|The Divine Claims of Jesus: Foundational Issues|
[Introduction] [Expectations if Claims Had Not Been Made] [Were the Claims Created?: The "Follower Trilemma"] [Conclusion]
"Jesus never claimed to be God."
This claim is made frequently by members of deviant religious groups; less often by Skeptics, although usually the latter, when they say this, are questioning the very authenticity of the sayings of Jesus, as opposed to their interpretation.
This series on the divine claims of Jesus takes for granted that the sayings recorded in the Gospels are authentic. This is not to say that we assume it as an argument, only that it is part of a different question than the one we address in the series -- the interpretation of those claims.
Other variations exist on the objection as well: Jesus' claims were altered by his followers, or are misunderstood. We'll address these below.
John's Gospel and Theological Evolution
Another argument in this regard is that only John's Gospel portrays Jesus as claiming to be God; and since it is later than the Synoptics, the claims are the result of an evolution in Christian theology.
There is no a priori reason to reject John's Gospel, or even to date it as the latest of the present quartet. Indeed, John A. T. Robinson in Redating the New Testament and in The Priority of John, presents a cogent argument for dating John in the same time period as the other Gospels, between 50-65 AD, with proto-gospel material and traditions dating into the two decades previous. Others have presented similar arguments for an earlier date for John than is often presumed (see particularly Chars.JDSS, 167-9).
A full discussion of the date of the Johannine Gospel is beyond our scope in this essay, but you can check the link for more information.
Please note that we may not simply reject the record of John's Gospel because we find it incredible that Jesus should have made such direct claims to divinity - that, indeed, is the very point at issue.
And what of the Synoptics? The fact is that there are ample recorded claims of divinity by Jesus in the Synoptics, which operate against the assumption that only John shows Jesus making such claims. The divinity claims in the Synoptics give a quite unambiguous statement of what Jesus meant when He made those claims, as we will see in the series articles linked below.
We do NOT, of course, find the direct claim: "I AM GOD." That would have been a little too confusing to Jesus' hearers, and at any rate, would not have been precisely correct, only generally correct. The claims, as we shall see, are more precisely fitting to the proclamation: "Jesus is God the Son; the Wisdom and Word of God" - i.e., the second person of the Trinity, which, ontologically, makes Jesus co-equal with God.
Even the NT itself, though it refers to Jesus as God (cf. John 1:1, 20:28), shows a preference for expressing Jesus' divinity through titles: Word, Savior, Son of God, Lord - and by using language to describe Jesus that is appropriated from OT attributions to Yahweh [OColl.Ch, 144-5].
There were reasons for this, as Brown [Brow.JesGM, 33-4] points out, regarding the hesitation in the NT to directly ascribe the title "God" to Jesus:
The most plausible explanation is that in the earliest stage of Christianity the Old Testament heritage dominated the use of the title 'God'; hence 'God' was a title too narrow to be applied to Jesus. It referred strictly to the Father of Jesus, to the God whom he prayed. Gradually (in the 50s and 60s?), in the development of Christian thought, 'God' was understood to be a broader term. It was seen that God had revealed so much of Himself in Jesus that 'God' had to be able to include both Father and Son.
Harris [Harr.3Cruc, 99-103] agrees with the above in his own analysis, and adds that there would be a certain "linguistic ambiguity" in directly and always referring to Jesus as God - to wit: What would we make of the verse that said, "the Father was in God, reconciling the world to himself"? For the sake of clarity, the distinction had to be kept foremost in the text.
Harris notes other reasons for the distinction; among them, the need to avoid a misunderstanding of there being two Gods; a need to keep the emphasis upon the humanity of Jesus without expense to His Deity; and in our own time, the problem of our language making "Jesus is God" mean the same thing as "God is Jesus" - which suggests a numerical identity which is NOT part of the total package.
The claims of Jesus, at any rate, can be understood and interpreted in light of the context and setting in which they were made: first-century Judaea. But what of defending the authenticity of these claims as being the words of Jesus, rather than the invention of his followers?
To fully defend the authenticity of Jesus' words is, again, beyond our scope here, but we can make a few general observations.
First, the claim that Jesus "didn't say" this or that (whether claims to divinity, or some moral teaching) inevitably rests upon a need to create guidelines for determining what Jesus said. I have yet to see much in the way of sound criterion for this sort of exercise, from any group; apart from the criteria that a saying cannot be anachronistic (e.g., if Jesus mentions a "burrito" then it is likely he did not say those words), most of the criterion used are arbitrary or self-serving.
The Jesus Seminar, for example, argues that any saying of Jesus that reflects a teaching of the early church is probably not authentic. This is indeed a dubious guideline. Is it not more probable, rather, that the early church based their teachings on the actual sayings of Jesus? Is this not the normal method whereby any person gains a following?
There is ample indication that the early church based its doctrine on things Jesus said and did, including His claims to divinity, rather than inventing what He said and did after formulating the doctrines. Craig [Craig.ApIn, 160] puts it this way:
Studies by New Testament scholars such as Martin Hengel of Tubingen University, C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge, and others have proved that within twenty years of the crucifixion a full-blown Christology proclaiming Jesus as God incarnate existed. How does one explain this worship by monotheistic Jews of one of their countrymen as God incarnate, apart from the claims of Jesus himself?
The oldest liturgical prayer recorded, in 1 Corinthians 16:22, is dated at around 55 A.D. It refers to Jesus as Lord. So does the earliest sermon and the earliest account of martyrdom. The authors of the NT epistles, including and especially Paul, even in his undisputed letters, use the language of divine Wisdom with reference to Jesus. The earliest pagan report of the church's activities indicates that Jesus was worshipped as Lord.
Paul's letters, written between 49 and 65 A.D., exhibit the same fully-evolved Christology; logically, he must have gotten it from sometime earlier than 49 A.D. Paul cites creeds, hymns and sayings of Jesus that must have come from earlier (Rom. 1:3-4; 1 Cor. 11:23; Col. 1:15-16; Phil. 2:6-11; 1 Tim. 3:16; 2 Tim. 2:8); these items translate easily into Aramaic and show features of Hebrew poetry and thought-forms, which allows us to trace their origins to Jesus' first followers in Judea, between 33 and 48 A.D. [More.ScCy, 161-5]
All of this leads to the inevitable conclusion that the concept of Jesus as divine quite definitely existed within, at the very least, a decade of the crucifixion, and therefore, was likely to have been asserted before His death by Jesus Himself, as is recorded in the Gospels.
Similarly, O'Collins observes [OColl.Ch, 24-5]:
The oldest Christian document shows us Paul repeatedly calling Jesus 'Christ' in a way that suggests that, within twenty years of Jesus' death and resurrection, this comprehensive title for Jesus' identity and powers was simply taken for granted by Paul and his readers, had practically lost its original significance, and was almost his second (personal) name (1 Thess. 1:1, 3; 5:23, 28). In a notable pre-Pauline formulation, which also goes back to the earliest years of Christianity, 'Christ' seems already to have lost much of its titular significance (or messianic expectations) and to be functioning largely as an alternative name for Jesus (1 Cor. 15:3). In his letters Paul uses 'Christ' 270 times but never considers it necessary to argue explicitly that Jesus is 'the Christ' whom Israel expected.
Moreover, as Charlesworth notes, if the church had invented Jesus' claims to divinity, they certainly "would have been more explicit" than they are in their present form. [Wilk.JUF, 26] Such a reaction begs a historical explanation, and thus we have every reason to believe that Jesus did claim something very unique about Himself and His relationship to God, to the point of identifying Himself with divinity, and no reason to doubt what is recorded in the Gospels is reliable and accurate - and it is to that issue that we now turn.
Did They Not Understand?
What of the idea that Jesus did say some or all of the things the Gospels attribute to Him, but that He was misunderstood by his followers? Regrettably, with this objection often comes either some outrageous Eastern/mystical interpretation of the claims of Jesus that would never have held water in Judaism - or nothing at all but the suggestion itself without alternative.
One must, of course, when making this suggestion, one should actually name some alternative interpretations of the claims of Jesus and show that these "alternative interpretations" would hold water within the socio-historical context of the Gospel records. Nevertheless, this argument can be defeated by critically examining the claims attributed to Jesus by the Synoptics (again, for the sake of argument, ignoring John's Gospel) and determine what meaning they did have in the context of first-century Judea and Judaism.
We thusw offer these mini-essays evaluating the claims of Jesus from the Synoptic Gospels. You can also return to the hub page for these links and more information.
If Jesus never claimed to be divine, and never claimed it in the sense that is indicated in the Gospels, it is reasonable to expect that:
As it is, there are no extant texts from the first century, or even from the century thereafter, that represent Jesus as claiming to be only human or only a prophet--He is ALWAYS portrayed as making exalted claims to a super-human status. Later heresies of the church, such as Gnosticism, involved paganistic and/or mystical additions upon what Jesus meant in the Gospels when He claimed to be God; they never denied that He made any special claims about Himself.
As we just noted, the earliest known pagan critic of Christianity to address the issue, Celsus, argued that Jesus did apply the title "Son of God" to Himself, but wrongly [Wilk.ChrRom, 109]; only much later did those critics deny that Jesus made such claims.
The argument that Jesus never claimed to be divine is in fact nothing more than an unsupportable conjecture, an argument from silence competing against the roar of the available data.
Each of the above claims, and every known document of the church, even the heretical ones, acknowledge that Jesus claimed divinity. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary that can be cited. Saying that there is no evidence that Jesus claimed divinity can only be managed by ignoring reams of evidence, or by facile dismissal.
And now the final point, which will lead into our essay on the trilemma. If we allow that Jesus' claims were manufactured by His followers, or that His claims were misunderstood by them, we do nothing more than create a different sort of trilemma! Jesus' followers were either:
A.Telling the truth, and they knew it;
B.Telling a lie, and they knew it; or,
C.Telling a lie, and they didn't know it because they misunderstood.
If we choose B), we are left to wonder what motivated Jesus' followers to begin lying and maintain that lie. They did not benefit at all by claiming that their Master was God incarnate: They were ostracized, criticized, rejected, persecuted, and in many cases martyred. Nor did they make loads of money by claiming what they did - no Jim Bakkers in this crowd.
This being the case, we may ask why none of Jesus' followers cracked under pressure, or got fed up with persecutions and inconveniences, and admitted that the divinity claims by Jesus were a fabrication.
We may, of course, speculate that it is possible that Jesus' followers lied, but there are no signed confessions, no counterclaims by the Pharisees trumpeting the recanting of a disciple of Jesus - nothing. To argue this, we must argue from silence.
More than that, we must argue AGAINST the data of their lives and the witness of history. To raise it as a MERE possibility does not constitute advancing evidence for the speculation.
See a deeper form of this argument here.
Choosing C) offers a slightly more hopeful refuge for the skeptic. It may be objected that Jesus spoke rather cryptically at times, so that perhaps He truly was misunderstood.
But as we have shown in the linked essays, it is hardly plausible that Jesus' claims were misunderstood; they are too clear-cut when understood in the context of the time and place they were made.
Moreover, are there not also degrees of metaphorical difficulty? Some metaphors are easier to understand than others, and some people understand and interpret metaphor better than others. So, how can we be sure that Jesus' followers didn't at some point correctly grasp what He was saying? It is only in our modern-day arrogance that we say that they were incorrect, and we, looking down the tunnel of 2000 years, are better qualified to understand (and contrary to evidence!) what Jesus actually said.
Finally, we are told that Jesus DID explain things to His disciples privately after the crowds were gone: "He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything." (Mark 4:34 - this was standard practice for an inner circle of disciples. For a practical example of this, see the Parable of the Sower in Matt. 13.) These, of course, represent the people who wrote (Matthew, John) or else supplied information for (Mark, Luke) the Gospels.
And at any rate, many of the claims to divinity are quite direct, and not in the least metaphorical.
Sources for this Series