11. What Does God Have to Do with This?
Who Did Jesus Think He Was?
f we were to investigate the Bible to find out what Jesus claimed of himself,
the answer would be easy to determine: Jesus claimed to be the uniquely
divine Son of God. However, what if we were to approach the Bible through the
eyes of a skeptic? What if we denied that the Bible is the Word of God, concluding that its original stories were embellished to the form in which they were
passed down to us? What if we believed the legendary influences in the firstcentury were so strong that we can only guess what the original sources said?
Is there any way that we can answer these specific beliefs by reaching some specific conclusions concerning what Jesus claimed about himself? Did he claim he was divine? Let's look at two titles the New Testament ascribes to Jesus and attempt to establish reasonable historical certainty concerning whether Jesus actually used these of himself.
Jesus referred to himself as "Son of Man"
In the Gospels, "Son of Man" is Jesus' favorite self-designation. Even most skeptical scholars accept this as an authentic title that Jesus used of himself for three reasons: first, the title appears as a reference to Jesus in the New Testament only three times outside the Gospels' and only three other times in early Christian writings during the first 120 years following Jesus.2 How likely is it that the church invented the title "Son of Man" as Jesus' favorite self-description, when the church itself rarely referred to him in this manner? There is almost a total absence of such language in Paul and the other epistles. Second, the title as used in the Gospels is multiply-attested, being found in all of the Gospel sources. Third, the title seems to lack the signs that it was a result of theological evolution, since at first glance it appears to be a title that places more emphasis on Jesus' humanity than on his divinity. For these reasons and others, we can have confidence that Jesus indeed referred to himself as "Son of Man."3
What did Jesus mean? It is generally agreed that Jesus used the phrase in three senses: (1) as a reference to his earthly ministry; (2) as a reference to his death and resurrection; and (3) as a reference to a future coming in judgment and glory.
A key passage concerning the title is found in the Old Testament. In Daniel 7:13-14, it is written:
I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.
Daniel saw "one like a Son of Man" coming "with the clouds of heaven." God gave this Son of Man eternal sovereignty over everything.' For example, this "preexistent" and "superhuman" figure delivers God's judgment against evil.'
With this in mind, consider the words of Jesus during his trial before the high priest: "Again the high priest was questioning him, and saying to him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' And Jesus said, 'I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:61b-62).6 We should not miss that Jesus replied directly and affirmatively to the high priest's question. The phrase "coming with the clouds of heaven" clearly reveals that Jesus thought of himself as the "Son of Man" referred to by Daniel.7 It is also interesting that Jesus seems to refer to the "Son of Man" and the "Son of God" as two titles for the same person. Notice that when the high priest asks him if he is the Christ (i.e., Messiah), the Son of God, Jesus says, "Yes, and you will see me, the Son of Man, seated next to God and coming with the clouds." Since the responses of the high priest and those around him were to accuse Jesus of blasphemy and demand the death penalty," it seems clear that when Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man, he thought of himself as divine.'
Jesus referred to himself as "Son of God"
Three questions must be asked concerning the title "Son of God": (1) What is usually meant by it? (2) Did Jesus claim to be the Son of God? (3) If so, what did he mean by it?
Philosopher John Hick states that there are two problems with calling Jesus "Son of God" in a divine sense. First, Hick believes that early believers did not give divine status to Jesus. Rather, this idea developed toward the end of the first century. 10 Hick further states that the title "Son of God" was applied to human beings in the ancient world, so it does not necessarily refer to a divine being. Political leaders, religious leaders, and great philosophers were sometimes called a "son of God."" Angels were likewise referred to as "sons of God."" The nation Israel was referred to as God's son.13 Accordingly, the Messiah or any outstandingly pious Jew could be referred to as a "son of God." Hick continues that Gentiles were not familiar with the Jewish meaning behind certain terms. "Son of God" came to be interpreted in the Gentile sense of a a divine being. Therefore, theological evolution took place and Jesus became divine.
Likewise, Jesus Seminar cofounder John Dominic Crossan states that the title "Son of God" was used in the first century in a lesser sense than for a divine being. He claims that the early second-century Roman historian, Suetonius, portrays the Emperor Augustus as having a divine father. He was, therefore, a "son of God." Since Jesus is likewise portrayed as having a divine paternity, this was simply a literary device to honor a great person.14 Thus, for Crossan, the title "Son of God" applied to Jesus simply meant he was a great man. If Hick and/or Crossan are correct, neither Jesus nor his disciples thought of him as Son in a divine sense.
Such an interpretation loses sight of the fact that Jesus and the Gospel writers claimed specific things in relation to His title as the "Son of God." Let's look at Mark 13:32, a verse that most scholars admit contains an authentic saying of Jesus. Speaking in reference to his return, Jesus states, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (NIV).
Earlier we learned about the Principle of Embarrassment as applied to the women as primary witnesses to the empty tomb. It is unlikely that an author would invent an account so as to include details that are embarrassing and potentially discrediting. In Mark 13:32, the Gospel writer states that there is something that Jesus does not know, the time of his coming. One would think that in an evolving theology where Jesus was assigned a divine status, even of being God himself," a statement emphasizing his limitations of knowledge would not be included.'6 This is why most scholars agree that this verse is an actual statement of Jesus."
If Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, what did he mean by it? In the passage we just considered, Mark employs a figure of speech called anabasis, an ascending scale with increasing emphasis. An example of anabasis would be my saying, "I wouldn't do such and such for a thousand dollars. I wouldn't do it for a hundred thousand dollars. I wouldn't even do it for a million dollars." Here we see an ascending scale in the amounts of money that could theoretically be offered. We also see an increasing emphasis, stressing the idea that I will not do such a thing.
In Mark 13:32, we also see the use of anabasis. Jesus says that no human knows the time of his coming. Not even the angels in heaven know, who are greater than humans. The Son does not know either, even though he is higher than the divine angels. Thus, this Son of God is higher than humans (including kings, prophets, and pious followers of God), higher than the angels in heaven, and is only lower than the Father. 'R Therefore, in this verse that is regarded as an authentic saying of Jesus, he claims that he is the Son-the divine Son of God.
But Mark 13:32 isn't the only text where a large number of critics agree that we are told that Jesus claimed divinity by claiming to be the Son of God. Another is Matthew 11:27 (cf. Luke 10:22), a famous early passage attributed to the so-called "Q" sayings of Jesus.'`' Here he claims to be God's Son, the only one who has exclusive knowledge of his Father.20 Critical scholars also generally agree that in Mark 14:36 Jesus refers to his Father by a term (Abba) that is so intimate it is seldom applied to God by ancient Jews. Prominent New Testament critical scholar Joachim Jeremias asserts that this term is an 'authentic and original utterance of Jesus ... the claim of a unique revelation and unique authority."21 We have already looked at Jesus' strong and direct affirmation in Mark 14:6162 that he was the Son of God.
These are further indications that Jesus' use of the word Son has nothing in common with general usage in the ancient world. He claimed to occupy a unique sonship with the God of the universe, a relationship not shared with others.22 Thus, Hick's view-that the title was applied to Jesus as a result of theological evolution and that if Jesus claimed he was the Son of God, he did not mean it in a divine sense-is false.
But what about Crossan's view that the Gospel writers merely employed a literary device to honor Jesus, as did others of their day? First, we have already established that Jesus himself claimed that he was the divine Son of God. If Jesus viewed himself as divine, then the disciples were not fabricating claims simply to honor him.
Second, as pointed out earlier under the concept of resurrections in other religions (see pp. 90-92), miracle accounts in other religious writings are unanimously inferior in historical credibility to the New Testament reports of the appearances of the risen Jesus. They are not usually multiply attested, and the records are normally very late when compared to the time the miracle was supposed to have taken place. The first reports of these miraculous events were written long after the time when the alleged events took place.
Crossan's appeal to Suetonius is a good example. Suetonius admits that he received his information from a single source, a book called Theologumena by Asclepiades of Mendes. We know nothing of this book. All we know of Asclepiades is that he may have written another book about Egypt.23 So, concerning the phenomenal birth account of Augustus, we have one source who cites an unknown book by an unknown author. So we know nothing of Asclepiades' reliability. But most damaging is that Suetonius wrote about 183 years after Augustus was born.
This is a far cry from the Christian account of Jesus' miraculous birth. The birth account of Jesus has two independent sources, Matthew and Luke and, thus, there is multiple attestation.24 If Matthew was one of the original disciples of Jesus or if there are other firsthand sources behind this writing, material from eyewitnesses would probably be present, and Luke claims that he received his information from the eyewitnesses.25 We know that both accounts have been accurately preserved in the manuscripts.2E Further, there are no credible grounds for claiming influence from pagan accounts .2'And Jesus' life is marked by the miraculous, establishing a context in which a miraculous birth is more at home than an isolated event within someone's life, as was the case with Augustus. Finally, simply because some authors employed a rhetorical device in order to honor someone, this does not merit the conclusion that the Gospel writers did so.
Thus, Crossan's view, like Hick's, fails to provide a sound skeptical position for rejecting the title "Son of God" as one referring to divinity when applied to Jesus.
We can, therefore, establish that Jesus not only claimed to be the Son of God, but that when he did so he meant it in a divine sense. Moreover, Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man, a reference to the divine and sovereign Son of Man in Daniel 7. Remember again that we are coming to these topics by chiefly using a minimal facts approach. It is interesting that, even after using strict criteria, one can arrive at many of the same conclusions as someone who accepts the inspiration of the Bible.
Context Counts
If a number of credible witnesses testified that Joseph Stalin had risen from the dead last year and walked around Russia for two months, we would not be quick to believe, even if some evidences were present and no plausible naturalistic theories were available. Why is it different for Jesus? This is where context counts.
Stalin never claimed divinity for himself, never performed miracles, and never predicted that he would return from the grave. His resurrection from the dead would be completely out of place. Jesus' life, on the other hand, created a context in which his resurrection from the dead would not be a surprise. He claimed that he was divine. He performed deeds that were interpreted as miracles. And he predicted his resurrection.
This context is not evidence for Jesus' resurrection. However, it presents an additional perspective when someone says,"People just don't come back to life after being dead."The context of Jesus' life and claims cannot be ignored. For if God exists, there is no reason why the Author of life could not raise the dead. And Jesus was just the sort of person we might expect God to raise.