Who is Jesus: Lord, Liar, Lunatic or Loner?

Who is Jesus:

Lord, Liar, Lunatic or Loner?

I had decided to do what Paul did in Thessalonica when he reasoned at the synagogue from the OT scriptures about the messiah and how it had to be Jesus.

While researching that message on about Tuesday, I came across a survey that grasped my attention. C.S. Lewis's problem of sorts came to my mind. The conundrum is this: either Jesus is who he claimed to be, or he is something else. If he is not who he said he was, he was either lying, or demented. To that paradigm has been added one more "L" word--loner or lost. Loner entails that he was all by himself at some point and decided to make a name for himself--he started his ministry because he was lost in a sea of humanity or a loner, having nothing to do but travel with his mother, and at 30+ to boot.

This morning, I want to start at the end and work back to the beginning of these titles. This will show what some people are saying about Jesus, but more importantly, it will give you material to defend your faith and your Lord. It may even give you courage to ask others, "What do you believe about Jesus?"

This survey was made up of about a dozen statements and questions designed to discover what the respondents thought about Jesus and the Christian faith. It was sponsored by an organization that is not a friend of true believers and true churches. Actually, they seek to undermine the faith of many--yet, they call themselves a Christian ministry to get the tax breaks from the government.

The two items with the highest percentages of believe are the 1. The Authority of the Bible, and 2. The Certainty of a Future Judgment.  The sections about the virgin birth and Jesus bodily resurrection from the dead were much lower in their percentage of belief. The sponsoring group is opposed to those two cardinal doctrine. Yet, the two that were the highest amazed me. This is why:

To believe in the authority of the Bible is (it seems to me) to accept it, at least, as a reasonable source for information. Now, I don't want to confuse authority with infallibility or inerrancy. The latter two were not options on the survey--only authoritative.

The most liberal of Christian theologians would admit the Bible to be basically reliable. If they completely undermined it, they would be cutting off their own limbs, since the appeal is made to liberal-thinking men and women broadly connected to Christian culture and traditions. They try to put another religious suave on the consciences of a lot of people who do not go to church for worship, or to church for guidance, any more. They appeal to those who don't want to "FEEL" guilty about alienation from the church as an instititution. Among the many who would see the Bible as basically reliable in historical and moral sorts of ways, there is another small group of them that would see it as a kind of authority, even a religious authority for life--that is usually, when a person has an experience with the text--when it becomes alive and speaks to them--it becomes the Word of God.

That is Romanticism and Existentialism brought together to make some feel they have experienced something of the immanence of God--His being close and personal to them.

There are many even in Evangelical and Reformed churches who believe this doctrine practically, without awareness of it personally. Romanticism tried to make religion a matter of experience, rather than reason and Existentialism emphasized the individual elements of Christianity over the corporate--and, they started there doctrinal system with the individual thinking on his or her own without any relation to the corporate structure of the nature of the Church.

There are many who will talk about the authority of the Bible who do not believe that to be the case universally--there are some things they through out because they don't make sense to them in this modern world.

Since modern thought sees the world as a closed system within this universe, they don't allow for the supernatural that is above and beyond our existence in the here and now. Thus, God entering the world in the incarnation is absurd to them. When the Bible speaks about God becoming flesh, they see it as the mistaken ideas of pre-scientific men.

They do not believe in the virgin birth--again, if there is a God, he can't be known in his fullness, there is no way he could reveal himself to us. He is behind a wall, even if he still exists, he is meaningless for life today.

Therefore, people are encouraged to find meaning in other people of human institutions--and, not necessarily Christian ones--but many social ones. So, many churches have turned to social concerns as their main avenues of ministry, rather than equipping the saints for live among and with the people of God.

So, it seems strange to me that so many would affirm the authority of the Bible. I am glad at the same time. The Bible remains a touchstone to talk to people and Jesus and the way of God. It is a good thing to do with the Bible open and available..

 It was the second doctrine that made me think. I was surprised that so many people believed in a final judgment to come. The percent was higher than those who believe in the teaching of a resurrection. Now, let me know where my thinking is wrong, but, if someone, anyone, believes in a final and future judgment of all people, they must also believe is some kind of resurrection--after all, at a minimum, they will be raised to appear at the judgment.  If each and every one who has ever lived appears before that judgment, they must all be raised prior to that point of judgment. I'm not quibbling about the details of the events leading up to the judgment, but the consistency of their thoughts from one belief to the other.

Consistency is not a hallmark for a system of beliefs in our time, not even among Christians. Remember Existentialism--many have bought into the lie that it is about experience, regardless of doctrine, or even opposed to doctrine. Experience is viewed as normative and directive for the individual. Does your feelings contradict what the Bible says? Be authentic, go with your feelings--believing God has given them to you to guide you--that is what false teachers will tell you.

Remember Romanticism and it emphasis on feelings? The writers and artists sought to make the familiar strange and the strange familiar. They intentionally sought to turn society on its head. They did bring about a revolution in thought from rationalism and the use of God-aided reason to irrationalism that had no place for God or the rational. Many of the people you know today, drank deeply from these wells in the 60s and 70s or from those who studied these things during that time. A quiet revolution took place, an ungodly change came over societies, including many of the churches.

They might accept the notion of an authoritative Word, but not an infallible and inerrant one that compels all areas of thought, life, and faith. They might accept the idea of a future final judgment without seeing it is incoherent without a universal resurrection from the dead.  Such is the superficiality of thought in our day.

But, superficiality does not end there. The most common view of Jesus is that he was a good teacher who has a lot to teach us, especially about the morality of his time.

Well, Jesus is either who he said he was, or who the authoritative scriptures say he was, or he is not a good moral teacher and the Bible is not a good book to guide us. If Jesus is not who he taught he was and what the Bible declares Him to be, then we shouldn't listen to him--I speak as a fool trying to show the inconsistencies of modern liberalized Christianity.

They say:

Just a loner or one man lost in this world:

The liberal scholars have a vested interest in removing all of the supernatural elements from the Bible, especially with reference to Jesus in the Gospels. They weren't the first to do this. Tomas Jefferson took two copies of Bibles and cut out what he believed was authentic and pasted it into a new third copy that became a collection of the parts and sayings that he was willing to follow.

Since the second half of the 1900s and through our day, people continue to do this. They, therefore, don't see anything unique about the Bible--it is a book greatly revered among humankind. Yet, not one before which we stand in awe.

Jesus is viewed as a loner for many reasons. These people like to point out his propensity for being on his own, for going off on his own to pray and because of his adult relationship to his mother.

In the Gospels, Jesus is often alone, or off on his own. That doesn't necessarily show any time of emotional defect or lack of social grace. He got away to pray so he would not be distracted while praying to his Heavenly Father--one with whom he still enjoyed intimate fellowship while in the flesh--my supernatural precommitments are showing. He went out to the wilderness to see John the Baptist and be baptized by him. After being baptized, Jesus stayed in the wilderness for 40 days and night. This was all part of what he had to suffer in this life that equipped him to be the substitute and suffering servant in his death.

Look at John 2: It amazes me how some who profess a high view of scripture, will read it in a haphazard pattern to ignore what doesn't fit into their preconceived and conclusion-jumping ideas. It is that Jesus was still traveling with his mother deep into his 30s, that makes some of them portray Jesus as a loner. They slander him without regard to the perceptions of the authoritative scripture of the majority.

How is the travels of Jesus to the wedding of Cana presented in John 2?

2:1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.

If we stop there the critics might win, but where is Jesus and how did he get to the wedding?

 ² Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.

Someone can be invited without attending, but the complete text shows that Jesus is more intimately linked with the disciples than with his mother. Mary was there and in addition to that our attention is drawn to Jesus and his disciples.  It is more likely that Jesus was traveling with his band of disciples than alone with his mother. They could have all been together, but that would not make Jesus a loner. But, do you see how subtle those who want to twist the scriptures will do it--seletively ignoring important words or phrases. Christians can sometimes do this, rather than submit themselves to what God ahs said. It's interesting that professing Christians can act just like unbelieving critics to argue for falsehood in the place of error. We must be careful that we don't think like the world.

The point of this narrative in John 2 is not that Jesus was a loner, he had called disciples to be his own and he was with them, presumably teaching them already.

Jesus had not yet began his public ministry, unless we consider the Sermon on the Mount as semi-public. The point of John 2 is  the coming out of Jesus as the Son of God and worker of miracles.  The miracles validate his identity.

 ³ And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.”

⁴ Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”

⁵ His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”

⁶ Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece. ⁷ Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. ⁸ And He said to them, “Draw some out now, and take it to the master of the feast.” And they took it. ⁹ When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom. ¹⁰ And he said to him, “Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!”

¹¹ This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him.

This is what it was all about. This was the first of Jesus signs. This was his first manifestation of heavenly glory. This is where his disciples came to believe. After….

¹² After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days.

We should not fear pointing out how much Jesus loved his human mother. We meet her at a time when she came with other siblings to visit Jesus, but he was too busy. But, at the end of his life while on the cross. He was still taking care of his mother. He committed her into the care of John, the disciple Jesus loved.

So, Jesus was not a loner…..

Just a lunatic:

Why would some want to take a couple of chapters from the life of Christ and make him appear unstable? That way, they get out of listening to and doing what Jesus commanded.

Where do they see Jesus acting like and out of control lunatic? It is especially something that happened twice in his ministry. It happened near the beginning and near the end. Both times it was in the Temple Courts. It is when Jesus drove the moneychangers out of the temple.

Stay in John 2 to see the first of these:

2:13 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. ¹⁴ And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. ¹⁵ When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.¹⁶ And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” ¹⁷ Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house has eaten^[a] Me up.”^[b]

¹⁸ So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?”

¹⁹ Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

²⁰ Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”

²¹ But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

 They thought his actions were out of place. The why question was not answered in an apparent way. Then when they asked for a sign, he mentioned a temple. He meant his own body as the special dwelling place of God, but the others thought Jesus was talking about some innate ability he had to rebuild the great temple all on his own.

Then at the end of his ministry: Matt 21:12-13

Then Jesus went into the temple of God^[f] and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. ¹³ And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’^[g] but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’”^[h]

The Leaders of Israel did not know what to think. I'm sure they didn't think it was right for Jesus to do that. They the sick and the lame and then the young came to him. They had never ever experienced anything like this before.

We know so much more of the story. Jesus was not a lunatic going around doing things to people and property without any rhyme or reason. Jesus ahd an eternal purpose that gave him plenty or reasons to do what he did. His zeal for His Father's house was enough to cleanse it again. He was no lunatic.

Then others, see him as Just a liar:

Yet, not many will say this openly. This is another silly accusation to make.

The clearest form of the argument goes like this:

Major Premise: All men are liars.

Minor Premise: Jesus is a man.

Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is a liar.

The major premise simple quotes Psalm 116:11.

The minor premise asserts what all believe about Jesus.

The conclusion flows from the two premises. Case closed.

Yet, why do the same people portray Jesus as a great teacher? If he is a liar, he is not worthy to listen to.

They reply, all men, including all teachers are liars. Some just do it more than others. So, what are attempting to destroy are aspects of divinity like grace and truth in the Lord while they affirm that he must be a liar because he is a man.

He is so much more than a man, he is the God-man. He is God and man together in one person. The miracle at the feast showed forth his divinity and glory. The cleansing of the temple showed his zeal for his heavenly Father's house.

We must examine what he said and the claims it makes on lives.

Matt 16:13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”

¹⁴ So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

If you know Jewish messianic expectations at the time, this makes sense.

Jesus continued:

¹⁵ He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

What a great question--who do you say Jesus is?

More importantly, how do you answer it.

¹⁶ Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

¹⁷ Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

If Jesus was lying, he was guilty of the worst blasphemy ever. Jesus would have been attributing to God, the Father, what was the work of the Devil, the Father of lies.  Jesus affirms the truthfulness of what Peter said. And, Jesus asserts the confident source of this knowledge.

^{Down in verse 20 we read:}

²⁰ Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.

Jesus goes further to Predict His Death and Resurrection--surely not something expected from an out of touch loner, a lunatic or a liar--even though some lunatics claim to know the future…..

²¹ From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.

Jesus and the disciples are on their way to Jerusalem where these events will surely occur. They hear the part about his death, but it seems as though they missed the clear word about his resurrection.

²² Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”

²³ But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

The thing of God includes the suffering of the God-man Jesus Christ. He told his disciples about what he would do and by God's grace, he did it.

He is without doubt, the Lord who deserves to be followed:

Who do you say that he is in your heart of hearts?

A bit of a loner, but a good teacher?

A liar, because he is just a man?

A Lunatic to be able to do what he did?

Or the Lord of Glory?

1 Thess 2 ⁶ since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, ⁷ and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, ⁸ in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. ⁹ These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, ¹⁰ when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe,^[a]because our testimony among you was believed.

Your opportunity to answer that question rightly comes in this life--who do you say Jesus is?

If you don't get it right, Jesus will ask you at the judgment--you know is coming. You will bow your knee to Jesus, but it will be too late for your soul's salvation. He is the Lord of glory now, listen to him, believe in him, follow him all your days.