Did Jesus think he was God?
This may be one of the most common questions people ask about early Christology. And it reflects a long-standing scholarly debate about Jesus’s own divine consciousness. Even if other people thought Jesus was divine, did Jesus himself think so?
A number of years ago, Bart Ehrman jumped into the fray of these debates over early Christology in his book, How Jesus Became God (HarperOne, 2014). And he addressed this question about Jesus’ divine self-awareness.
Not surprisingly, Ehrman argued that Jesus never thought of himself as God. Leaning on his earlier book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford, 2001), he says that Jesus just viewed himself as an apocalyptic prophet who was ushering in the Kingdom of God (basically Albert Schweitzer redivivus).
Ehrman adopts what he regards as the standard methodologies of modern critical scholarship, including the criteria of authenticity (and even the controversial and oft-debated criteria of dissimilarity). Of course, the upshot of Ehrman’s reconstruction of the historical Jesus is that any statements that might sound like a claim to divinity are conveniently dismissed as unhistorical.
So, not surprisingly, the claims of Jesus in the Gospel of John are considered “not part of the historical record of what Jesus actually said” (p.125). In addition, Ehrman refuses to allow any statement where Jesus identifies himself as the “Son of Man.”
Needless to say, this all works out a little too neatly. Ehrman portrays his critical methods not only as something that all scholars agree upon, but as something that leads to clear cut, unambiguous results.
Left unsaid is the fact that the criteria of authenticity themselves have come under tremendous fire from scholars of all stripes (e.g., see Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity [T&T Clark, 2012]). Even more, the specific criterion of dissimilarity (which fuels much of Ehrman’s reconstruction) has been vigorously debated and, in the minds of many, is fundamentally flawed.
On top of all of this, even scholars who agree on the criteria reach radically different conclusions about how those criteria should be applied. Given that Ehrman has spent much of his academic career lamenting reconstructions of early Christianity which portray it as neat and tidy, and given that he is quick to point out that early Christianity was, in reality, full of debate and disagreement, it is ironic that he seems so unwilling to point out those same challenges within his own discipline.
The truth of the matter is that reconstructions of the historical Jesus do not give us some clear and simple division of sayings where the human Jesus is on one side and the divine Jesus is on the other. It is much more complex than this, and Ehrman owes it to the reader to make that plain.
Take as an example Ehrman’s dismissal of the sayings where Jesus identifies himself as the Son of Man. This move is not at all consistent with much of modern scholarship, as can be seen by the collection of essays in the recent volume, Who Is This Son of Man? (eds. Larry Hurtado and Paul Owen; T&T Clark, 2011). If Jesus did see himself as the Son of Man, and the evidence suggests that he did, then there are numerous places in the Synoptics where Jesus sees himself in a divine role.
For instance, in Matt 26:63-65 (cf. Mark 14:62/Luke 22:67-71) Jesus not only identifies himself as the Son of God, but then also identifies himself as the Son of Man coming to judge the world on the clouds of heaven–an identity that the chief priests regard as worthy of the charge of blasphemy. So, even if one were to discount the Gospel of John, there is ample evidence elsewhere for Jesus’ divine self-understanding.
But, there is another problematic aspect to Ehrman’s methodology. Slipped into the discussion (rather subtly) is the expectation that if Jesus really thought he was God he would go around talking about it all the time. Indeed, this is the very point of Ehrman’s argument when comparing John and the Synoptics: “If Jesus really went around calling himself God [in John], wouldn’t the other Gospels at least mention the fact?” (p.87, emphasis mine).
There are several problems with the way Ehrman frames the question. For one, Jesus doesn’t always go around calling himself God even in John’s Gospel. There are only a handful of times where Jesus explicitly claims to be God in John–not nearly as out of sync with the Synoptics as Ehrman would claim.
Beyond this, Ehrman’s statement presents an expectation that if Jesus were God he would always say it directly, something like, “Good to meet you, I am God.” But could Jesus not present himself as the God of Israel in other ways?
For instance, is it not relevant that Jesus presents himself as the judge of the world, who will sit on God’s glorious throne, who reigns over the angels, and is the key to people’s eternal destinies in heaven or hell (Matt 25:31-46)? Is it not relevant that Jesus forgives sins, a prerogative that the scribes regard as solely belonging to God and thus worthy of the charge of blasphemy (Mark 2:5-6)? Is it not relevant that Jesus claims to have such a special relationship with the Father that “all things have been handed over to me” and that a person cannot know the Father unless “the Son chooses to reveal Him” (Matt 11:27)? And more examples could be given.
We can agree that John’s Gospel makes such claims to divinity even more direct–as the last Gospel it is not surprising that it offers a more sustained theological reflection on the person of Jesus. But, we should not confuse the directness of a claim with the existence of a claim. The historical evidence suggests the Synoptic Jesus and the Johannine Jesus both claimed to be the God of Israel.
Paul Mattaliano says
Dr. Kruger,
I agree with everything posted. Thank you for your continued vigilance in responding to the many attacks on the authenticity of the Scriptures. You apologetic is always well argued and persuasive. However, one question which comes to mind is why didn’t Jesus claim his diety more openly and forcefully? God the Father in the Old Testament certainly did. Did God the Son not operate in the same manner? Did it have something to do with the fact that He was incarnate? Was it simply a situation of those that have “ears to hear and eyes to see?”
Thank you again for your service to the Kingdom.
Nemo says
Paul Mattaliano wrote, “why didn’t Jesus claim his diety more openly and forcefully? God the Father in the Old Testament certainly did. Did God the Son not operate in the same manner?
Both your question and the answers given so far seem to take for granted that God’s mode of operation in the OT, with regard to claiming or demonstrating divinity, is significantly different from Jesus in the NT,
However, it is not clear to me whether or not this is true. After all, it is from the OT that we get the expression “a still small voice” (1 Kings 19:12). Could you elaborate a little on your point and give some examples on how God claimed divinity openly and forcefully in the OT?
A J MacDonald says
When you start with naturalistic assumptions you end up with naturalistic conclusions. It just goes in a circle.
Alex says
Dr. Kruger, the link between the Son of Man and God seems shaky. Yes, the priests accuse him of blasphemy for the designation, but blasphemy could refer to many different forms of speech (Acts 18:16, LXX Ez. 35:12-13, 1 Macc. 2:6).
And while the Son of Man possesses some of the prerogatives of God, these are given to him by God (John 5:27). The people marvel that God gave (some) men authority to forgive sin (Matthew 9:8). They are not something he intrinsically has. So the Son of Man christology seems more concerned with an apocalyptic narrative by which the suffering Christ who represents the faithful is authorized to bring to an end the ages than with the deity of the Messiah (Daniel 7:15-28, Rev 5:9-10).
Jonathan says
In analysing the biblical view of who the Son of Man is, it would be more helpful to start not with Dan 7:15, but at Dan 7:13. For there you have the clearest example of the status of the Son of Man. Depending on the translation you use you will notice that the Son of Man is served/worshipped by all humanity for eternity. The word that is either translated as ‘serve’ or ‘worship’ is only used in the Bible in the context of service or worship of YHWH or a foreign god. So I think it becomes quite clear that Jesus is more than just a human figure leading humanity into a new age.
P.S. you will also notice that Jesus says he is the Son of Man AND that he will come riding on the clouds. Riding in the clouds is something only YHWH does in the Old Testament, so it is pretty obvious what sort of status Jesus is claiming.
Victoria Grayson says
Jesus is the same fictional Jesus from the LXX version of Zechariah.
Paul only ever indicates 2 sources of Jesus info, Scripture (the LXX) and dream teachings.
Paul never indicates Cephas or anyone else was a disciple of Jesus. Apostle doesn’t mean disciple.
Philo independently confirms Jesus is the same Jesus from the LXX version of Zechariah:
Dean says
I am not that familiar with all those modern shcolarly rules that seek to undermine, dismiss & devalue Scripture, I will need some time to digest the last paragraph but Thou shalt not quote the book of John is bizarre.
Jesus often downplayed His identity because of timing regarding the cross or because of crowds getting the wrong idea. So much hinges on the cross & pentecost & only God could fully atone( the perfect sacrifice) .
Its an interesting comment about God being more forceful in the OT when you consider the showdown with the new Pharoah in Egypt & the land of slavery or all those years of wandering in the desert because of hard hearts or even the book of Job where God allows Satan to challenge His servant. In as much as God is able & willing to utilise His power He is also long suffering & patient with the sons & daughters of human design.
Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Jonah says
@Paul Mattaliano A short answer would be because it was not Jesus’ main goal to tell people everywhere he is God. This is a common misconception regarding Jesus’ ministry. When he appeared on earth, it was for people to believe in him as the Messiah, a king, the one, in Israelite thought, who would redeem and restore the nation. This was essentially the anticipation of the time. They needed a Messiah-king, who would rid them of the bonds of the Rome. A further explication of Jesus’ divinity would appear later in Apostolic works.
With this I do not say that Jesus never claimed divinity in the gospel accounts (he did), but that it wasn’t the main agenda at that moment, among other things, because even his disciples would have difficulty believing higher spiritual truths (they even wavered regarding the resurrection).
John S says
Yes, the reason that Jesus would not go around saying ‘I am God’ all the time is explicitly stated by Jesus himself:
Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
“‘“You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.” …
Bryant J Williams III says
Dear Michael,
Thanks for the timely article. There are several books from Dr. Larry W. Hurtado that answers most of question regarding High Christology of the Early Church that Ehrman would have a hard time answering especially Hurtado uses data from history both explicit and implicit. A bibliography can be found at http://www.larryhurtado.wordpress.com; or, even googling him.
I would also recommend several article of mine at https://shasta.academia.edu/BryantWilliamsIII under the following titles:
I AM, ἐγώ εἰμι, in the Gospels.docx
EGW EIMI in the Old Testament
The Use of EGW EIMI in Isaiah
1. The use of ἐγώ εἰμι without the predicate requires special mention. Of course, this is from the OT “I am” in Exodus 3:14; (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ών – I AM Who I AM; notice the Participle ὁ ών) Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 14:4, et al. It is used in many different contexts throughout all periods of the OT from the Pentateuch/Law of Moses to the Historical Books, to the Prophets and to the Wisdom Literature. By NT times it is found to have its normal meaning of “I am he” when it is answered by someone other than Jesus, e.g. the blind man of John 9:9. Jesus sometimes uses this same idea, e.g. John 18:5 and Mark 6:50. There are Messianic overtones found in its use by Jesus in Mark 14:61
2. By the time of the Gospels, ἐγώ εἰμι, is a term that has become, primarily, a fixed expression taken over from its use in the OG/LXX and from the Hebrew. It is used primarily by Jesus and is found 48 times in 47 verses. Luke has his 5 uses on the lips of Zachariah (John the Baptist’s father), Gabriel, the Centurion and of Christ (1:18, 19; 7:8; 21:8; 22:27, 70; 24:39): It is in the Gospel of John that the majority uses of ἐγώ εἰμι are found [31 times in 30 verses especially in Chapters 6 (5x), 8 (5x) and 10 (4x)].
3. The I sayings of John point to a person who is the Son and is Equal with the Father both in Word and Deed. This is also the same who is equated to be the Manna:
a. The Bread of Life who came down from Heaven,
ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ καταβὰς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ;
b. The Bread of Life,
Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς;
c. The Living Bread who came down from Heaven,
ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς
(8:35, 41, 48, 51, respectively) with the claim to be YHWH in 8:58.
4. One final thought. The use of εἰμι ἐγώ in John 8:58 also involves the grammar. εἰμι is found only in the Present, Imperfect and Future Tenses. Γινομαι is found in all tenses. To express the Past Tense in Greek cannot be done with εἰμι. It has to be done with γινομαι. εἰμι expresses the idea of a state of existence, while γινομαι, although sharing some similarities, expresses a movement from one state of being to another state of being. Hence, the translation, “Before Abraham ‘came to be,’ I AM.”
Dean says
Matt 11:25-30 reveals the Father & Son as one. The actions of the Son mirror the Father & vice versa regardless or not of how many times Jesus did or didnt say He was God like some kind of mathematical consensus is required. The veiled in flesh Immanuel comes as promised, The curtin is torn in two, Spirit comes at Pentecost as promised.The temple comes crashing down & the gospel goes spreads further and further abroad.
And how can Jesus be greater than the temple? Matt 12:6.
Ermann seems to be more about misapproriation.
Grant Simmons says
Dr. Kruger, thanks so much for your helpful articles. I was reading Matthew this morning and it reminded me of your article. All I could think was if this isn’t a clear statement of who Jesus thought he was I don’t know what is:
Matthew 4:7 Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'”
Maybe this is one of those statements Mr. Ehrman dismisses as unhistorical.