part0018

In the previous chapter, we presented the “synoptic” witness of the life of Christ, and established the fact that these three Gospels—Matthew, Mark and Luke—basically agree on the identity of Christ as a human being who was empowered at his baptism to be the Savior of the world. These accounts of Jesus’ life give no hint of any “pre-existence” or “incarnation,” nor that Jesus believed he was “God in human flesh.”[1] He even avoided the titles normally associated with the Messiah, and preferred to call himself “the son of man,” an ambiguous term.[2] It occurs 79 times in the Synoptic Gospels and 12 times in John, and is never used by anyone but Jesus. The ambiguity is found in the fact that in the Aramaic language that Jesus spoke, “son of man” meant simply “a certain one” or “someone.”[3] Thus, as with the use of parables, those with ears to hear and true spiritual hunger could discern who he was, while those who looked on the flesh remained in the dark.

Many Christians have traditionally understood the phrase “son of man” to refer to his “human side” as opposed to his “God side.” But, in recent years, a variety of scholars have recognized the particular Messianic meaning of the phrase, unknown to the vast majority of Jesus’ listeners. It refers not to his humble status as a man, but to one vested with the highest honor and authority who comes to rule the earth in the name of Yahweh . Daniel had used this term in his famous Messianic prophecy concerning the end times when the Messiah would rule.

It is commonly asserted by orthodox Christian teachers and apologists, and believed by most Christians, that Jesus clearly stated during his earthly ministry that he was “God.” But many scholars have noted from a careful reading of the Synoptic Gospels that not only did Jesus not assert that he was God , he did not openly assert that he was the Messiah, the Son of God![5] If it was not Jesus’ practice to assert that he was Christ or even the “Son of God,” then he certainly did not assert his “deity,” or that he was “God,” as many Trinitarians claim. Many modern scholars agree with this, and have challenged the notion that he understood himself to be and openly declared that he was “God in human flesh.”[6] They have even questioned whether he openly declared that he was the promised Messiah. Although Jesus did occasionally declare that he was the Messiah, this was the exception and not the rule, and he did this only when he was with certain select individuals.[7] Scripture reveals that the clear and open presentation of Jesus as the Christ came after he was raised from the dead.

Notice that the signs and wonders associated with his ministry attested to his being “accredited by God” (verse 22), but not necessarily to the fact that he was the Messiah. Prophets like Elijah and Elisha had performed many mighty acts, but were not thought to be the Messiah on that account. Nevertheless, Jesus’ signs and wonders were an important part of his ministry. John 20:30 and 31 says that the signs and miracles that he did were written down so that others beside those who witnessed them firsthand might have a chance to believe. Jesus upbraided the people of his time for not accepting his miracles.[8] He said that the miracles he did in God’s name spoke for him:

He spoke harshly about the cities that witnessed his miracles yet did not repent, even saying that if the people of Sodom had seen the same miracles, they would have repented (Matt. 11:20–24). In this regard, however, Jesus sounded more like a prophet calling the people to repentance than the Messiah, for many of the prophets were miracle workers. However, as Acts 2:31–36 indicates, the decisive and conclusive proof that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah (“the Christ”) was his resurrection and ascension . This truth is further established in the following verses:

1 Corinthians 1:22 says the “Jews demand miraculous signs” before they will believe that someone is representing God. Accordingly, the Synoptic Gospels all record a time when the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law confronted Jesus and asked for a miraculous sign as the proof that God was with him. In Mark 8:11 and 12, Jesus flatly refuses them and says that no sign will be given to them. In Luke 11:29–32, Jesus says that only one sign would be given to them: the sign of Jonah, but he does not elaborate. Matthew supplies some important information.

In our experience, most Christians miss the point of this reference to Jonah because they believe that he was alive inside the fish. But Jesus was “just as” Jonah, so if Jonah had been alive, then Jesus also would have to have been alive in the grave. The Jews, however, understood that Jonah had been dead three days and nights inside the fish, and that God had raised him from the dead. Yet they failed to see the Messianic application of Jonah 1:17, which Jesus quotes here, indicating that he would also be dead for three days and nights, and like Jonah, be raised from the dead.

The “sign” to which Jesus was referring was not actually the fact of him being in the grave for 72 hours (“Look at that! Someone has been dead for 72 straight hours! Amazing!”). What he was pointing to was the event that would occur at the end of that period of time: the Resurrection! What Jesus was saying was that the Resurrection would be the one and only sign that would demonstrate conclusively that he was the promised Messiah. This being the case, we can understand why he would not have made a point to persuade the people of his Messianic identity during his earthly ministry. His primary mission was to be obedient to his Father and keep himself from sin so that he could fulfill his earthly destiny, which was to give his life as a perfect sacrifice for sin.

On the surface, it would appear that the purpose of Christ’s ministry was to present himself as the promised Messiah. After all, at his birth the angels had made plain to the shepherds who he was, and they had excitedly passed on this proclamation. This fact had also been clearly announced at the time of his dedication in the Temple shortly after his birth. Simeon (Luke 2:25–35) clearly prophesied of the Messianic ministry that lay ahead for the baby Jesus, including both his sufferings and glory, as prophesied in Genesis 3:15. Anna, too, spoke of him to “…all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.” In other words, she believed him to be the promised Redeemer (Luke 2:36–38 - KJV). But we must remember that these incidents follow a pattern: these were people who had a heart for God, and so God revealed to them what He was doing and who Jesus was.

With the aforementioned exceptions, it would appear that Jesus’ identity as the Son of God was kept a secret from the beginning of his life. His mother and father were obviously discreet about it. Luke 2:19 (KJV) says that “…Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.” In other words, she kept her mouth shut about who he was and what he was to do. In the town where Jesus grew up, Nazareth of Galilee, many knew him only as “the carpenter’s son,” so his true identity had been kept secret while he was growing up. John 8:41 (KJV) indicates that the Pharisees had investigated his background and heard that he was born “of fornication,” or out of wedlock. Apparently the rumor was that Mary was already pregnant when she and Joseph were married. Jesus was viewed as a commoner of humble origins, born in a manger, raised in a second-class part of Israel and thought by many to be illegitimate. He would not be able to rely on “the world” to assist him in carrying out his Messianic mission. In fact, the cards were stacked against him.

Mary must have been careful to protect her son’s identity. Once, when her 12-year-old son’s precocious knowledge of Scripture led him to forget a family caravan appointment, she and Joseph spent three days looking for him throughout Jerusalem (We can hear her now: “Oy vey, I’ve lost the Son of God!”). When she finally caught up with Jesus, she found him in the Temple debating with the rabbis.

There are several important points to make about this record. It certainly seems to indicate that Jesus knew who his Father was, and therefore knew his own identity as the Son of God. It also shows that he felt the urgency of his calling to the point that he was unaware of what his being “lost” in Jerusalem would mean to his mother and adopted father, and even shows some typical pre-adolescent obliviousness to parental stress. The words, “…He continued in subjection to them…” at the end of this record imply that he had somewhat neglected his responsibility to his parents in this instance and that it did not happen again. We are sure there were many such experiences that Jesus had growing up, who “Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered (Heb. 5:8 - NASB).” Mary, once again, pondered and guarded these things in her heart, knowing that then was not the time for him to be calling a lot of attention to himself. That would come in due time.

Chronologically, there is no further mention made about his identity until the incident recorded in Luke 3:15–22, when some people wondered if John the Baptist might not be the Messiah. John prophesied that one was coming whose sandals he was not worthy to loosen, and this one would be the true Baptizer. As John was baptizing Jesus in the river Jordan, the spirit of God descended upon him and a voice from heaven said, “…You are my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” Also, John the Baptist gave his testimony about that event:

John’s testimony that Jesus is the Son of God came by revelation, not the fact that, as Jesus’ first cousin, he had heard it through the family grapevine. Although John said he saw the spirit descend, he made no mention of hearing the voice. There is no absolute biblical evidence that anyone other than Jesus and John saw the holy spirit descend in the form of a dove or that Jesus heard the voice of God, but they might have. Something visible and noteworthy occurred there, because one of the qualifications for an Apostle to replace Judas Iscariot was that he be someone who had been a witness at John’s baptism of Jesus (Acts 1:22).

As his earthly ministry unfolded, Jesus’ behavior was so contrary to the behavior that people were expecting from the Messiah that even his friends and family wanted to “take custody of him,” meaning they believed him to be “several sandwiches short of a picnic.”

We think the most probable explanation for this lack of support from his family is the old adage, “familiarity breeds contempt.” It is also likely that they had their own preconceived ideas about the coming Messiah that did not match his behavior. Even later in his ministry, some of his family continued in their unbelief (John 7:5). Jesus realized that he was acting in ways contrary to what was taught about the Messiah, but, in keeping with his knowledge that God would reveal who he was to those whose hearts were pure, he identified those who did God’s will as being his true family.

The first three chapters of Mark are very revealing about how Jesus was perceived. As we just saw, his family did not believe in him. In Mark 3:22, immediately after his family believed he was insane, the teachers of the law came down from Jerusalem and let it be known that they thought he was a worker of evil—casting out demons by the prince of demons, Beelzebub. In the first three chapters of Mark are three records where evil spirits identify him as the Christ, but he commanded them not to reveal who he was. This is clear evidence that he veiled his Messianic identity.

Thus, as Jesus started his public ministry, the only ones who seemed to know for sure who he was were the Devil and his demons. When Jesus went into the wilderness to be tempted, the Devil certainly knew who he was, but challenged his identity anyway, saying, “…If you are the Son of God….” He said this not because he thought Jesus did not know who he was, but because he hoped to manipulate him to act unwisely in order to prove his identity as “the Son of God.” Satan attempted to put Jesus on the defensive. However, Jesus made no attempt to assert his identity, but appealed to the same written Word of God that was accessible to all Jews of his day. He claimed no special dispensation, rights or privileges because of his status as the Son of God.

In a transparent attempt to have Jesus skip the suffering part of his godly assignment and cut straight to the glory, the Devil offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and all the power and glory thereof in exchange for his worship. Incidentally, if Jesus Christ were God, Satan would have obviously known this fact, and this temptation would have been utterly hollow. Satan knew that God “cannot be tempted” (James 1:13). As we saw in Mark, demons also knew who Jesus was and were often quick to try to make trouble for him by prematurely “letting the cat out of the bag” and revealing that he was the Messiah. It was to their advantage to have his secret become public knowledge because then the people would have put tremendous pressure on him to deliver them from the Roman occupation of Palestine. They were looking for a Messiah who was a political deliverer. Therefore, Jesus was particularly careful around crowds, as the following record illustrates:

Note how this record contrasts with the one when he was alone with his Apostles and the demons identified him and he did not shut them up. In fact, he had a brief conversation with the chief demon and permitted them all to go into a herd of nearby swine. It was not as crucial that Jesus silence the demons in this case because he was in a remote place among those who already understood his identity.

Even when they had no opportunity to create trouble for him by announcing his Messianic identity, the demons knew who he was and identified him immediately. The demons spoke the same truth that was later revealed throughout the New Testament: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

He had other good reasons for keeping it secret beside the problem of people putting pressure on him to be their version of the political Messiah if he revealed his Messianic identity. Perhaps the best reason of all was to fulfill the Scriptures. Isaiah had prophesied of the quiet ministry of the Lord’s servant:

Matthew 12 quotes this passage in the very context that we have been studying. Jesus has just healed a crippled man in the Temple on the Sabbath day and the Pharisees do not like it. They begin plotting to kill him, so he warns his followers not to tell anyone who he is:

As we noted in Chapter 5, the treatment of these verses in the ancient Hebrew writings reveals how selective the Jews were concerning messianic prophecies and this blindness affected the way they experienced Jesus. According to rabbinical literature, the Jews correctly applied Isaiah 42:1 and 4 to the Messiah because they understood the idea that he would proclaim and establish justice on the earth as a function of his Davidic reign as king, but they did not understand how the verses in between (the words in bold type in the above passage) were also about the Messiah. They did not understand how he could “lead justice to victory” by being a gentle and quiet servant. This passage from Isaiah is quoted in Matthew in the context of his warning the disciples not to say who he was, and explains why he would urge them to silence.

Jesus perfectly fulfilled this prophecy up until the phrase, “until he leads justice to victory.” Though he did proclaim justice, he was treated very unjustly and crucified as a common criminal. Not until his resurrection would he be vindicated and begin to “lead justice to victory.” Even to this day, this Scripture has not been completely fulfilled, and will not be until Christ puts an end to death after his Millennial reign on the earth (see also 1 Cor. 15:56, which refers to that final victory over death, the ultimate “injustice”).

Knowing that his suffering would precede his glory, he was not one to quarrel and shout in the streets. Though he had his confrontations with the scribes and Pharisees, he did not go out of his way to pick a fight. He was very gentle with the people, and he touched, taught, and healed those who were “battered” or “smoldering.” Some of the Gentiles did hope in him, and were healed and saved under his ministry. With the aid of the light from Matthew, this prophetic passage from Isaiah 42 is seen to richly portray the Messiah’s actual ministry, and helps us understand why it had to be that way to fulfill the Scriptures.

Another reason Jesus veiled his messianic identity was to protect the all-important timing of his death. Luke 4:16–30 records his first public utterance at which he declared the nature of his ministry. He did this by letting Scripture speak for him, quoting Isaiah 61:1 and 2:

Having read this, Jesus simply said: “…Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” He did not say, “I am the Messiah, and these Scriptures are talking about me.” He let the people figure out who he was. At first, the crowd’s reaction was very favorable, until he suggested that some of them would reject him because “…no prophet is accepted in his home town.” On hearing this, the people turned on him and led him to the edge of a cliff, intending to throw him to his death. They did this because they thought he was a false prophet, not because he was claiming to be the Messiah.[9] This experience would have made it clear to Jesus “right out of the gate” that he would have to be very careful about how he identified himself so that he would not be killed before the appointed time.

This is a remarkable record of familial disloyalty and how the enemy will even attempt to use those closest to us to defeat us. Not only did Jesus’ own half-brothers not believe that he was the Messiah, they were unwittingly encouraging him to go to the very place where his life was in serious danger! They said he should be “going public.” His answer to them revealed his commitment to remain in the absolute center of God’s will and do everything at the proper time.

As in Luke 4, we again see the fickleness of the crowd, this time at the end of his earthly ministry, as they turned on Jesus after his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Having their hopes up that he was coming to save them from Roman domination (“Hosanna” means “Save us”), their mood quickly turned ugly when they determined that he was being arrested by the Romans, and concluded that he was impotent against these ungodly civil authorities.

Anticipating the fickleness of the crowd and the spiritual battle waged against him, Jesus walked with great wisdom and self-control. To borrow a phrase from the game of poker, he “played his cards close to the vest.” This is no doubt also the reason why he commanded Peter, James and John to keep quiet about what they had seen at the Mount of Transfiguration.

Another reason Jesus concealed his identity was to honor the way the Father has always revealed truth. It is commonly acknowledged that the Bible can be a difficult book to understand. God reveals many truths in a way that requires diligent study and prayer to comprehend them. He does want everyone “…to perceive and recognize and discern and know precisely and correctly the [divine] Truth” (1 Tim. 2:4 - AMP). In spite of that, He follows His own advice: He does not cast His pearls before swine (Matt. 7:6) or speak openly to fools so they can despise the wisdom of His Words (Prov. 23:9 - NASB). Rather, He conceals many gems of truth in such a way that only those who “incline their heart to understanding,” “cry out for insight” and “…search for it as for hidden treasures” …find the knowledge of God (Prov. 2:1–5 - NRSV).

Proverbs 25:2 states that God conceals truths in His Word: “It is the glory of God to conceal things; but the glory of kings is to search things out” (NRSV). Jesus followed his Father’s guidance and revealed truth in the same way his Father did. In Matthew 13, after he taught the crowds in parables, the disciples were perplexed.

Jesus taught the crowds in parables, but he later expounded to the disciples the truth of what he had said (Mark 4:34). Just as he concealed some truth from the crowds, he veiled his identity so that people who do not incline their hearts “to understanding” would not know. He called himself such things as “the bread of life,” “the good shepherd,” “the light of the world,” “the resurrection and the life,” and “the son of man.”

This self-assigned title of “son of man” refers to Daniel 7:13–18, which prophesies of the authority and dignity conferred on the Messiah in his glory, two ideas that the resurrection of Jesus confirmed (Acts 7:56). Some of the religious leaders (Matt. 12:39) and some of the crowds (Luke 11:29) asked Jesus for a sign. He told them that the only sign he would give to them was the sign of Jonah. As Jonah was raised from the dead after three days and three nights in the sea creature’s belly, Jesus knew that his Resurrection was the absolute and ultimate proof that he was the Christ of God.

Those whose hearts were hard remained in confusion about his true identity all the way through his life and ministry. In fact, the problem persists unto the present day.[10] Even in the days just prior to his arrest, the crowds understood Jesus to be a prophet (Matt. 21:46) but not necessarily the Messiah.

In spite of the fact that Jesus deliberately concealed his identity as the Messiah from the crowds, Scripture testifies loudly that those with a heart for God found out who he was. The shepherds at his birth, Simeon, Anna, the Magi, the woman at the well, John the Baptist, his disciples, the woman with the issue of blood, Mary and Martha, Joseph of Arimathea and many others came to know that he was the Christ. Readers today do not always recognize those individuals in the Gospels who realized that Jesus was the Messiah. For example, although many of those who called him “Son of David” apparently knew Jesus was Messiah, only those people who know that the “Son of David” is a Messianic title would be aware of that. The woman who touched his garment for healing apparently knew who he was, but a knowledge of the Old Testament is required to understand this.[11]

A further reason that Jesus hid his identity is that he recognized that God would have to confirm his Messiahship, and it was not his job to “toot his own horn.” Rather than take the Devil’s bait and do something that would hasten his being recognized as the true Messiah, he trusted rather in the living God, his Father, to corroborate his calling and the meaning of his life. As a wise man once said, “we boast because we are afraid that no one will notice us unless we do.”

Jesus fulfilled prophecy after prophecy, said that he was the Messiah (albeit in mostly veiled terms), and did signs and miracles that should have revealed to the people who he was. Nevertheless, the picture in the minds of most people of what the Messiah would be like was so different from the living Christ that they did not recognize him. Their preconceived ideas came more from “synagogue training” than from the prophecies of Scripture.

There was confusion about the fact that the Messiah would have to die (Matt. 16:21 and 22; John 12:34), about who “Elijah” was (Matt. 17:10) and about Christ’s actions on the Sabbath (John 5:18, 9:16).[12] There was false teaching about where Christ would come from (John 7:25–27), and also erroneous ideas about his death (John 12:34). There was little known about his ascension, and when Jesus spoke of it, the people were bewildered (John 7:33–36). There was so much confusion over his crucifixion that most of those who had believed that he was the Messiah (like the two on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24) were not persuaded enough by his signs and wonders to remain convinced of who he was. In fact, the only one who apparently kept his faith in Jesus was Joseph of Arimathea, who was presumably not as much of a witness of his miracles as were his more intimate followers. Nevertheless, Joseph was one who “waited for the kingdom of God,” and saw the necessity of Christ’s death.[13] His life is a powerful testimony to the importance of having one’s faith grounded in the written Word of God, for that is the only thing that will sustain us and keep us within the will of God.

Jesus’ statement that God alone had revealed his identity to Peter is further evidence that he was not making a concerted effort to convince even his closest disciples of his Messianic identity, but instead depended upon his Father to defend and support him and reveal who he was. Earlier in the book of Matthew, he had told his disciples that no one could really know who he was, but that only the Father knew him.

As we have already noted, the Resurrection was in fact the final validation of Jesus’ identity as the promised Messiah. Therefore, in the book of Acts, his followers continually preached this truth. Twice in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, Peter made mention of the following prophecy indicating that God would raise the Messiah from the dead.

It is commonly believed that the uniqueness of Jesus’ ministry was found in his saying and doing new things, but almost all his words were drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures, which all Jews of that time studied and “knew” to some degree. And his works were similar to those done by prophets of old, with the notable exception of the casting out of demons. He was, however, utterly unique in that he was the one and only man born of a virgin and who fulfilled all the prophetic parameters for the Messiah. He also broke almost every stereotype the Jews had for what the Messiah was going to be like. He was also unique in his attitude of authority that came from his intimate relationship with his “Father.” And, of course, he was the only human being in all of history ever raised from the dead unto immortality. Now that’s uniqueness!

Another significant aspect of Christ’s ministry was the way in which he called out of Israel those who recognized him for who he was, based on their faith in his words and works and not because of a title he had or because of their social or religious status. In fact, he seemed to make it difficult for the self-righteous religious people even to consider him a holy man, because he often and repeatedly associated with sinners, prostitutes, tax collectors, and other “undesirables.” By virtue of their disregarding the Law, these people were apparently outsiders to the blessings of Israel. He discouraged others from following him on any other basis than that they hungered for spiritual truth. He continually directed people’s attention to spiritual values. For example, when he blessed the few loaves and fishes so that there became enough to feed a multitude, the people were apparently ready to crown him king. This he tried to discourage, even reproving the crowd for their false motives in following him.

Jesus was a man accredited by God, one in whom He was well pleased. Jesus pleased his Father by always listening to His voice and seeking to honor Him in every possible way. The Gospels paint a portrait of one who did everything he could to direct those who listened to him toward his Father in heaven. He even entrusted the revelation of his identity as the Son of God to Him, never making it an issue, never using it as a shield to defend himself against accusation.

No doubt this commitment to keeping a low profile about his true identity is exactly what Philippians 2:6–8 is referring to, and removes this section of Scripture from the mystical clutches of “kenotic Christology” (from the Greek word kenosis =empty).[16] This system of belief, the handmaiden of “the incarnation,” teaches that Christ emptied himself of his “pre-incarnate divinity” before he became a human fetus. How much simpler it is to place these verses from Philippians in the specific context of the witness of Christ’s life as revealed in the Gospels.

The NIV translation of verse 5 is excellent, compared to “Let this mind be in you…” as the KJV is worded.[17] But, almost immediately, we run smack into the blatantly Trinitarian translation, “… being in very nature God….” The word “nature” is “morphe ,” which refers to his outward form, appearance or circumstances.This word is nearly synonymous with the word eikon that we examined in Chapter 2, and we do not think that either one refers to his physical appearance. Remember that verse 5 has already set the context—having his attitude! Saying that Christ was in “the form of God” is to assert his identity as the Son of God, the Messiah. Though he had a special relationship with and likeness to his Father, he did not use this fact to elevate himself nor make a point of asserting his true identity in the face of misjudgment. He even had to endure his family thinking that he was insane, and the most influential religious leaders of his day thinking that he was the prince of demons. Even then, he made little effort to set them straight, but began to speak in parables so that those who had ears to hear could draw near if they so willed.

Jesus did not consider “…equality with God something to be grasped.” Although Lucifer was the first one to get the bright idea to grasp at equality with God, it is more likely that Adam is primarily in view in this verse because, as we have already seen in Chapters 1 and 2, Adam and Christ are directly paralleled in similar Scriptures. Adam became unthankful for what God had given him (Paradise, an interesting job, a beautiful wife, fruit in abundance, everlasting life, etc.) and believed the lie that God was holding out on him. In fact, if he ate the forbidden fruit, he would be just like God (that is, he would gain “equality with God”). Thus, the Serpent defeated him because of his unthankful attitude and his desire to be more like God than he already was. This was very odd considering that he had been made in the image of God. In other words, Adam lusted for more than he already had and grasped at equality with God .

In contrast to Adam, Jesus began his life as a baby and grew up with the stigma of being thought illegitimate. During his earthly ministry, he suffered many other hardships, yet he chose not to believe that God was holding out on him and making his life miserable. Despite the difficult road he had to travel, he faithfully looked with joy and gratitude to God as his loving Father, refusing to disobey in even the smallest way. He was walking in obedience when he kept his true identity veiled. He was making himself “nothing,” or of “no reputation.” He was entrusting himself to God, seeking to glorify his Father by everything he did and said.

Jesus did not become bitter because of his lowly birth. He did not complain about being from Nazareth of Galilee, a “second rate” town. He did not allow his being thought illegitimate to define his sense of worth. He did not murmur about working as a carpenter for about 17 years until the time was right to begin his public ministry.[18] He did not become morose when his family doubted who he was. He did not grouse about having to go into the wilderness for 40 days to fast and be tempted by the Devil. He did not become impatient when time after time he was let down by his followers. He did not react angrily when he was accused of being the helper of Beelzebub, the prince of Devils, despite the absurdity of such a devilish misjudgment.

No, Jesus endured it all patiently, trusting his Father who he knew loved him and watched over him. Yes, he was the unique Son of God, but he would have to enjoy the fullness of that status later. For that time, he was called to be a faithful servant, daily and moment-by-moment emptying himself of his own thoughts and desires, keeping his “attitude” fixed upon humbly and lovingly doing the will of his Master, his Father.

Throughout the whole course of his life, Jesus never so much as hinted at having any need for independence, nor did he struggle with anything God asked him to do until he came to the Garden of Gethsemane. There, as he contemplated the hideous indignity and humiliation of the next 40 hours, he asked his Father three times if there might not be some other way to accomplish His plan.[19] But when he was assured that the way ahead was the only way, he rose from his knees and walked bravely into the mouth of the waiting dragon.

Those were perhaps the darkest hours any human being has ever had to face, and Jesus knew they would end in his ignominious death by crucifixion. Yet he would do it all without murmuring, without complaining, without asserting his divine authority as the Son of God. “…do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” he asked. “How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen this way?” (Matt. 26:53 and 54 - NASB).

His commitment was to the written Word of his Father, which only he could fulfill. Conversely, it was also within his ability, by disobeying the Word, to make his Father a liar. But Jesus was a righteous Son and obeyed his Father through it all. He renounced the opportunity to accept angelic deliverance and finally embraced his destiny as necessary for the Father’s plan to come to pass. The only light at the end of that dark tunnel was shed by the Messianic prophecies that God would not let His holy one see corruption, because He would raise him from the dead like Jonah after three days and three nights.

He did not do all that he did by remembering his former glory in heaven. He did not do it by being “God incarnate,” or “God Almighty clothed in human flesh.” He did it by being the Last Adam, the sacrificial Lamb of God from the human flock, confronting his humanity, facing down his fears, summoning his courage and learning to obey by doing the things he was asked to endure. From this perspective and backdrop, we can now understand the rest of the Philippian passage that describes his high exaltation. The beloved human Son became the ultimate source of pleasure for his Father, who gladly and joyfully lavished upon him everything he so richly deserved.

When in our hearts we let Jesus be humbled and suffer as the true man that he was, to the point that we can grasp that his suffering for us was genuine and unmitigated by “deity,” then we can truly rejoice with him as he is honored by his resurrection as he should be honored—as the divine Hero, Agent of everlasting life and the Firstborn of a new and righteous creation. We are then fully able to draw from his example of strength and courage, and walk forth determined to have the same attitude of genuine humility and courage that he epitomized, and go on to do the works that he did.

[1 ]. Origen, the early Church “father,” recognized that the Synoptic Gospels did not support the idea of Jesus as God. Todt quotes Origen on John 1:6: “ ‘For none of these [Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke] plainly declared Jesus’ Godhead, as John does when he makes him say, ‘I am the light of the world’; ‘I am the way, the truth and the life’; ‘I am the resurrection.’ There is not a single ‘Son of Man’ saying within the Synoptic tradition which links up with the concept of pre-existence from apocalyptic literature.” (H. E. Todt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition , SCM Press, 1965), p. 284.

Dunn affirms the same point: “In not one instance where Jesus is portrayed as the Danielic son of man is there any perceptible implication that Jesus is thereby understood as a pre-existent being hidden in heaven prior to his (initial) manifestation on earth.” (Dunn, op. cit., Christology ), p. 88.

[2 ]. Bruce, op. cit., Gospel of John , p. 67, notes 71 and 73:

The phrase ‘son of man’ is a Hebrew and Aramaic idiom meaning simply ‘a man’, ‘a human being’, In Aramaic, the language that Jesus appears normally to have spoken, ‘the son of man’ would have meant ‘the Man’. On occasion Jesus may have used this expression as a substitute for the pronoun ‘I’ or ‘me’…In Ps. 8:4 ‘the son of man’ (Heb. ben ‘adam) stands in synonymous parallelism with ‘man’ (Heb. ‘enosh), both expressions being used in the generic sense.

[4 ]. Note that the “Son of Man” is the Messianic figure who receives all power and authority to rule over the nations. He receives this power from the “Ancient of Days,” a clear image of the Almighty God who would delegate it to him. Note the transference of language from the “Ancient of Days” to the “son of man” in Revelation 1:13ff. This is a powerful way to express the exaltation of Jesus to functional equality with God by portraying him in similar language, but certainly not to be taken to supersede the already clearly defined relationship of the Almighty God and His Messiah, the “son of man.” See Appendix A (Gen. 18:1 and 2; Rev. 1:13–15).

[5 ]. This idea of Jesus veiling his Messianic ministry is not new. In 1901, German theologian W. Wrede wrote The Messianic Secret , in which he suggested that Jesus did not make any Messianic claims himself, but that the Church made these claims for him in later years and Mark redacted the idea into his gospel. Scholars since have recognized this “secrecy motif,” and have subdivided the secrecy material into at least two categories, his Messiahship and his miracles. Scholars are still debating the issue. Witherington sees “a tension that exists between secrecy and openness” in the gospel of Mark, and attributes this to Mark being a “collector of diverse traditions.” Along with virtually every other Christian scholar, he thus fails to understand that the spiritual perspective of Mark, with its emphasis on Christ’s service , would be the very gospel we would expect to emphasize the secrecy motif. The servant labors in obscurity. Ben Witherington, The Christology of Jesus (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1990), p. 264.

[6 ]. Dunn writes: “But if we are to submit our speculations to the text and build our theology only with the bricks provided by careful exegesis, we cannot say with any confidence that Jesus knew himself to be divine, the pre-existent Son of God” (Dunn, op. cit., Christology ), p. 32.

[7 ]. In Matthew 16:15–20, Jesus’ identity is the issue. Peter correctly understands Jesus to be the Christ, but Jesus never actually affirms or denies the fact. He says, in effect, “I never told you that, but God apparently did.” In John 4:25 and 26 (NRSV), Jesus says, “I am he,” meaning the Messiah, but the Samaritan woman would have had different Messianic expectations, and so he would have less concern about revealing his true identity to her. Even during the time of his trial before the High Priest and Pilate, there is doubt among scholars as to whether he was forthcoming about his identity. In Mark 14:61 and 62, Jesus identifies himself to the High Priest. Oscar Cullman argues that when the parallel synoptic passages (Matt. 26:63 and 64; Luke 22:70) are considered and we go back to the Aramaic original, Jesus’ answer is not clearly affirmative. This would be consistent with his behavior at other times in his ministry, leaving it to others and God whether or not he was recognized for who he really was. Cullman writes:

The corresponding Aramaic word by no means indicates a clear affirmation. It is rather a way of avoiding a direct answer and can even mean a veiled denial. In that case, the sense of Jesus’ words would be, “You say so, not I.” If we may understand his answer to the high priest’s trick question in this way, then Jesus neither clearly affirmed nor clearly denied that he was the Messiah.

[8 ]. See Chapter 5 (Eccles. 1:9).

[9 ]. They were angry because he had said to them, “…no prophet is accepted in his home town,” thus comparing them unfavorably to non-believing Israelites in the time of Elijah.

[10 ]. Cp. Matthew 12:23, 16:13 and 14; John 7:12, 40–43, 9:16, 10:20 and 21.

[11 ]. In Malachi 4:2, the Old Testament foretells that the “sun of righteousness,” the Messiah, would have healing in his “wings.” See Chapter 5 (Isa. 35:5 and 6).

[12 ]. Many people teach that Christ actually broke the Sabbath Law, but breaking the Law of God is sin, and Jesus Christ never sinned. A careful reading of the Mosaic Law on the subject of the Sabbath will show that what Jesus actually broke was the Sabbath traditions that had been set up by the religious leaders. Since these traditions were so ingrained in the culture, the people thought they were part of the Law and questioned Jesus’ Messiahship when he disregarded them. Jesus carefully distinguished between spoken Torah and written Torah .

[13 ]. Joseph of Arimathea is one of the most interesting of all Christ’s followers, and is made more compelling by the scant references to him in Scripture. Compiling all the evidence from the Four Gospels, we know he was a good man, wealthy, one of the ruling elders of Israel (serving on the Sanhedrin) and that he had not voted against Jesus in the kangaroo court they held for him. We believe that Joseph knew the prophecy in Isaiah 53:9, that Jesus was to be buried among the rich, and thus had a tomb dug out of the stone somewhere near Golgotha, in a place where rich people were buried. He went to Pilate, a Gentile, to plead for Jesus’ body, and in the process made himself ceremonially unclean to keep the Passover that year, a serious sacrifice for a member of the Sanhedrin. By the simple way he buried Jesus, wrapping him only in a linen cloth (Greek sindon ), we see that he believed that Jesus would not remain in the grave. In contrast, Nicodemus followed after Joseph and buried Jesus properly “according to the Jewish customs,” tightly winding his limbs, head and torso with strips of cloth dipped in 75 pounds of spices. All these, plus a neatly folded napkin that had covered his face, were left behind when Jesus was raised from the dead, a monument to Nicodemus’ lack of belief in Jesus’ resurrection.

The NIV unfortunately misses that Nicodemus came with some people sometime after Joseph had left the scene. It translates John 19:39 as Joseph being “accompanied” by Nicodemus, but the Greek text simply reads that Nicodemus came “also,” i.e., as well as Joseph. Matthew, Mark and Luke all agree that the women were watching Joseph bury the body of Jesus, and, noting that he had not done a “proper” job, went off and bought the spices to do the job correctly (Luke 23:55 and 56). Had Joseph and Nicodemus been together, the women would have seen all the spices and never would have gone to buy more.

[14 ]. Reincarnation was one of a variety of beliefs about the afterlife prevalent in Jesus’ day. The Pharisees were heavily influenced by pagan Greek thinking concerning the immortality of the soul. If a person’s soul can exist apart from his body, and represents the “real” part of him, then this soul can take on another body. This is called human “reincarnation.” The Pharisees believed that great souls, or spirits, like Elijah, John the Baptist or Jeremiah were not dead but could, in God’s purposes, reenter another body. This is the most likely explanation for his disciples thinking that the resurrected Christ was a “spirit.” See our book, op. cit., Is There Death After Life?

[15 ]. In this context of his resurrection, we should mention Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. An often overlooked aspect of this event is its remarkable timing in the unfolding of his ministry. He deliberately waited for four days after Lazarus had died before going to him, when by that time he was already decomposing. Jesus raised him, and then prophetically declared himself to be “the resurrection and the life.” This event occurs within two weeks of his own death, serving to build the faith of his disciples in his own resurrection. They missed the point.

[16 ]. Even many Trinitarian scholars have problems with the doctrine of kenosis . Although many see it as a “good solution” to the problem of the incarnation and the two natures that would have to exist in Christ, the plain fact is that it never appears in Scripture. Thus, even Trinitarians argue about it amongst themselves. See Appendix A (Phil. 2:6–8).

[17 ]. The Greek word “phroneo ” would be better translated as “inclination of the mind,” which is exactly what the English word “attitude” denotes. The “attitude” of an airplane points the plane toward the sky or toward the earth. It is the “inclination” of the plane with relationship to the ground. We believe that instead of “thoughts” or “to think,” phronema / phroneo is better understood as “the inclinations of the mind” and “to incline the mind.” This is easily seen in the use of these words in Romans, Chapter 8.

[18 ]. Traditionally, Jewish males began learning a trade at the age of 13, according to the rabbinical saying: “Whoever does not teach his son a trade is as if he brought him up to be a robber” (Kidd. 29). Quoted in Alfred Edersheim’s Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ (Hodder and Stoughton, NY), p. 190. Therefore, at the age of 30, when he began his public ministry, he would have been working as a carpenter for 17 years.

[19 ]. It is commonly taught that Jesus was arrested on Thursday night and crucified on Friday morning some 12 hours later. Scripture portrays a much more horrifying picture of a 40-hour period of humiliation, trials, and torture. A thorough study of the subject reveals that he was arrested on our Monday night, crucified on Wednesday afternoon, and raised on Saturday afternoon.