New Testament Views of the Messiah
From His Own Mouth
It has not gone unnoticed among biblical scholars, even believing ones, that Jesus never explicitly states that he is God in the synoptic gospels. This has been taken by most modern, secular scholars as evidence that he of course never claimed it, and only his followers created this doctrine on their own, after his crucifixion. “Surely” if he had ever said it, or even if there was a rumor of it among the earliest authoritative tradents, the gospel writers would have recorded such a tradition, right? As we will examine below, modern scholarship has largely warmed to the idea that belief in the divinity of Christ occurred very early, even during the lifetime of and possibly among his original followers. “Surely“, if he had said it, they would have recorded it, as those earliest followers were surely considered authoritative tradents.
However, this seemingly logical conclusion might have a hole in it if you think for a moment. Before we jump to conclusions about what Jesus of the synoptic gospels would have necessarily said, often publicly, we should consider the evidence of whether there was ever a reason for him to conceal his self-identification, if he identified as divine in some sense. The first potential angles to look at this is if Jesus ever spoke cryptically about his mission, and if the gospels give any reasons for this. As we’ll see below, both of these are answered in the affirmative. In order to assert that the gospels invented Jesus’ cryptic message to explain why he never outwardly proclaimed his nature, we must first weigh the merits of why they present Christ’s divine nature as at least partially veiled. Secondly, we should note that there was good reason to conceal Jesus’ divine sonship simply from a practical standpoint: if he went around claiming publicly that he was the son of God and king of not only the Jews but the Messiah who was to rule the whole world, not only might some Jews attack him, but the Romans might have crucified him. Oh, yeah, they did, didn’t they?
Another logical question also arises from such musings. If the gospels invented theories about why Jesus never claimed to be God explicitly, then why did they not just invent accounts of Jesus claiming to be God instead? An argument against this might be that they couldn’t invent accounts that weren’t already accepted. But by this time, as we’ll see, the fact that he was in some sense divine was pretty much universal. So how did such a state come to be?
For now, I’d like to focus on one thing in particular: what the synoptic gospels actually say about what Jesus actually claimed and did, and whether such assertions do in fact add up to him claiming some sort of divine status, even if none of them are a flat out admission of some sort of godship. If the gospels were indeed somewhat bound by accepted doctrines of their time, then how did they get away with such bold statements that they have Jesus making, unless those too were also accepted among the earliest authoritative tradents? I believe this line of reasoning puts the onus of proof back on the skeptical scholars of our day to show that Jesus did not in fact claim some sort of divine status, if implicitly, and shows their bias to reject that the authors actually said what they said, simply because they tended to couch it more in mystery language without being explicit as a modern would expect.
All that said, we should also consider the best evidence cited by secular scholars on this topic: that Jesus’ main message in the synoptic gospels was in fact an apocalyptic one, about the imminence of the kingdom and of judgment, as I have already examined. However, that message of the coming kingdom and judgment fits neatly into the Hebrew Bible’s understandings of what the Messiah was to be in the last days; and, as we’ve been seeing, that Messiah could sometimes be seen as quite divine, even called “Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace!”[1] I could even end this section here and conclude that we had found enough evidence for how Jesus could be considered God, at least in some sense, within a thoroughly Jewish and even monotheistic context. But we have yet to consider in what sense Jesus was God. For the Messiah was to get a throne beside God’s, not actually be the same entity as God.
Note that I will distinguish less between what Jesus said and did, and what the gospels claimed happened around him. Their claims are couched in their complete message, just as the Hebrew Bible’s, not just the words that the prophet spoke. So their testimony that they claim for Jesus was not just in his words, but in what he communicated, even if it was something as nonverbal as accepting worship.
Jesus in the Synoptics
Greatest Prophet Ever, and…God?
First we’ll consider some examples of a high view of Christ presented by books outside of John. Passages such as Romans 9:5, Hebrews 1:8, Colossians 1:15-20[2], 2 Peter 1:1, and Revelation 1:8 clearly refer to Jesus as God, at least in some sense. However, the synoptic gospels, at least Mark who is considered their main source, are perceived by some scholars to be earlier than many such teachings (except for Romans and possibly Colossians), and therefore as presenting Jesus as less divine. But do they?
First, let’s turn to Matthew, which is believed to have been written after Mark, and then we’ll work back to Mark. Matthew 1 alone applies Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus, calling him “Immanuel”, which means “God with us”. When he teaches, he does so with authority (7:28), and is presented as greater than John the Baptist, who also was a prophet: John tells him that he had need of Jesus to baptize him; this despite the fact that Matthew 11 presents John as the greatest prophet up until his time. Jesus is the light shining for people walking in darkness.[3] He even forgave sins on multiple occasions, which apparently was considered blasphemy for anyone but God to do.[4] He is lord of the Sabbath, and greater than the Temple (ch.12). Jesus on several occasions receives worship, which not even angels accept, at least according to all but one possible biblical occurrence.[5] At the transfiguration (ch. 17), Moses and Elijah are there, yet to whom are they to listen, according to the voice from the clouds? The beloved Son. Note that this special revelation is only made to an elect few. And even Moses could not enter into the promised land of rest; but who of the prophets even vanquished/killed death like Jesus?
Mark, considered by most scholars to be the earliest gospel, presents Jesus’ miracles as sort of a repeat of Moses’ miracles. Luke focuses on repeating the signs of Elijah. But the question is not whether Jesus is merely presented as a new Moses and new Elijah, which seems quite obvious, but whether he is presented as greater. I will argue this to be the case when we examine the literary structure of the gospels in a later book. For now I’ll merely point out that the writer of Hebrews certainly makes the case explicit that Moses and his prophetic message were mere earthly shadows of what Jesus accomplished. I will also argue that Acts even amplifies messianic motifs with Peter and Paul, which of course raises even more questions about who the author of Acts is depicting as greater. Jesus’ actions within these literary devices clearly indicate that he was greater than all prophets before; they amount to testimony even if not verbal, and, as I will later demonstrate, are accepted as the messages of Mark (and Luke).
For now I just want to focus on the amplification of Jesus, as something potentially far superior to angels and Moses in the earliest synoptic gospels. Above we examined the continuum between heavenly beings and humans in the ancient world and their conceptions of gods and men, some of which appear in the earliest narratives of Genesis, and continues throughout the prophets, such as people even being called “elohim”, the same word used for God and angels. Other prophets, however, would draw a fairly distinct line between sons of men and God. Even the greatest of prophets was still just dust and ashes. Men were only sons of God because he created them, not because they could be any sort of demigod. So I would argue that these depictions of Jesus in the earliest gospels are in fact portraying Jesus as something greater than mere man, even greater than Elijah and Enoch, who were alone apart from Jesus carried up into the Heaven. But what exactly?
It is often argued that Jesus was not the God that later believers would make him out to be because he often referred to himself as “son of man”, a term that Ezekiel uses constantly, and (at least in Ezekiel) simply refers to being human.[6] I would suggest that the gospels possibly use this expression not to say that Jesus was claiming to be a mere man, or just to establish himself in the tradition of apocalyptic prophets, especially the incredibly elevating passage in Daniel 7 regarding the son of man; rather, this expression seems to also emphasize the “with us” part of the meaning of Immanuel. He was in a mere man. God coming in the flesh was an essential part of the Christianity that survives till today as preached by the letters 1 and 2 John, and groups that opposed this would largely be done away with after the time of Constantine, with a few notable exceptions, both through medieval and modern times. As I’ve already argued above, the synoptics seem to be making the same arguments regarding the physicality of Jesus as the gospel and letters of John, as they often present evidence for this.[7] As we’ve seen, Daniel also uses “son of man” as a figure very close to God indeed, and also applies it to the great coming appearance of the Messiah,[8] which the New Testament writers would not have failed to notice. In fact, some of them drew heavily on Daniel. And I’ve already mentioned the influence of 1 Enoch on first century apocalypticism, including on some New Testament writers.
Much ado is made over the common assertion that Jesus never claimed to be God in the synoptics. “Surely” he would have mentioned such a thing, right? We’ve already covered examples of Jesus keeping quiet certain information regarding his messiahship, and potential reasons for keeping aspects of the messiah’s arrival as mysteries. However, the gospels do in fact have Jesus claiming things that seem to make him in some sense equal to God. Even in the “earliest” gospel of Mark, Jesus says that he is “Lord” of the Sabbath.[9] As we’ve seen in Matthew, he also accepts worship.[10] In Luke 21, it is the “son of man” before whom all the nations will stand when the final apocalyptic judgment comes upon all the earth. John, which is full of examples of Jesus claiming to be God, focuses on what Jesus taught about himself more than the other gospels. The synoptics, on the other hand, focus on what Jesus did, and teachings about the coming kingdom. Jesus often teaches in parables which leave the truth a mystery to all but his inner circle of disciples, to whom he explains some of them. To demand that the synoptics explain their core tenets in every case is to ignore the way that they present their subject matter, which is often intentionally veiled.
Even in John, where most scholars accept that Jesus is equated with God at least in a sense, that fact is often portrayed in mystery language, as in the synoptics. John, for instance, begins the gospel calling Jesus “the light”. In chapter 4, he is the living waters; in chapter 6, he is bread from Heaven. And when Pilate asked Jesus in chapter 18 what Truth was, Jesus didn’t just blurt out “I’m God and you have to submit to me.” In fact, no response is recorded, and Pilate is left with a mystery, along with some clues that he should probably look into the matter (e.g., 19:7-11). In the debates with his enemies, Jesus often intentionally holds back explicitly stating who he is, especially in chapters 7 and 8.
More than Man?
In the gospels, Jesus’ sonship of God and messiahship are often portrayed together, as a collective idea of what he is. Modern scholars have argued that being a son of God in a Hebrew context was often used for mere men in antiquity, without it meaning that they were divine in any way, which is often true, but not in all cases. (See previous articles on this here.) Likewise, scholars often argue that the Jews’ concept of the coming Messiah was an expectation of a man, just like Solomon was a man, the son of David who ruled on earth as a man, and who was also called son of God. Firstly, this ignores some of the beliefs of known sects of the time, where the idea of the expected Messiah was highly exalted, as at the community of Qumran, who have a fair amount in common with the New Testament writers’ views. Secondly, many of the authors of the Hebrew Bible clearly had a highly exalted view of the Messiah, examples of which I have been citing throughout this book. And finally, and most pertinently, when the gospels combine together the two ideas of the awaited Messiah and son of God, it is clear that they are speaking of something more than a mere man, or even a great prophet. For instance, when Jesus admits that he is the Christ, the Jews want to stone him, as they understand what he says to be blasphemy. Observe the language Jesus uses to admit that he is the Messiah, son of Man,[11] and son of God in Mark 22:67-71, then compare this to John’s portrayal of similar conversations between Jesus and his detractors when making himself equal with God is made explicit, when they try to kill him because they understand: Jesus is making himself equal with God! (E.g., John 5:18). Note too that seldom does Jesus admit any of this explicitly; this mystery of the son of man/son of God/messiah is continually veiled with only peeks behind the veil of what the authors mean, including in John! For moderns scholars to deny this because we are illiterate to the way the ancients wrote is not only utterly ridiculous, but willfully ignorant. These concepts are nearly on every page of all the gospels! Surely Jesus would have castigated these modern scholars for willfully stopping their ears and not understanding just as he did his actual listeners then.
That the historical Jesus could have cryptically indicated his divinity (whatever that meant) should not be summarily rejected by even unbelieving scholars without at least a little consideration: historically, men who have wanted to appear closer to God have often spoken cryptically, especially to their followers. Enhancing mystery is a common methodology of such shamans.
In a following article, we’ll consider whether these exalted statements could apply to Jesus even if he was not the same entity as God the Father. But first I’d like to dispense with yet more modern reasoning that so often hinders our understanding of the biblical authors. Check out the next article here.
[1] Isaiah 9:6-7
[2] Colossians is one of the less disputed “Deutero-Pauline epistles”. In other words, scholars are not in full agreement whether Paul actually wrote it. If he did, then that would place its claim to Christ’s divinity potentially a decade or more before Mark. In such a case, the common claim among scholars that Jesus was not initially considered divine should not be stated with as much certainty as it almost always is. Regardless, Romans 9:5 agrees with Colossians here, and is undisputed as Pauline.
[3] Matthew 4:16, Isaiah 8:23-9:1.
[4] Fredriksen (in From Jesus to Christ, ch. 6) argues that it would not have been considered blasphemy to forgive sins after a healing, citing an example of another Jewish healer who did just that, without causing offense; however, she fails to try to show evidence that such a view was widespread, or to even mention the difficulty that large religious groups such as the Jews rarely perfectly agree. The conservative Jews of Palestine in the first century could have even considered Jesus’ statements as blasphemous simply because he spoke with authority, not even just on the content of what he said. People who try to kill others based on religious views do not always do so based on even widely accepted and logically applied doctrines.
[5] Matthew 14:33; compare Revelation 22:8-9, Colossians 2:18. Contrast Joshua 5:13-14, because the angel does not tell him to stand up when Joshua worships, as in Revelation 22:9. Much ado is made of this passage, and theologians have argued several angles, including even that this was the preincarnate Christ. However, it should be noted that the passage does not actually say that he directed his worship at the angel.
[6] Cf. Isaiah 51:12, Ecclesiastes 2:8, Jeremiah 50:40.
[7] E.g., Luke 24:39
[8] 8:17; 7:13
[9] 2:23-28
[10] E.g., Matthew 14:33
[11] Son of Man is another title that scholars try to take from the gospel writers. Ehrman, for instance, has argued in many of his books that Jesus does not even speak of himself sometimes when he uses the expression.