relationship between a child and his father," Witherington explained. "Interestingly, it's also the term disciples used for a beloved teacher in early Judaism. But Jesus used it of God-and as far as I can tell, he and his followers were the only ones praying to God that way." When I asked Witherington to expand on the importance of this, he said, "In the context in which Jesus operated, it was customary for Jews to work around having to say the name of God. His name was the most holy word you could speak, and they even feared mispronouncing it. If they were going to address God, they might say something like, 'The Holy One, blessed be he,' but they were not going to use his personal name." "And 'Abba' is a personal term," I said. "Very personal," he replied. "It's the term of endearment in which a child would say to a parent, 'Father Dearest, what would you have me do?'" However, I spotted an apparent inconsistency. "Wait a second," I interjected. "Praying 'Abba' must not imply that Jesus thinks he's God, because he taught his disciples to use the same term in their own prayers, and they're not God." "Actually," came Witherington's reply, "the significance of 'Abba' is that Jesus is the initiator of an intimate relationship that was previously unavailable. The question is, What kind of person can change the terms of relating to God? What kind of person can initiate a new covenental relationship with God?" His distinction made sense to me. "So how significant do you consider Jesus' use of 'Abba' to be?" I asked. "Quite significant," he answered. "It implies that Jesus had a degree of intimacy with God that is unlike anything in the Judaism of his day. And listen, here's the kicker: Jesus is saying that only through having a relationship with him does this kind of prayer language - this kind of 'Abba' relationship with God-become possible. That says volumes about how he regarded himself." Witherington started to add another important clue-Jesus' repeated reference to himself as the "Son of Man"-but I let him know that a previous experts Craig Blomberg, had already explained that this was a reference to Daniel 7. This term, Witherington agreed, is extremely important in revealing Jesus' messianic or transcendent self-understanding. At this point I paused to take stock of what Witherington had said. When I put together the clues from Jesus' relationships, miracles, and words, his perception of his identity came into sharp focus. There seemed little question, based upon the earliest evidence, that Jesus considered himself to be more than a doer of great deeds, more than a teacher, more than another prophet in a line of many. There was ample evidence to conclude that he thought of himself in unique and supreme terms-but exactly how sweeping was this selfunderstanding?
In its opening scene the gospel of John uses majestic and unambiguous language to boldly assert the deity of Jesus. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1: 1 -3, 14 I remember reading that regal introduction when I went through the gospel of John for the first time. I recall asking myself, I wonder how Jesus would respond if he were to read John's words about him? Would he recoil and say, "Whoa, John has got me all wrong! He has embellished and mythologized me to the point where I don't even recognize myself"? Or would he nod approvingly and say, "Yep, I'm all that-and more"? Later I encountered the words of scholar Raymond Brown, who had come to his own conclusion: "I have no difficulty with the thesis that if Jesus ... could have read John he would have found that gospel a suitable expression of his identity." Now here was my chance to hear directly from Witherington, who has spent a lifetime analyzing the scholarly minutiae concerning Jesus' self-perception, about whether he agrees with Brown's assessment. There was no hesitation and no equivocation. "Yes, I do," he said. "I don't have a problem with that. When you're dealing with the gospel of John, you're dealing with a somewhat interpreted picture of Jesus, but I also believe it's a logical drawing out of what was implicit in the historical Jesus. And I'll add this: even if you eliminate the gospel of John, there's still no non-messianic Jesus to be conjured up out of the material in the other three gospels. It's just not there." Immediately I thought of the famous exchange, recorded it, Matthew, in which Jesus asked his disciples in a private meeting. "Who do you say I am?" Peter replied with clarity, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Instead of ducking the issue, Jesus affirmed Peter for his observation. "Blessed are you," he said, "for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." (See Matt. 16:15-17.) Even so, some popular depictions of Jesus, such as in the movie The Last Temptation of Christ, show him as basically uncertain about his identity and mission. He's saddled with ambiguity and angst.
"Is there any evidence," I asked Witherington, "that Jesus ever had an identity crisis?" "Not an identity crisis, although I do believe he had points of identity confirmation," the professor replied. "At his baptism, at his temptation, at the Transfiguration, in the Garden of Gethsemane - these are crisis moments in which God confirmed to him who he was and what his mission was. For instance, I don't think it's accidental that his ministry does not begin in earnest until after his baptism, when he hears the voice saying, 'You are my Son, with whom I am well pleased.'" "What did he think his mission was?" "He saw his job as coming to free the people of God, so his mission was directed to Israel." "Specifically to Israel," I stressed. "Yes, that's correct," Witherington said. "There's very little evidence that he sought out Gentiles during his ministry-that was a mission for the later church. You see, the promises of the prophets had come to Israel-and to Israel he must go." "I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE" In his book Reasonable Faith William Lane Craig points to a substantial amount of evidence that within twenty years of the Crucifixion there was a full-blown Christology proclaiming Jesus as God incarnate. Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan has pointed out that the oldest Christian sermon, the oldest account of a Christian martyr, the oldest pagan report of the church, and the oldest liturgical prayer (1 Cor. 16:22) all refer to Jesus as Lord and God. Pelikan said, "Clearly, it was the message of what the church believed and taught that 'God' was an appropriate name for Jesus Christ.'" In light of this, I asked Witherington, "Do you see any possible way this could have developed-especially so soon-if Jesus had never made transcendent and messianic claims about himself?" Witherington was adamant. "Not unless you're prepared to argue that the disciples completely forgot what the historical Jesus was like and that they had nothing to do with the traditions that start showing up twenty years after his death," he said. "Frankly, as a historian. this would not make any sense at all." In dealing with history, he added, all sorts of things are possible, but not all possible things are equally probable. Is it probable," he asked, "that all this stuff was conjured up out of thin air within twenty years after Jesus died, when there were still living witnesses to what Jesus the historical figure was really like? I find that just about as unlikely a historical hypothesis as you could possibly come up with. The real issue is, what happened after the crucifixion of Jesus that changed the minds of the disciples, who had denied, disobeyed, and deserted Jesus? Very simply, something happened to them that was similar to what Jesus experienced at his baptism-it was confirmed to them that what they had hoped Jesus was, he was." And what exactly was he? As I was wrapping up my time with Witherington, I wanted him to sum it up for me. Taking all his research into consideration, what was his personal conclusion about who Jesus saw himself to be? I posed the question, sat back, and let him spell it out-which he did, with eloquence and conviction. "Jesus thought he was the person appointed by God to bring in the climactic saving act of God in human history. He believed he was the agent of God to carry that out-that he had been authorized by God, empowered by God, he spoke for God, and he was directed by God to do this task. So what Jesus said, God said. What Jesus did was the work of God. Under the Jewish concept of agency, 'a man's agent is as himself. Remember how Jesus sent out his apostles and said, 'Whatever they do to you, they've done to me'? There was a strong connection between a man and his agent whom he sends on a mission. Well, Jesus believed he was on a divine mission, and the mission was to redeem the people of God. The implication is that the people of God were lost and that God had to do something-as he had always done-to intervene and set them back on the right track. But there was a difference this time. This was the last time. This was the last chance. Did Jesus believe he was the Son of God, the anointed one of God? The answer is yes. Did he see himself as the Son of Man? The answer is yes. Did he see himself as the final Messiah? Yes, that's the way he viewed himself Did he believe that anybody less than God could save the world? No, I don't believe he did. And here's where the paradox gets as quizzical as it can possibly get: the way God was going to save the world was by his Son dying. The most human of all human acts-to die. Now, God, in his divine nature, doesn't die. So how was God going to get this done? How was God going to be the Savior of the human race? He had to come as a human being to accomplish that task. And Jesus believed he was the one to do it. Jesus said in Mark 10:45, 'I did not come to be served but to serve and give my life as a ransom in place of the many.' This is either the highest form of megalomania or it's the example of somebody who really believes, as he said, 'I and the Father are one.' In other words, 'I have the authority to speak for the Father; I have the power to act for the Father; if you reject me, you've rejected the Father.' Even if you eliminated the fourth gospel and just read the synoptics, this would still be the conclusion you would come to. And it is the conclusion that Jesus would have led us to if we had a Bible study and asked him this question. We have to ask, Why is there no other first-century Jew who has millions of followers today? Why isn't there a John the Baptist movement? Why, of all first-century figures, including the Roman emperors, is Jesus still worshiped today, while the others have crumbled into the dust of history? It's because this Jesus-the historical Jesus-is also the living Lord. That's why. It's because he's still around, while the others are long gone."
Like Witherington, many other scholars have painstakingly picked apart the earliest evidence for Jesus and reached the same conclusions. Wrote Craig, "Here is a man who thought of himself as the Son of God in a unique sense, who claimed to act and speak with divine authority, who held himself to be a worker of