Who is Really Jesus?

Rev. Marcel Divine Emeka Okwara, CSsR

Thursday, Feb. 20, 2020 Homily 

Sixth Week in Ordinary Time, Year A

Good Shepherd Church, Golden Valley, MN

At a certain point, after his emergence on the public scene, Jesus travelled with his disciples to the region of Caesarea Philippi. Along the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (Matt. 16:13; Mark 8:27) The disciples did not waste time to give answers, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets” (Matt. 13:14). The answer given by his disciples is the general public wide range of opinions about Jesus. And if we were to take a public opinion poll today about who Jesus really is, we would hear “prophet, teacher, good man, wise man, guru, crazy man, philosopher etc. 

But Jesus was not satisfied with people’s opinion of him, so turned his attention to his disciples, “But who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:15). Differently put, you who are closer to me, you who have been with me for quite sometime should have a clearer understanding of who I am than the common people. So, tell me who you think I am. Jesus’ first question had received different answers from from different disciples; but his second question only got one from Peter: “You are the Christ” (Mark 8:29) St. Matthew’s version is broader, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). 

Jesus did not ask what people think of his teaching or what impression he was making. He asked, “Who do you say that I am?” No other religious figure or founder would ask such a question. No other religious figure or founder would focus on himself. Buddha never focused on himself. He only said that there is a way he discovered and would want you to know it. Muhammad never focused on himself. He said there is a revelation he received and would want you to know it. Confucius did not talk about himself, but about the path he found. Then there is Jesus: “Who do you say that I am?” The entire Gospel hinges on this point. Jesus identity is all it is about. Peter’s confession and declaration: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” is the mystical faith that stands at the heart of Christianity. To believe with all heart and mind this Petrine faith is to be a Christian; to deny it is to be a non-Christian. 

At Caesarea Philippi, Jesus did not ask his disciples what people thought about his teaching, preaching, or the people’s reaction to his miracles. Rather he asked them, “Who do people say that I am?” He was basically asking them, “What is my ontology? What is my being? Who am I? And the New Testament is littered with ontological approaches to knowing and understanding Jesus. A good example is the prologue of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn 1:1)… And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among…” (Jn. 1:14). Another example is in St. Paul’s Philippians 2:6: “Though he was in the form of God, Jesus did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.” In those words, St. Paul speaks about the ontological identity of Jesus. And there are a whole lot of references in the New Testament that talk about the being or ontology of Jesus. And let’s not forget that different early Councils of the Church like Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon and many others were also focused on the ontological makeup of Jesus. The Nicene Creed, for instance, did not say anything about Jesus’ teaching or his great miracles, rather about his being: “He is God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father…” These words were the fruits of Conciliar reflection on the being of Jesus which the great Church Fathers like John Chrysostom, Maximus the Confessor, Augustine and many others supported and expounded. And no one will forget the Angelic Doctor and Scholar, Thomas Aquinas, in whose works the ontology of Jesus found its fullness of expression. The ontological approach to Jesus is the approach that takes its point of departure from being; from the being of Jesus.

But since the 18th century, there has been a shift from the ontological approach to Jesus to a more psychological or subjective approach, a more classical to a more modern. With the beginning of Modern Liberal Protestantism, a great figure, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) wrote some hugely influential works in which he attempted to reach out to a more modern skeptical audience. Without doubt, he is one of the most important figures in the field of Christology. He is generally regarded as the father of modern liberal Christology. In his works, Schleiermacher inaugurates a more consciousness, or relational or psychological approach to understanding the divinity of Jesus Christ. In one of his major work, he writes, “The Redeemer, then, is like all men in virtue of the identity with human nature, but is distinguished from them all by the constant potency of his God-consciousness, which was veritable existence of God in Him.” So, what is unique about Jesus? According to Schleiermacher, he is like us. He is a human being, but he has a constant and powerful awareness of God. He has a God consciousness that is qualitatively different and unique. 

A closer look at theology from Friedrich Schleiermacher to our time will show that a sizable number of theologians have adopted the Schleiermacher approach to understand Jesus, not from ontological standpoint but from psychological and relational term. I hope this is not getting boring for you, but be patient with me. Some of you may be asking what’s the big deal? It is a big deal because our knowledge of Jesus determines how we relate to him, how we worship him, and how we speak about him. Ideas have consequences. This shift may sound very abstract or arcane to many. However, it has had many negative impact on evangelization, on the way we understand the Church, on our preaching, teaching and practice. The shift from ontological approach to a more relational and psychological approach to understanding Jesus has had a huge consequences on our theology, preaching, and evangelization. Although Schleiermacher approach is more accessible to modern people, but it turns Jesus into a super-Saint. Check this out! If our belief is that, let say, Father Benjamin has God consciousness; Sister Julia has a more God consciousness, and Jesus has the best, the most potent and most superior God consciousness, it reduces Jesus to a mere super-Saint. We all have awareness of God. Sometimes, this awareness, this consciousness is more heightened than other times. The saints obviously have this awareness of God more than anybody. They are saints because of their relationship with Christ the Redeemer. So, if we reduce Jesus to a mere super-Saint, it there means that he too would need a Redeemer. If Jesus were just a super-Saint, is he really the Savior? 

If what we are just talking about is God consciousness, what really then distinguishes Jesus from the Buddha, from a great Hindu, from Muhammad, from a mystic, Sufi, Sage, from Socrates, from Walt Whitman or any great figure who has a heightened and profound religious experience? What really sets Jesus apart from these and any great religious or philosophical figures? I think it is hard to articulate and present. If we even press further, what makes Jesus distinct and different from Saint Francis of Assisi who had a powerful God consciousness? What makes him different from any of the great saints? If Jesus were just a super-saint, why are we particularly focused on him? Why do we evangelize him, speak about him, pray to him, worship him? If someone reads a good work of a Sufi mystic and experiences a really God consciousness, why should we ask the person to follow Jesus? 

Friedrich Schleiermacher’s approach is the triumphant of the immanent approach to understanding Christ. The emphasis on our consciousness of God is a stress on the human side of the equation. It is on our quest for God, our knowledge of God, and our ever-growing awareness of God, and it is not upon the breakthrough of grace, something that God, out of his goodness and love, has uniquely done for the human race. This approach could undermine what God the Father has uniquely accomplished through his Son Jesus Christ, which, on our own, we would never accomplish. No one, no religious figure, no religious founder, no poet, no philosopher or teacher or prophet, no mystic, etc. could ever accomplish what has been accomplished and established ontologically in Jesus. If we believe that Jesus was a super-Saint, it creates a problem for evangelization, teaching and preaching. 

Why should Jesus be uniquely emphasized? Why did so many give their lives in defense of him and his teaching? It is because Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. He is Lord. There is no salvation through anyone else— not Muhammad, Buddha, Socrates, Confucius, Amadioha, etc— but Jesus. There is no other name given to the human race by which we are to be saved but the name of Jesus (Acts.4:12). You can hide yourself under any other name but only Jesus Christ can save.