The four Gospel writers have different perspectives. They look at the ministry of Jesus from their distinct viewpoints. There are ülso differences, though minor, in factual details and in the chronological order.

These differences have led some scholars to conclude that we cannot be absolutely certain about anything said about Jesus in the New Testament. This is unfortunate in so far as it has prevented many of us from taking Jesus seriously as a historical person.

Another reason which has prevented us from confronting Jesus as a person is the excessive preoccupation with doctrinal issues. The church has been busy explaining how we could believe in Jesus as the incarnate Son of God and how we might interpret his death as atonement for our sins. We do not deny the importance and relevance of this development in doctrine. But when exclusive emphasis is laid on those two aspects of Christology, the life, teachings and acts of Jesus are reduced to those of a man who lived two thousand years ago in a very different culture. It is almost taken for granted that what he taught and what he did are irrelevant to faith and practice today. In other words, the despair of scholars is given theological legitimation!

It may be argued that in any case ordinary church-going folk are unaffected by the opinions of scholars and the erudition of theologians. But that is not so. The fact that the church has not been seriously involved in controversies around the “Jesus of history” and the “Christ of faith” meant that people largely neglected the teaching and practice of Jesus. This has been the result of putting all the emphasis on the efficacious death of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice for sin. We are often told that it is enough for us to recognize our sinfulness, acknowledge our inability to save ourselves and humbly accept the salvation freely offered through the death of Jesus.

This is undoubtedly and wonderfully true. But because Jesus’ teaching and practice are not seriously considered, we remain ignorant of the religious, social and political forces which joined hands to do away with Jesus. He was not offered as a sacrifice in the temple. He was crucified as a rebellious rival to Caesar. He was condemned as a blasphemous teacher who threatened the citadels of orthodoxy. His non-violent methods and his inclusive attitudes were seen as subversive and dangerous.

When we speak of forgiveness of sins we must also speak of the forgiveness of those sins that were directly responsible for the cross of Jesus Christ. It is not enough to speak only of the sins of personal failures. The sins which sent Jesus to the cross have their modern counterparts. They must be challenged to repent, and the forgiveness of God in Christ must bring healing and a new creation. Often, those who are relatively free from the common human failings are the ones who are guilty of the sins that colluded to crucify Jesus. Therefore we need to study carefully the life, the teaching and the work of Jesus which provoked such joint opposition. Otherwise Jesus’ call to repentance and his offer of forgiveness would leave untouched the social, religious and political dimensions of human sin.

It is important, therefore, that we do not yield to the traditional tendency to isolate the death and resurrection of Jesus from his life. His life and teachings clearly tell us what kind of sins are more deadly than the carnal sins. We do not want to give the impression that to indulge in carnal sins, and sins of deception and corruption, does not matter. It certainly does. The difference is that most of us in that category become more readily aware of our sin. The tax-gatherer in the temple who cried “Lord be merciful to me a sinner”, the woman who was a ‘sinner” and wept her heart out and kissed the feet of Jesus, and Zacchaeus who readily responded to Jesus are all typical examples of that category of people. On the contrary, the religious leaders who thought they did not stand in need of repentance, the political collaborators (the Herodians and the Sadducees) who felt threatened that they would lose their influence and power, and the representatives of the imperial power which operated purely on considerations of political expediency and not on principles of justice — they were the people who conspired to put Jesus to death.

This is what happens all the time and in all cultures. The extent of tyranny unleashed and freedom suppressed, mass poverty, sexist domination, racial discrimination — all these result from the collusion of state power and religious power. “The lifting up of the Son of Man”, to use the Johannine terni to refer to unjust suffering in the world, is a constantly recurring phenomenon. It is this sin which continues to defy recognition and identification because preaching and proclamation often remain the prerogative of those who indulge in it or are interested in it in some way.

The teachings and acts of Jesus help us to come to a clearer understanding. And only in the light of the life of Jesus can we come to grips with the meaning of his death and resurrection. We shall seek to understand what Jesus thought about himself, the significant perspectives of his teaching, and how he himself understood the meaning of his death. Our concern is with the self-understanding of Jesus and with his ministry as the Son of Man and the Servant of the Lord.

The Son of Man

Over eighty times in the Gospels Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man. Even allowing for the parallel passages in the first three Gospels, the count is still over forty.

What does the term mean? Scholars have much to say on this. But as we have consciously chosen, as far as possible, to seek solutions to the riddles from within scripture and through the eyes of the people, we shall not call upon the scholars to help us out.

We must proceed on the assumption that when our Lord referred to himself as the Son of Man his audience could understand what he meant. That understanding was probably informed by the remembrance of passages in the Book of Daniel which refer to Israel groaning under the tyranny of a foreign rule as “one like a son of man” (Dan. 7:13-27). It is highly probable that Jewish people under Roman rule would have constantly referred to this vision of vindication in the Book of Daniel. The son of man, who represents Israel under foreign domination, is vindicated and given the kingdom by God who is referred to in that vision as the Ancient of Days. All people under repressive and tyrannical regimes always found ways and means of communicating among themselves their hopes and aspirations of liberation through a kind of language which is understood only among themselves. It is probable that Jesus was aware of such a use of the title “son of man” and referred to himself as the true representative of Israel.

If this is correct, Jesus wanted to communicate that he would represent through his suffering the suppressed people and be vindicated on their behalf so that all people could share in the kingdom that is promised.

That Jesus thought of himself as representing suffering humanity, that section of humanity which is marginalized and ostracized, is further confirmed by the way in which he drew upon the experience of the psalmists who express the anguish of different kinds of human suffering and the prophecies of the First Testament. Reflecting on the impending betrayal by one of his disciples, Jesus recalls the complaint of the psalmist: “Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me” (Ps. 41:9). Praying in Gethsemene, he referred to the cross as a cup held out by God for him to drink. The imagery comes from Isaiah 51:17-22 which reflects on the suffering of Israel in exile as the experience of drinking the cup of God’s wrath to the dregs. The very same passage contains a promise that the same cup of wrath given to the Israelites would be turned into a means of judgment of the oppressors of Israel. On the cross, Jesus calls out in the words of the psalmist: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me (Ps. 22).

The title “Son of Man” contained within it this understanding that Jesus represented and summed up all unjust suffering in his experience on the cross. There is a further hint in one isolated saying which refers not to the cross but to the whole of his life. He said that “foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head” (Matt. 8 :20; Luke 9 :58). His homelessness represented the homeless-ness of millions.

The servant consciousness

Jesus also described his role as that of the servant. He said to his disciples who were disputing among themselves as to which of them was to be considered as the greatest: “I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22:27). He considered his role as that of a servant, in contrast to the way in which the world at large ordered its social structure: “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves benefactors” (Luke 22:25).

Although Jesus explicitly referred to his role as that of a servant only once, there are clear echoes of the servant image of Isaiah (chs 42-55) elsewhere. He referred to his impending death as a “ransom for many” (Isa. 53:10-12), and on another occasion he referred to the need to be numbered with the transgressors (Isa. 53 :12).

We should, however, look upon his whole ministry as the ministry of the servant. Not only in his redeeming death but also in the way in which he carried out his teaching ministry, his was a servant ministry.

He chose Galilee as the base of his operation. The Galileans were despised by the religious leaders of the day as a people with little or no religious consciousness. Galilee was called “Galilee of the nations” even in the Book of Isaiah (9:1). This was not because there were many Gentiles living in Galilee, but because Galilee, on the trade route in the fertile crescent between Egypt and Assyria, had been heavily influenced by Gentile culture. Galilee was also the base for frequent political rebellions against Roman occupation. People’s lack of concern to observe all the religious traditions faithfully, their openness to alien cultural influences and their readiness to be swayed by political upstarts, all had contributed to the proverbial saying:

“Nothing good will ever come out of Galilee.” Such a sentiment was shared even by a person described as a guileless Israelite, Nathaniel (John 1:47). When Nicodemus tried to speak on behalf of Jesus at the Sanhedrin, the top religious council of the Jews, he was asked: “Are you also a Galilean ?“ “Look into it”, he was reminded, “and you will find that a prophet does not come from Galilee” (John 7:50-52).

Nevertheless, good did come out of Galilee. The twelve disciples of Jesus came from Galilee. The women who remained faithful to Jesus till the end and who provided the important link between the death and resurrection of our Lord were from Galilee. Jesus recognized in all of them a smouldering flax, and he set out to kindle that flax into a flame of liberative consciousness.

Starting where people are, the Servant Jesus begins by talking about the kingdom of God. The kingdom is hope, and the hope touches upon several aspects of the life of ordinary people.

First, Jesus’ ministry of exorcism symbolizes the end of Satan’s rule. Satan is the prince of this world, who seems to be in control of the political powers that be, and even of religious attitudes and values and individual lives. The exorcisms are concrete and tangible proof that the kingdom of evil is breaking up (Luke 10:18-20).

Second, Jesus suggests to people that this taking on of Satan in direct conflict can be undertaken by anybody who has faith in God. In this respect he is ready to share his power with his disciples as well as with non-disciples. He also commends the small expressions of faith that he comes across. He tells people:

“Your faith has saved you.” He is humble enough to tell his disciples that they will achieve far more in terms of realizing the kingdom than he himself would be able to.

While Jesus spent most of his ministry inspiring confidence and hope among the very ordinary people of Galilee and among all those who suffered ostracization and marginalization, he also recognized the need for all-round repentance.

The ministry of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah was described as that of one who opened the eyes of the blind and made it possible for the deaf to hear (42:7). This ministry is often interpreted as the ministry of making people more spiritually minded. However, the opening of eyes and ears refers also to the widening of awareness. Oppression is more than foreign rule. A culture that promotes elitism and exclusivism and a religion that has abdicated the concern for justice and liberation are also oppressive. The kingdom of God and its righteousness are to be understood in terms of a new order, not just in terms of transfer of power from foreign rulers to native rulers. It has to do with a counter-culture which is compassionate and inclusive. It has to do with a new religion informed by the true knowledge of the God who cares for justice.

Therefore, while Jesus did not openly disapprove of the political ferment brewing in Galilee, he asked people to reassess their attitude with regard to the standing of other nations with God. He assures people that God’s kingdom has broken in. What was spoken of in Isaiah 61 has begun to come true. But it will fully blossom only if the people are prepared to include the despised Gentiles within its promises.

This is the main thrust of his interpretation of Isaiah 61 in the synagogue in Nazareth. Of course at first people are enraged when Jesus asks them to ponder over the fact that it was the widow of Sidon who looked after Elijah and that Elisha did not refuse to heal Naaman the Syrian because he was a foreigner (Luke 4:18-30).

One of the ways in which any culture makes its people blind to internal injustice is by giving them an ethnic consciousness. By diverting attention to external enemies communities are held together. Such a communal consciousness often results in blinding people to many forms of oppression within their own community or nation. This is well understood by political leaders. So they cleverly keep fanning communal and national feelings and inculcating hatred against external enemies in order that they may continue in power and their exploitation may remain undetected. We could give many examples from contemporary history. Till recently in the capitalist West this was done by keeping alive the fear of nuclear war or a military invasion by the communist bloc. So that, for example, one heard British Christians saying that “it is far better to put up with the evil of having a stockpile of atomic weapons than live in fear that the Russians may be in your backyard any moment”. So that Mrs Thatcher could say that “nuclear deterrent” was the “prince of peace”. In India the two enemies who serve this useful function are Pakistan and China. Sometimes the CIA also serves the same purpose!

Communal consciousness has the capacity to spread its contagion across class and status barriers. Jesus was concerned that the people of Galilee should become aware that a mere transfer of power from the Romans to the Jews was not going to usher in God’s kingdom. I-Ie wanted to channel the political energies of the people of Galilee towards a more just and a more inclusive social order. Although not all Galileans were converted, from the way Galilean crowds followed him, it is more than likely that many had begun to see the import of Jesus’ more radical political programme based on a vision for society.

The new social order Jesus envisaged was to be nonhierarchical. This was how he read his Bible. In Deuteronomy, as we have already seen, the king was not to consider himself above others. He was not to build up a big establishment and a standing army. However, the kings had failed to follow this injunction. They had gloried in their power and privilege. The people had become domesticated. They thought kings had the right to function in the way they did under some divine decree. People’s political sensitivities had become blunted. In order to wake them up from their slumber, Jesus announced that God’s kingdom would be the kingdom of the poor. It would be a kingdom in which the appointed leaders would serve rather than dominate. The people, especially the powerless poor, would set the agenda for those appointed to execute programmes, and not the other way round. In this manner the Gentile power and all hierarchical power had to be opposed. Perhaps it was precisely because of this firm political conviction that Jesus refrained from joining political movements whose agenda began and ended with the overthrow of foreign rule.

The second important aspect of Jesus’ call to repentance was with regard to the way in which society was structured and social relationships were ordered. The most pervasive culture was the culture of reciprocal obligations among equals. Society had many strata. All of them functioned in the same way in one respect. They gave loans to those who would be able to repay, and possibly lend to them when the need arose. They extended hospitality only to those who would be able to reciprocate hospitality. This is true even today.

In India people refer to this cultural practice by calling all generosity and all gifts loans without interest. The people who first receive hospitality or gifts carry a burden until they are able to reciprocate. Human pride refuses to allow anyone to be under obligation to another. To receive freely is a hard thing. Therefore we also find it hard to give freely. If at times we are able to give something, we expect at least a grateful look or a word of appreciation from the receiver. But Jesus said: “Freely you receive, freely you give.” Human culture is anti-grace. But the kingdom culture will be governed only by grace.

The third aspect of Jesus’ call to repentance was with regard to perversion within religion. Religious people at the time of Jesus, as at all times, had developed a false sense of moral superiority. They gave support to unjust structures. They were blind to their patriarchal attitudes. They clung to the forms of religion and denied the essence of it.

Therefore Jesus urged them to become aware of the beam in their own eyes before going on to remove the speck in the eyes of those they designated and ostracized as “sinners”. He pointed out that their intentions and thoughts were as bad as their outward actions. He was conspicuously friendly with the so-called undesirable elements of society, the tax-collectors and prostitutes. He had many women followers, unlike the Rabbis of his day (Luke 8:1-3).

Jesus identified practices of oppression and injustice among the pious of his day (Mark 12:38-40). A constant refrain on his lips was the statement from Hosea: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” He emphasized this by breaking many conventions. He deliberately ate without washing his hands and had table fellowship with those whom the religious people of his day considered undesirable company.

A far more serious offence, Jesus healed on the sabbath. His contention was that the sabbath was meant more as an institution of liberation than of religion. By saying “My father is working and lam working still” (John 5:1-7) in response to the accusation of sabbath-breaking, Jesus subscribed to the Deuteronomic rationale for the institution of the sabbath. In Deuteronomy 5:14-15 the Israelites are commanded to observe the sabbath rest in order that the servants of the household may have a day of rest. This was to be a commemoration of their own liberation from slavery in Egypt.

In fact, in all three respects, Jesus’ concern is for the poor. The kingdom is to become the kingdom of the poor. Social relationships should be so structured that the poor do not get rnarginalized. Religion must uphold the supreme value that God desires mercy and not sacrifice.

To create such a political structure, promote such a social order and inspire an entirely new form of religion and spirituality is not an easy task. The powerful are not to be easily converted. Those under their domination, having internalized all injustice as legitimate and God-ordained, are not to be easily conscientized. So Jesus had to pay the price for his attempt to convert the powers that be and for the liberation of those under captivity. The price was the cross. His theological reflection on the destiny of the servant of whom Isaiah spoke had convinced Jesus that he would meet the same fate.

The cross of Christ is the means of salvation not merely in the legal sense of penalty paid for sin. The powers of religion, state and society which are always in collusion to oppress and marginalize, could only be converted by exposing them in all their nakedness. Those under captivity would be empowered when they realize that the powers that crucified Jesus became powerless because God raised Jesus from death.

In so far as Jesus prayed for his enemies, even the powers which can always crucify God are given an opportunity to repent and seek forgiveness from the one whom they sought to eliminate. Precisely at this point the stone rejected by the builders is still the stone of stumbling for those who wield power. But precisely at this point the stone becomes the cornerstone on which an entirely new order can be established by God.