request. You say “given the account we have of Jesus’ life in the New Testament, who is he presented to be in that context and what was his central message?”. But why should I (as an unbeliever) be interested in such questions? If I dispute the historicity of Jesus, or the reliability of the accounts to which you refer, why would I want to discuss “who he is presented to be” or any “central message”? And I would note that the request is phrased in unfortunately question-begging language: it presumes that there is some coherent “who” and some clear “message”.

    Asking a non-believer to engage in your private language game, without any reference to historicity, is a bit like inviting an historian to engage in a discussion of King Arthur based solely on the material presented by Geoffrey of Monmouth. “Who is Arthur presented to be in that context, and what was his central message?”

    (Of course, we have much stronger evidence for the existence of an historical Arthur than we do for a historical Jesus. But skepticism is appropriate in either case.)

    Geoff (back in Shenzhen, so follow-ups will reflect the time zone issues.)

  2. Tom Gilson says:

    Geoff, the question is for those who are interested and have some response to offer. If that is not you, then by all means please feel free not to participate.

    If the purpose of your posting is to ask me to defend Jesus’ existence, that is off the track of my question and I do not intend to go there at this time. If the purpose is to ask me to defend that Jesus had some central message, then please allow me to allow others to provide their opinions before I present mine. First I would like to hear from non-followers of Christ who have an answer to the question I’ve posed, because I’m truly interested in what you have to say (you who do have something to say, that is).

  3. ordinary seeker says:

    Sorry Tom, but the “who he is presented to be” part of the question is tripping me up, too.

  4. Tom Gilson says:

    Are you saying there’s no answer to the question? Or that you don’t know if there’s an answer? Or that “who he is presented to be” is of no interest to you? Or … ?

  5. Paul says:

    Tom, for my part, I’m wondering where you’re going with this. What’s the bottom- (punch-) line?

  6. Dave says:

    I think what Tom is asking is, if we take the Gospels at face value, without imputing all our little prejudices, what do they say about Jesus Christ. Do they declare Him prophet, teacher, madman, or God in the flesh? I vote for God in the flesh. There really isn’t any other answer. But it is a rather dreadful prospect. “What if God was one of us…”

    http://www.lyricsondemand.com/onehitwonders/ifgodwasoneofuslyrics.html

  7. Geoff Arnold says:

    if we take the Gospels at face value, without imputing all our little prejudices, what do they say about Jesus Christ

    Well, yes. But that’s a big “if”. My Arthur/Geoffrey of Monmouth example is relevant:

    if we take the Historia Regum Britanniae at face value, without imputing all our little prejudices, what does it say about King Arthur

    In both cases, the authors and editors of the material involved had obvious agendas, were keen to make sure that their stories had clear messages, and cherry-picked the available sources to achieve their goals. Why would anyone expect anything different? In the Arthurian case, people took the material at face value for at least 500 years; it is now regarded as mostly fiction.

    For myself, it’s rather more interesting to ask to ask these questions of self-described Christians than of unbelievers. I’m continually amazed at how people manage to find “central messages” that inspire everything from the bloodthirsty “Left Behind” books to the Quakers to Prosperity theology.

  8. Tom Gilson says:

    Paul, the bottom line is that I want to explore different views of Jesus Christ. Geoff, you still don’t need to participate if you don’t want to. It’s not as if anyone’s pressuring you.

    (For the record, since Geoff is trying to turn this into something it isn’t, his assertions about the historicity and clarity of Jesus’ message are demonstrably wrong. But that’s not what this is about, and I do not intend to let him thread-jack this any further that way. That discussion can happen, and it’s a worthwhile one, but it’s going to have to happen at another time and place.)

  9. Geoff Arnold says:

    OK, let me answer the question exactly as posed:

    given the account we have of Jesus’ life in the New Testament, who is he presented to be in that context and what was his central message?

    The various accounts of Jesus’ life in the NT are hard to reconcile, and so it seems best to focus on the earliest: that given by Mark. And in Mark, once we strip away later additions, Jesus is presented as a Jewish prophet (shades of Second Isaiah). His message is simple: prepare for the imminent Kingdom of God – a Kingdom which will be on Earth, not in Heaven. There is no thought of afterlife: the coming Judgement Day was for the living, not the dead.

    Jesus does not identify himself as God. (That only occurs in John.) He expresses no particular concern for the poor and downtrodden: no Sermon on the Mount, no beatitudes. His message is for the Jews, and only the Jews. (Neighbor meant next-door neighbor; universalism was a Pauline innovation.)

    To summarize: in the most reliable book of the NT, Jesus is presented as a Jewish prophet, in the mold of Isaiah. His central message was, “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”

  10. david ellis says:

    Its been 20-some years since I deconverted from Christianity and I’ve had no more interest since then in the study of the Bible than in the study of the Koran or Book of Mormon. That being the case I don’t remember whether Geoff’s characterization of Mark is entirely accurate (and don’t care enough to check).

    But his comment does bring to mind an issue which hasn’t been previously mentioned: that Tom is assuming there is a single unified NT view on such questions as the one he raises.

    And that’s an assumption few of us non-christians share.

  11. SteveK says:

    But his comment does bring to mind an issue which hasn’t been previously mentioned: that Tom is assuming there is a single unified NT view on such questions as the one he raises.

    Wrong.

    Tom (#8): “Paul, the bottom line is that I want to explore different views of Jesus Christ.”

    At this point, Tom is assuming that some people out there have the desire to give an answer to the question. If you don’t want to participate, then don’t.

  12. david ellis says:


    Wrong.

    Tom (#8): “Paul, the bottom line is that I want to explore different views of Jesus Christ.”

    Different views of Jesus includes nonbiblical views (the view of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas, or the Enlightment deists views of Jesus, etc.

    What Tom asked was:

    “given the account we have of Jesus’ life in the New Testament, who is he presented to be in that context and what was his central message?”

    And, yes, that does seem to assume that there is a (singular) NT view on this question rather than various views by the various authors of the books of the NT.

    Or are you saying you think Tom agrees with Geoff that there are differing views of Jesus in the NT?

    I didn’t get that impression at all.

  13. Dave says:

    Hello Geoff

    The various accounts of Jesus’ life in the NT are hard to reconcile, and so it seems best to focus on the earliest: that given by Mark. And in Mark, once we strip away later additions, Jesus is presented as a Jewish prophet (shades of Second Isaiah).

    That takes a rather superficial and obtuse reading of Mark.

    Mark 1:1
    Mark 1:11
    Mark 1:24
    Mark 2:5-7
    Mark 2:27-28
    Mark 3:11
    Mark 4:41
    Mark 5:6-8
    Mark 8:29
    Mark 8:31
    Mark 8:38
    Mark 9:7
    Mark 9:31-32
    Mark 10:18
    Mark 10:33-34
    Mark 11:27-33
    Mark 12:35-37
    Mark 13:26-27
    Mark 14:8-9
    Mark 14:22-26
    Mark 14:48-49
    Mark 14:60-64
    Mark 15:37-39
    Mark 16:6-7

    And I haven’t included the “disputed” section.

  14. Tom Gilson says:

    What Tom asked was:

    “given the account we have of Jesus’ life in the New Testament, who is he presented to be in that context and what was his central message?”

    And, yes, that does seem to assume that there is a (singular) NT view on this question rather than various views by the various authors of the books of the NT.

    Or are you saying you think Tom agrees with Geoff that there are differing views of Jesus in the NT?

    I didn’t get that impression at all.

    First, if you don’t think you have an answer to the question, fine.

    Second, I’m making what should be a safe assumption here: that you can recognize that there can be unity within diversity. Say whatever you will about differing views of Jesus Christ in the gospels; that doesn’t mean there is no unity among those different views. There are differing perspectives, yes. Why shouldn’t there be? Do these perspectives blend into a richer, more multi-dimensional picture of a man’s life? Or do they contradict each other?

    If you don’t see unity among the various perspectives, then I’ll accept that as your answer, and thank you for your participation. If you do see any common, central core or message (or identity, or mission, or whatever) in the ways Jesus is presented in the gospels, then the floor is still open for you to express it.

  15. david ellis says:

    I, and I suspect much the same goes for most of the atheists here, am loath to answer this question because there is such a difference between the question asked by the title of this post (who do you say Jesus was) and the very different question in the body of the post (paraphrasing: who does the NT say Jesus was).

    Not to mention that the Socratic approach, as appears to be what you’re setting things up for (apologies if I’m wrong), tends to feel condescending and obnoxious to those on the receiving end of it.

    I’m not sure what point you have in mind but until you get to it I’ll just stand by and await developments.

  16. Tom Gilson says:

    Interesting. Rather than answer the question you have all chosen instead to find various things to complain about in it. Geoff says “why should I care?” My answer is first, it is entirely his choice whether he cares or not, but it seems a rather, well, careless attitude toward the single most important person in the course of human history.

    Geoff also said it’s more interesting to him what contemporary Christians say about the subject. I did say in the original post that I was planning to ask that question soon.

    And then Geoff, thank you for giving an answer after a few rounds of that. That was the kind of thing I was looking for. So far you are the exception in this, that after registering your complaint with me you did move on to giving an answer.

    Ordinary seeker said “who is presented to be” was tripping him up. I wasn’t sure what that meant, so I asked for clarification, which has not been returned so far.

    David complained (Comment #12) that when I asked for different views of Jesus Christ, I didn’t ask for every conceivable possible different view, and he concluded therefore that I wasn’t asking for different views. That’s a non sequitur.

    Paul (Comment #5) and David Ellis (Comment #15) are both worried about what the “punch-line” might be. What are you worried about?

    David Ellis (Comment #15) thinks that the Socratic approach seems condescending and obnoxious. I’m sorry. I thought that asking your opinion was an expression of respect. I wanted to know what you thought, and I didn’t realize in advance that there was something wrong with that. I’m still not sure why it was wrong.

    Paul’s and David Ellis’s comments seem to indicate a lack of trust: “what are you going to do with my answer?” Is there something about your opinions that leads you to feel they are vulnerable to my doing something bad with them? What could that possibly be? Are you afraid I’ll try to embarrass you? You know me. I’ll disagree if I think there’s something to disagree with. Is embarrassing a respondent my style, though? Are you concerned that your answers are vulnerable to embarrassment? I wasn’t expecting that, I wasn’t fishing for that, and I don’t know what to make of the way it appears now, so I hope you’ll help me with this.

    Anyway, I specifically requested Christians not to respond here (read the end of the original post). See my comments #2 and #8, where I specifically rejected taking the course of argumentation. Obviously I wasn’t about to ban or delete Dave on account of his response #13. That would be draconian, especially since my request at the end of the OP may not have been as clear as I intended to be. But I think I signaled my own intentions in the OP and in comments #2 and #8.

    If there is something wrong with asking your opinion, then please explain to me what else I should have done instead? Or is it also wrong to ask your opinion about that?

  17. ordinary seeker says:

    It’s been a long time since I’ve read the NT, so it’s difficult for me to answer your question accurately. However, since I do recall learning different ways in which the NT could be interpreted, and therefore different ways in which Jesus could be considered to have been “presented,” I’ll answer your question this way:

    Jesus was a rebel, a liberator who saw oppression in the social and political system of his time and envisioned something different, and attempted to unite people around and lead people toward creating that vision.

  18. Paul says:

    Tom, I see nothing in my question to you that requires worry (as opposed to, say, curiosity) or a lack of trust on my part.

  19. david ellis says:

    One thing I will say about the views of the NT writers about Jesus:

    some of them attributed to him the claim that his second coming was imminent. And, yes, I’m aware that Christians make strained efforts to interpret the passages where this happens to mean something else (they pretty much have to if they want to avoid looking as silly as the Second Day Adventists).

    My view of Jesus:

    He was probably an end of the world, apocalyptic cult leader. Most likely not the first and far from the last.

    Admittedly, though, we have far too little to go on to draw firm conclusions about Jesus (including, in my opinion, whether he existed at all—personally, I think it more likely he did–though not so much more likely as to view the mythicist position with contempt).

  20. david ellis says:

    And if you want a brief summary of claims commonly made about Jesus in the NT I’m sure you know where to find a copy of the Nicene Creed.

    Still not sure why you feel the need to ask us something so obvious (which is a large part of why it seems like a condescending question). Its like asking someone raised in a Muslim society what they think the Koran teaches about who Muhammed was.

  21. Charlie says:

    And if you want a brief summary of claims commonly made about Jesus in the NT I’m sure you know where to find a copy of the Nicene Creed.

    But at all costs let’s do avoid being condescending.

  22. david ellis says:

    Ask a condescending question….

  23. Tom Gilson says:

    David, I’m going to call you out on this. My intent was what I said it was.

    Your accusation and insinuations are false and amount to thread-jacking. You have ignored every indicator I have given of that, in the original post, and in comments #2, #8, and #16.

    Your answer (and other non-Christ followers’ answers) to the question is not “obvious,” as you said it was in your comment #20, unless I were to stereotype you, which is pretty much what you suggested there. Is that really what you wanted? Would you have considered it less condescending if I had given you your opinion rather than asking you for it?

    You’re not participating in this thread in good faith, so you’re out of it. I don’t have a thread-specific way of enforcing that, so I’m sending all of your comments to moderation for now.

  24. Dave says:

    Sorry, I misread the original post. Go ahead and delete my comments.

  25. Tom Gilson says:

    Thanks, Dave, but I don’t think that’s necessary.

  26. B Wong says:

    this was a very interesting exchange indeed, though probably not for the reasons tom was hoping.

    i am a follower of jesus, and so won’t give answer to the question here. but i will share my interpretation of what tom was after (which may be completely wrong – i don’t even know tom, other than reading his blog). i thought he was looking for what non-christians think the nt ‘teaches’ about jesus. i do not think of this as a simple or obvious question. look at the different ways supposed christians interpret the life and message of jesus. they all agree that he is God’s unique son and God in the flesh. but they disagree big-time on the central message of jesus and its application in the world. i thought tom was looking for the different readings non-christians might have of the nt.

  27. Sabio Lantz says:

    First, I must declare that I am not a Bible Scholar by any stretch of the imagination. Nor am I a scholar of the Koran, the Mahabharata, or the Buddhist Sutras but I have read them all to a greater degree than the average believer in each faith (which is not too much, you’d agree).

    Reading Homer’s Odyssey without context leads to a jumble of confusion just like reading a letter from me to my Japanese friends, even in good translation, would be very confusing without context of both what I was doing at the time of the letter, how old I was and some Japanese culture. I am absolutely sure you understand. Yet I feel that “taking the Gospels at face value” is a large mistake of many Protestant Christians (mild you, the average Catholic Christian is minimally familiar with the Bible). For there IS no “face value” — one always needs context. Protestants are mistaken to think you can intelligently read the various thrown together parchments that came to compromise, through years of selection, both the Hebrew and the Christian documents.

    So, from the histories, the various exegesis, the textual and cultural analyses I have read to guide me through the puzzle of those ancient documents, what I wrote is who I think the Jesus was who was recorded in the New Testament canon.

    Agreeing with Ehrman, not a favorite in these circles, I am sure, it is a mistake to try to blur together the different gospels, as it is to blur together James and Paul. To assume that some intelligence guided them all to be consistent is not an assumption non-believers make. So I wager you are not asking us to give a synopsis of what each writer thought Jesus was — for I think that varies too, and not because they saw different aspects of the same person but because they each put their own agenda into the stories and that is why the stories are inconsistent.

    But as far as I understand Jesus’ possible central message, it was this:

    “God’s kingdom is coming any day now (he was later surprised to find himself wrong), so give your money to the poor for you will have no need of it in the days coming soon, give up your family if they hold you back from this radical call. Obey not only the letter of the law but also the spirit of the law which is deeply demanding !”

    But John’s Gospel is a different Jesus altogether – which I shall not bother to spell out short of saying John turns Jesus into a deity. So, now reading other comments, I agree with somewhat with Geoff (though I did venture an answer), and David Ellis

    Tom, since everyone seems to find problem with your question and your methods, maybe you ought to admit you are approaching the atheist audience the wrong way and not assume it is all our faults. It appears these threads are not going the way you planned.

  28. Tom Gilson says:

    Sabio,

    Yet I feel that “taking the Gospels at face value” is a large mistake of many Protestant Christians (mild you, the average Catholic Christian is minimally familiar with the Bible). For there IS no “face value” — one always needs context. Protestants are mistaken to think you can intelligently read the various thrown together parchments that came to compromise, through years of selection, both the Hebrew and the Christian documents.

    That’s why we pay close attention to the historical, literary, religious, geographic, etc. context. These things can be studied. N.T. Wright is a great example in this respect, but there are many, many others.

    Agreeing with Ehrman, not a favorite in these circles, I am sure, it is a mistake to try to blur together the different gospels, as it is to blur together James and Paul.

    I think Ehrman’s scholarship is considerably compromised. You can use the Lijit search in the sidebar to find reasons I say that.

    Nevertheless your analysis of his central message has some overlap with my own view of it, which I hope to finally get to writing later this week. Jesus did preach an eschatological message of the Kingdom of God, and he did talk about what it would require to enter it. He did not say, however, that it would be by succeeding in meeting the ethical demands you enumerated. They are a picture of true righteousness in Christ, yes; but they are not the means by which that right standing with God is attained. More to come on that later.

    If I am approaching the atheist audience the wrong way, then I would be happy to hear what you think would be a better approach. But that does not negate the fact that I was (and still am) interested in hearing the answer to the question I asked.

  1. August 26, 2009

    […] Gilson presents Who Do You Say Jesus Was? posted at Thinking Christian.  In regard to this post and the comments, Tom asks: Who do […]