UP

Jesus' Claim of Deity

By Ronald W. Leigh, Ph.D.
Bible and Cross
March 7, 2017
Copyright © 2005 Ronald W. Leigh
Bible quotations are from the New International Version unless otherwise noted.
—————————————— Contents ——————————————
A. Introduction
B. The deity of Jesus according to his followers
C. Jesus' own claims of deity
   1. Jesus predates Abraham and takes on God's name
   2. Jesus forgives sin, which only God can do
   3. Jesus predicts the future, which only God knows
   4. Jesus calls God his own Father, making himself equal with God
   5. Jesus makes his future resurrection a sign of his identity
D. The gospels as history
   1. Revisionism
   2. The conclusions of a few scholars
————————————————————————————————

A.  Introduction

There is a strong link between the historic Jesus Christ and our present faith in him as our divine savior.  But it must be recognized that our faith in Jesus Christ as savior is also dependent upon a certain interpretation of the gospel records, as well as upon a certain view of the nature of those gospel records, as indicated in the following chart.

  What Jesus historically
said and did 		 

The nature of
the gospels

   Interpretation regarding
Jesus' deity		   Personal belief
1.
Acceptance		 Claimed and demonstrated deity → Accurate records → Jesus is God → Yes
2.
Honest
rejection		 Claimed and demonstrated deity → Accurate records → Jesus is God | No
3.
Dishonest
reinterpretation		 Never claimed deity → Accurate records | Jesus was merely a special servant → No
4.
Dishonest
revisionism		 Never claimed deity | Fabricated stories → Jesus was merely a man, although he was represented as God by his followers → No

1.  Acceptance — Jesus said and did certain things which are known to us because they were recorded accurately in the four gospels.  When those accurate gospels are interpreted correctly, they lead to the conclusion that Jesus was God in the flesh, died for our sins, and rose from the grave – facts which form the basis for our belief in him as our savior.

2.  Honest rejection — Some admit both that what Jesus said and did was recorded accurately in the gospels and that the straightforward, traditional interpretation of those records is correct, but they still reject Christ as savior.  Here the chain breaks at the point of personal belief. This is honest rejection because it deals fairly with the evidence for the accuracy of the gospel records and honestly with the meaning and implications of those records.

3.  Dishonest reinterpretation — Some interpret Jesus' claims in the gospels only as claims to be a special prophet, that is, a special human servant of God.  They admit that the gospels record accurately what Jesus said, but conclude that what he meant was something less than deity.  Here the chain breaks at the point of interpretation.  If this interpretation is the result of lack of attention to the gospels, the rejection might be considered mere carelessness.  But if this conclusion is the result of an a priori assumption such as philosophical materialism, or stems from an existing rejection of Christ, then the interpretation must be seen for what it really is – a dishonest reinterpretation.

4.  Dishonest revisionism — Some claim that the gospels are not accurate records of what Jesus said and did.  They recognize that the gospels include strong claims of deity worded as though these claims came directly from Jesus, but they regard the gospels as "faith documents" rather than historical documents.  They assume that the gospel writers, having come to believe in the deity of Jesus, purposely added such claims to their gospels by putting the claims in the mouth of Jesus.  They would say that the gospels can be used to prove what their writers believed, but not what Jesus actually said.  Here the chain breaks at the point of the nature of the gospels, which are thought to be a misrepresentation of Jesus.  Thus, it is claimed that the gospel writers were revisionists.  But in fact, those who hold this view are the real revisionists, and it is a revisionism based on pure speculation.  Again, if this attempt at revision comes from lack of awareness of the evidence for the faithfulness of the gospel records, it might be considered mere carelessness.  But if it is the result of a predrawn conclusion that Christ was a mere human, then such revisionism must be labeled dishonest.

Regarding the question of the possibility of a man being God or of God becoming man, see the papers The Imago-dei and Jesus: the One-natured God-man.

In this paper we will briefly survey the teaching of Jesus' followers regarding his deity.  Then, in response to line 3 on the chart, we will examine several of Jesus' own statements in order to show that he was not merely claiming to be God's special servant, but claiming to be God.  Finally, in response to line 4 on the chart, we will deal with the denial of the historicity of the gospel accounts – the deluded notion that the apostles revised history in order to promote faith apart from the facts.

B.  The deity of Jesus according to his followers

Here are several statements from three of Jesus' followers – John, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews.  They require no explanation, as they establish beyond doubt that these writers believed in the deity of Jesus Christ.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. … The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. … No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3, 14, 18)

from them [the people of Israel] is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.  (Romans 9:5)

… Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death--even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:6-11)

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. …  in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form  (Colossians 1:15-20;  2:9 )

… we wait for the blessed hope – the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own …  (Titus 2:13-14)

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father" ? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son" ? And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom." (Hebrews 1:1-8)

In just these six passages alone we find these explicit statements of the deity of Jesus Christ:

Besides these explicit statements that Jesus is God, notice these additional teachings from the above passages:

Such things could never properly be attributed to a mere human or even to an angel, only to one who along with the Father is truly God.

NOTE:  Several other passages (Ephesians 5:5;  2 Thessalonians 1:12;  1 Timothy 5:21;  2 Timothy 4:1;  and 2 Peter 1:1) would be added to the above list if the Granville Sharp rule were applied.  That rule pertains to a particular grammatical structure in the Greek, namely, article – substantive – copulative – substantive, where the substantives apply to persons and are in the singular.  The rule understands both substantives (God on the one hand and Christ or Lord or Savior on the other hand) as one person with the result that Christ is explicitly called God.  The Granville Sharp rule is rather complex, has strict limits of application, and a long history of debate, and is thus beyond the purpose of this paper.  See the excellent discussions of the rule by James White and by Daniel B. Wallace (extensive).

C.  Jesus' own claims of deity

After referring to "two of the great Christological passages of the New Testament" (Philippians 2 and John 1), F. F. Bruce states that

the aspect of the Person of Christ which they present is no late development in Christian theology, but goes back to His own words (F. F. Bruce, "The Fourfold Gospel" in The New Bible Commentary, 2nd ed. Eerdmans, 1954, page 63, italics added)

This is the point we intend to demonstrate in this section.

1.  Jesus predates Abraham and takes on God's name

In John 8 we find a conversation between Jesus and the Jews that is filled with sharp denunciation from both sides.  At one point the Jews accuse Jesus of being demon-possessed (verse 48).  As part of his reply, Jesus states that a man can escape death by keeping his (Jesus') word (verse 51).  The Jews consider such a claim folly, for even Abraham died!  They are sure Jesus could not be greater than Abraham, and in their indignation ask "Who do you think you are?" (verse 53). 

In response to such a basic question, Jesus makes three assertions (verses 54-56).  First, God the Father glorifies him.  Second, he knows the Father (which the Jews do not) and keeps the Father's word.  Third, Abraham rejoiced when he saw Jesus' day.  This last assertion may refer to Abraham's awareness, after his death, of Jesus' incarnation or the beginning of Jesus' ministry.  The Jews take this as an assertion that Jesus, who was not even an old man, had seen Abraham while he was still alive even though Abraham had died eighteen centuries earlier.  In response, Jesus makes this remarkable claim:

I tell you the truth, … before Abraham was born, I am!  (John 8:58)

This is an arresting statement!  Here Jesus obviously claims to have existed, not only before his own birth or conception, but before the time of Abraham.  It stands out, in part, because the last four words contain an unexpected shift in tense, based on the Greek.

Here is Lenski's explanation of these four words:

As the aorist sets a point of beginning for the existence of Abraham, so the present tense "I am" predicates absolute existence for the person of Jesus, with no point of beginning at all. … "I am" = I exist. Thus with the simplest words Jesus testifies to the divine, eternal pre-existence of his person.  (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel, Augsburg Pub. House, 1942, p. 670-671)

But perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Jesus' claim is his adoption of the name of God, "I am."  Jesus' statement here is made up of a subject and verb, but no predicate, and is similar in structure to his "I am" statements found earlier in the same chapter (verses 24, 28).  His Jewish audience would recognize this statement from the record of the exodus (Exodus 3:14).  Compare the related name LORD (Yahweh) in the next verse (Exodus 3:15) and in Exodus 6:3.  (Although there is varied opinion regarding the strength of the linguistic connection between "I am" and "Yahweh," certainly these two expressions serve the same function in this context (Exodus 3:13-15).

See the note at the end of section C.3. regarding the use of "I am" in the Gospel of John.

Jesus' statement in John 8:58 is no mere claim to be a servant or prophet.  It is not possible even for an angel to claim the divine name, "I am."  Clearly, Jesus is claiming to be God.

2.  Jesus forgives sin, which only God can do

In Mark 2:1-12 we find the story of Jesus forgiving the sins of the paralytic and then healing him in order to demonstrate that he has power to forgive sins.  The event is also recorded in Matthew 9:1-8 and Luke 5:17-26.

The man who was carried to Jesus had an obvious physical ailment; he was a paralytic.  The extent of his paralysis is not explicitly stated, but it seems clear, from the fact that he was carried to Jesus by four men, that he was unable to walk.

In spite of his obvious physical disability, Jesus deals with his spiritual need first by saying "Your sins are forgiven."  The Pharisees and teachers of the Law who were present would not have objected to a mere healing.  Jesus had already done many healings before this and he would do many more later, and the Pharisees objected only when he healed on the Sabbath (Mark 3:2).  But they did object to Jesus' claim to forgive the paralytic's sins.  In fact, they considered such a claim blasphemy, and their reasoning is expressed in their question, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (verse 7).

The Pharisees belief about forgiveness was correct.  Only God can forgive sins.  But their belief about Jesus, that he was a mere human and thus was unable to forgive sins, was incorrect.  It is this mistaken belief that Jesus sets out to prove wrong.  First, he poses a multiple-choice question: "Which is easier to say to a paralytic? (a) "Your sins are forgiven," or (b) "Get up, take your mat and walk."  Notice that the question is not about an action, "Which is easier to do?" but about a statement, "Which is easier to say …"

If we had to attempt to evaluate which action were more difficult, we would be at a complete loss.  After all, both actions, forgiving sin and healing, are impossible for us; and how could we begin to guess which action is easier for God?  But the real issue is this: Which statement is easier?  Anyone could claim to forgive sins and it would be impossible for others to prove or disprove that sins had been forgiven.  The record of sin, that is, the guilt, is not a physical object that can be seen, so it is impossible for mere mortals to directly observe the spiritual state of an individual as either guilty or forgiven.  In other words, if anyone wants to claim to forgive someone else's sins, there is no way an observer can directly check that claim.

Of course, that is not the case when the following statement is made to someone who cannot walk, "Get up, take your mat and walk."  Such a statement is difficult to say because it can immediately be evaluated by everyone around.  But when it is stated, and the paralytic does immediately get up and walk, you have proven your supernatural power for all to see.  Jesus did this not merely to prove that he had power to heal, he also did it to prove that he had power to forgive sins, which only God can do.  In short, Jesus healed the paralytic to prove that he was God!  This was clearly Jesus' intent, which he announced just before healing the paralytic.

… that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins …" He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!" (Mark 2:10-12)

In claiming to do what only God could do, Jesus was claiming to be God.  And his claim was certainly understood as such by those he confronted that day.

Again, this is no mere claim to be a special servant or prophet.  Not even angels can forgive sins against God.  This is a clear claim of deity.

The pattern we find in this incident was Jesus' "apologetic."  He would claim what only God could claim and do what only God could do.  And if people did not believe his statements, they could observe his miraculous deeds and thus be convinced to believe in him.  Here are his own explanations of this pattern, which he gave later on two different occasions in Jerusalem.

Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." (John 10:37-38)

Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."  Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'?  Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.  Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.  (John 14:8-11)

3.  Jesus predicts the future, which only God knows

Starting in John 13 we find the record of the last supper Jesus had with his disciples before his arrest and crucifixion.  At this meal, Jesus gets up and washes his disciples feet in order to teach them a lesson about serving others.  As Jesus talks with Peter about being physically clean, he states that all but one of his disciples are spiritually clean, which is followed immediately by John's explanation of the reason for the statement.

"… you are clean, though not every one of you."  For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean. (John 13:10-11)

Moments later Jesus announces to them all,

I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me. (John 13:21)

The disciples are puzzled by this announcement.  Even after Jesus identified Judas by giving him the piece of bread, and after Jesus tells Judas to do his deeds quickly, the disciples are still puzzled (John 13:22-30).  But, of course, they will find out later that Judas is leaving to betray Jesus.

What is significant for our present purpose is the fact that Jesus explicitly states his reason for revealing his foreknowledge about Judas.

I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He. (John 13:19)

In this brief statement Jesus announces that he knows a future act of a free agent, something which only God can know.  This is another clear claim to deity.  Regarding the apologetic significance of predictive prophecy, see the paper "Predictive Prophecy and Timed Prophecies."

Although the New International Version supplies the word "He" at the end of John 13:19 (quoted above), the Greek includes only, "so that … you will believe that I am."  Jews familiar with Moses' record of the exodus would recognize "I am," God's chosen name.  Comparison of John 13:19, not only with the "I am" passage in Exodus 3:14 but also with John 8:58 (discussed above), leads to the conclusion that, again, Jesus is claiming, not merely special status as a prophet or servant of God, but is claiming to be God.

——— NOTE ———

The phrase "I am" (εγω ειμι) is a very common phrase in Greek.  It is used dozens of times in John alone to record the equivalent phrase spoken by Jesus in Aramaic.  For example, in John 6:35 Jesus says "I am the bread of life."  In this instance, as in many others, there is an explicit predicate ("bread"), and thus this instance has no direct linguistic connection with the "I am" of Exodus 3:14.

Also, there are places where others use the phrase "I am" including Peter (Acts 10:21), Paul (Acts 26:29), and both Zechariah and the angel Gabriel (Acts 1:18-19), but in these instances there is an explicit predicate.

In some passages where the "I am" stands alone and no predicate is included, there is an obvious understood predicate based on the context.  For example, in John 18:5, after Jesus asked the arresting officials whom they wanted, and after they said "Jesus of Nazareth," Jesus said "I am," obviously meaning "I am Jesus of Nazareth."

And in John 9:9 the "I am" phrase is used by the formerly blind begger to convince his neighbors that he was the same man they had known as a blind man, now healed by Jesus.  So in some contexts "I am" has no connection with Exodus 3:14.  Nevertheless, when the immediate context is the foreknowledge of Jesus as it is in John 13:19, or the preexistence of Jesus as it is in John 8:58, "I am" without a predicate becomes much more significant.

4.  Jesus calls God his own Father, making himself equal with God and due the same honor

The first 15 verses of John 5 record the story of Jesus healing a man who had been an invalid for 38 years.  This healing occurred in Jerusalem, beside a pool that was near the Sheep Gate, just north of the temple.  The healing occurred on the Sabbath, so when the cured man picked up his mat and walked, the Jews reminded him that carrying one's mat on the Sabbath was forbidden by their law.  When the Jews learned that Jesus was the one who had healed him and had told him to pick up his mat, they persecuted Jesus.

Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (John 5:17-18)

John makes sure that we understand the significance of Jesus' statement by pointing out that by calling God his own Father, Jesus was making himself equal with God.  This reference to God as Father was certainly not a reference to some mystical event in which the Father "fathered" the Son.  Nor was it merely a reference to the humanity of Jesus, in the sense that Adam was the son of God (Luke 3:38) and believers are to address God as their Father (Matthew 6:9).  Rather, it was a claim to equality with God, that is, a claim of deity.  It is the severity of this claim that explains the increased desire of the Jews to kill Jesus.

And Jesus followed this claim with another, that all people should "honor the Son just as they honor the Father" (John 5:23) – a claim that no mere prophet or human servant would make.  Lenski, discussing the essential equality of the Father and the Son in the context of this passage, says:

… here in the clause, "even as they honor the Father," he [Jesus] asserts that equality in the clearest possible manner.  (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel, Augsburg Pub. House, 1942, p. 387)

The Jews understood well what Jesus was claiming when he spoke of God as his Father and then claimed he was due the same honor as the Father.  Their reaction was consistent, for later, when Jesus was at Jerusalem, the scenario mentioned above repeated itself when Jesus said:

"I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God. (John 10:30-33)

It is important to notice that Jesus did not claim to be the same person as the Father, but to be "equal with" the Father.  This is the same relationship that each member of the trinity has to each other member of the trinity – each one is the same nature or essence as the others, but each one is a different person.  This is why Jesus could say, "I and the Father are one" (verse 30).  See the paper "The Trinity."

Jesus' references to God as his Father find their high point when Jesus said

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. (John 17:5)

In this statement Jesus again claims that God is his Father, but he goes beyond that.  Here Jesus claims that he existed before the world began, and at that time he was with God, and that he had glory with God, a glory which he expected to regain (Compare John 1:1-2, 14;  Philippians 2:6-11).  There is no way this can be interpreted as a claim to be a mere prophet or a mere human servant of God.  This is another bold and unmistakable claim of deity.

Besides calling God his Father, on certain occasions Jesus explicitly referred to himself as the Son of God.

… what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, `I am God's Son'? (John 10:36)

They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am." (Luke 22:70)

And such explicit references were heard and remembered by the Jews, who brought them up at Jesus' trial before Pilate as grounds to kill him.

The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God." (John 19:7)

Buswell explains the significance of such "Father" and "Son" language.

Christ is called "Son of God" scores of times in the New Testament.  I take the key passage on this subject to be John 5:18. … In Jewish usage the term "son of …" did not generally imply any subordination, but rather equality and identity of nature. … The name Son of Consolation (Acts 4:36) doubtless means, "The Counselor."  "Sons of Thunder" (Mark 3:17) probably means "Thunderous Men."  "Son of Man," especially as applied to Christ in Daniel 7:13 and constantly in the New Testament, essentially means "The Representative Man."  Thus for Christ to say, "I am the Son of God" (John 10:36) was understood by His contemporaries as identifying Himself as God, equal with the Father, in an unqualified sense. (James Oliver Buswell, Jr., A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, p. 105)

This Father-Son relationship could only exist within the trinity.  Not even the highest angel could claim the type of relationship that would make him "equal with God."  But Jesus, referring to this relationship frequently, pressed the claim home.

5.  Jesus makes his future resurrection a sign of his identity

Jesus' claim to be God's Son, as discussed above, was a claim to deity in itself.  But, true to his apologetic pattern (described in an earlier section), Jesus added the claim that the final and most convincing miraculous sign of his identity would be his own resurrection from the dead.  Immediately after Peter stated that Jesus was the Son of God, Jesus not only confirmed that statement, but also began to teach about his death and resurrection.

"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"  Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."  Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. … From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.  (Matthew 16:15-17, 21)

Jesus made his resurrection the physical proof of his spiritual claim to deity, just as earlier he had made his ability to heal the paralytic the physical proof of his spiritual claim to be able to forgive sins.  While cleansing the temple, Jesus said to those who sold doves,

"Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" … Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"  Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."  The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"  But the temple he had spoken of was his body.   After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.  (John 2:16, 18-22)

Notice that it is in the context of referring to God as his Father that he predicted his resurrection and made it a miraculous sign that would prove who he was.

On another occasion Jesus spoke of his resurrection as the only sign that would be given to that evil generation, followed immediately by a claim to be greater than a prophet and greater than a king.

Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."  He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.  (Matthew 12:38-42)

While God had brought other mere mortals back to life, such as the Shunammite's son (2 Kings 4:32-37), Lazarus (John 11:14-45), and the many who came back to life at the time of Jesus' death and resurrection and appeared in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53), only Jesus had made the claim to be the Son of God, had predicted his resurrection, and had made it a sign that would prove his identity.  No wonder Paul wrote that Jesus was

declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead … (Romans 1:4)

D.  The gospels as history

1.  Revisionism

Revisionism, as it pertains to the gospels, is the notion that the gospels, rather than being valid history, are at best confused recollections, or at worst outright fabrications.  The claim of revisionism is just one of many attempts to promulgate a human-only Jesus and is motivated by a pre-existing prejudice against the deity of Christ and based on speculation rather than genuine scholarship.

You find this claim of revisionism everywhere in the popular media, including the History Channel's program called "A History of God."  This program, which lumps Christianity together with all other world religions, attempts to present a grand scenario of progressive development in man's (particularly the Hebrews') view of god, moving from gods that must be appeased by gifts (sacrifices), to an intimate god, to a jealous and wrathful god, to monotheism, to a peace-loving god.

Karen Armstrong refers to

ideas evolved by human beings to explain the mystery and tragedy of life. ... It seems that creating gods is something that human beings have always done.  When one religious idea ceases to work for them, it is simply replaced. (Karen Armstrong, A History of God, Ballantine Books; Reprint edition 1994, pages 3-4)

This is nothing more than the old, worn out liberal notion that Christianity is merely the result of religious evolution, that there is no god except in the minds of religious people. These liberals do not accept the idea of a personal God who actually exists and has revealed himself to mankind.  They interpret everything, including the Bible, from their naturalistic framework – a framework that comes from their assumptions and preferences, for it certainly does not come from the evidence, as will be shown in the next section.

But before we look at that evidence, we cite a few statements from the book "A History of God" and the program "A History of God."

Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, expresses the view that the gospels cannot give us any certain knowledge of Jesus because they came too late and present different pictures of Jesus.  She then offers her own guess as to what Jesus thought.  In the context of discussing the various views current among Jews who were suffering under Roman occupation, she says that some

were convinced that things were so bad that God would finally come and destroy the world as it was and transform it. Jesus seems to have thought that. (Elaine Pagels in the program "A History of God")

But, of course, this is pure speculation and is completely without historical support.  A careful reading of Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew chapters 5-7), or his parables (found in the three synoptic gospels), or his explicit statement that "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36), all point to the conclusion that Jesus held just the opposite view.  So Pagels has replaced gospel history with her own guess-work.  Obviously, the crucial question here is the question of the historical reliability of the gospels, which we consider in the next section.

In the program, "A History of God," the gospels are essentially discarded as historical documents and the view is presented that Jesus was just a man who never even claimed to be God.

After Jesus was crucified, some Jews in Jerusalem claimed he had been the Messiah. They believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. ... Christians were not yet claiming that Jesus was divine, but that he had a special relationship with God (The narrator in the program "A History of God")

The program claims that Jesus' immediate followers knew he was a mere man, but later, when the gospels were finally written, those followers presented a different view of him.

Karen Armstrong asserts that

Jesus never calls himself God or even Son of God, really, though he often called God Father, "Abba," because he felt, I think, close to God. ... Saint Paul does call Jesus "Son of God," but this is in the Jewish sense, where a son of God, a child of God, was someone who had a special job to do, who was specially close to God, a perfectly ordinary human being, like the Messiah. (Karen Armstrong in the program "A History of God")

But this unfounded notion is directly the opposite of John's statement that, by calling God his Father, Jesus was "making himself equal with God" (John 5:18).  It is also a complete misrepresentation of Paul's view of Jesus as can be readily seen from Paul's own words (see the quotations from Colossians and Philippians earlier in this paper).  Again, the issue is the reliability of the New Testament documents.  If we accept them as valid history, we arrive at one view of Jesus; if we discard them we are left to our own speculations.

It is easy to see why this revisionism is attractive to some.  By taking this approach they can reduce Christianity to just another example of a religion that evolved over time as men had new experiences and insights.  By taking this approach they can avoid working out the difficulties of how God becomes human, and the larger problem of dealing with that God-man's teaching that we are all guilty sinners in need of repentance.  By inventing Jesus according to their own liking, they retain the option that Jesus could be merely a great moral teacher and example, avoiding the dilemma posed by C. S. Lewis who pointed out that a Christ who actually claimed to be God could only be a liar, a lunatic, or Lord.

So who are the revisionists?  Not the gospel writers, but the modern scholars.  And who is dishonest?  Not the gospel writers, but the modern scholars.  It is curious, indeed, that the claim of revisionism is still being promulgated as a serious option.  Decades ago, as the dates on many of the quotations in the next section attest, this folly was exposed and countered by competent scholars.

2.  The conclusions of a few scholars

The historical nature of the gospels, and of the New Testament as a whole, has received more than adequate defense.  Below we cite just a few of the scholars who have concluded that there can be no revisionary gap between what Jesus actually said and did and what the New Testament records.

Montgomery

One excellent source that summarizes the issues and findings is History & Christianity by John Warwick Montgomery (InterVarsity Press, 1964 & 1965).  In particular, chapter two, "The New Testament Documents," focuses on the validity and accuracy of the documents.  Below are several excerpts from that chapter.

First, Montgomery raises the central question and addresses the issue of procedure.

Can we get a reliable picture of Jesus' claims from the New Testament?

We won't naively assume the "inspiration" or "infallibility" of the New Testament records and then by circular reasoning attempt to prove what we have previously assumed.  We will regard the documents, even though today they are usually printed on fine India paper with verse numbers, only as documents, and we will treat them as we would any other historical materials. … We shall go directly to the documents themselves and subject them to the tests of reliability employed in general historiography and literary criticism. (Montgomery, pages 25-26)

Regarding the issue of the transmission and textual criticism of the text, Montgomery says

Not having the original copies, can we reconstruct them well enough to see what they say Jesus claimed?  The answer to this question is an unqualified Yes. (page 26)

Montgomery then quotes Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, one-time director of the British Museum.

In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as that of the New Testament. (Montgomery, pages 26-27)

Kenyon points out that, for other ancient writings such as those of Sophocles, Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Thucydides, Euripides, Plato, and Demosthenes, the gap between date of composition and date of earliest manuscript is well over 1000 years.  Montgomery them points out that

numerous papyri portions of the New Testament documents have been discovered.  These go back to the end of the first century …. (Montgomery, page 28)

Considering the fact that most of the News Testament was written in the second half of the first century, the obvious conclusion is, in the words of Kenyon,

The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.  Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established. (Montgomery, page 28)

But did the gospel writers fabricate the story?  The significance of the short time between events and recordings of the events is that it falls within the lifetime of many eyewitnesses, both friends and foes of Christ.  This makes it less likely that a coordinated scheme to rewrite history could have succeeded.

Regarding revisionism, Montgomery summarizes its improbability.

The form critics attempt by literary analysis to "get behind" the New Testament documents as they have come down to us.  For example, the gospels are assumed to be the end product of a process of oral tradition that was shaped and freely altered by the early Church according to its own needs. … The method depends on rationalistic presuppositions against the supernatural … and leaves the gates wide open to subjective interpretation.  It principally falls down because the time interval between the writing of the New Testament documents as we have them and the events of Jesus' life which they record is too brief to allow for communal redaction by the Church. (Montgomery, pages 36-37)

It must be kept in mind that three of the gospels are the records of eyewitnesses.  Matthew and John were both among the twelve disciples of Jesus, and Mark, besides being one of Jesus' followers and an eyewitness of certain events, is known to have recorded the teachings of Peter who was also one of the twelve.  Luke, of course, claims at the beginning of his gospel that he compiled the records of eyewitnesses.  Here is Montgomery's summary.

In the case of the whole gamut of New Testament documents we must take the authors seriously when they say, again and again, that they are recording eyewitness testimony or testimony derived from equally reliable sources. (Montgomery, pages 29 - 30)

Such internal considerations, both direct and indirect, provide a weighty basis for the claim that the New Testament documents are reliable historical sources. (Montgomery, page 31)

Competent historical scholarship must regard the New Testament documents as coming from the first century and as reflecting primary-source testimony about the person and claims of Jesus. (Montgomery, page 34)

Montgomery's final conclusion is as follows.

What, then, does a historian know about Jesus Christ?  He knows, first and foremost, that the New Testament documents can be relied upon to give an accurate portrait of him.  And he knows that this portrait cannot be rationalized away by wishful thinking, philosophical presuppositionalism or literary maneuvering. (Montgomery, page 40)

Bruce

A more detailed examination of the historical quality of the gospels is found in the writings of F. F. Bruce.  Here are his conclusions.

… perhaps the most important result to which Form Criticism points is that, no matter how far back we may press our researches into the roots of the gospel story, no matter how we classify the gospel material, we never arrive at a non-supernatural Jesus. … All parts of the gospel record are shown by these various groupings to be pervaded by a consistent picture of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God; all agree in emphasizing the messianic significance of all that He said and did, and we can find no alternative picture, no matter how thoroughly we scrutinize and analyze successive strata of the Gospels.  Thus, Form Criticism has added its contribution to the overthrow of the hope once fondly held, that by getting back to the most primitive stage of gospel tradition we might recover a purely human Jesus, who simply taught the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.  (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? 5th edition, Inter-varsity Press, 1960, page 33)

The evidence indicates that the written sources of our Synoptic Gospels are not later than c. AD 60; some of them may even be traced back to notes taken of our Lord's teaching while His words were actually being uttered.  The oral sources go back to the very beginning of Christian history.  We are, in fact, practically all the way through in touch with the evidence of eyewitnesses.  The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of this first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and again.  'We are witnesses of these things,' was their constant and confident assertion.  And it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened. … And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus.  The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so.  On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, 'We are witnesses of these things,' but also, 'As you yourselves also know' (Acts ii. 22).  Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective.
We have then in the Synoptic Gospels, the latest of which was complete not much more than forty years after the death of Christ, material which took shape at a still earlier time, some of it even before His death, and which, besides being for the most part first-hand evidence, was transmitted along independent and trustworthy lines.  The Gospels in which this material is embodied agree in their presentation of the basic facts of the Christian faith – a threefold cord not quickly broken.  (Bruce, pages 45-46)

Metzger

While Bruce Metzger does not see the gospels as mechanical in style, nor as complete in every detail, he does see them as faithful representations of the real Jesus.

What the evangelists have preserved for us is not a photographic reproduction of all the words and all the deeds of Jesus, but something more like four interpretative portraits.  Each of these portraits presents distinctive highlights of Jesus' person and work, and, taken together, the four provide a varied and balanced account of what Jesus said and did.  (Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content, 2nd edition, Abingdon Press, 1983, page 99)

The inference drawn by some form critics, however, that such interpretation has deformed the original meaning of Jesus' teaching is not justified by the literary argument. … There were in fact several circumstances that tended to prevent the free invention of gospel traditions.  One was the presence of the original eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-2), who would have acted as a check upon wholesale distortion of Jesus' words and works.  (Metzger pages 86-87)

A consideration of the actual state of the evidence will lead one to the conclusion that there was no large-scale introduction of extraneous materials into the Gospels. … A simple test can be made to determine the extent to which extraneous materials have been taken into the Gospels.  One of the most influential figures of the early church was the apostle Paul.  His letters, which date from the time when many of the gospel traditions were taking shape, abound in pithy sentences and spiritual insights which could easily have been transferred to Jesus and presented as oracles of the Lord.  If it be asked how many times this has in fact happened, the answer must be, Not once!  (Metzger page 87)

Tenney

Merrill C. Tenney summarizes as follows.

The Gospels should be treated as honest attempts to arrange the life of Jesus for didactic purposes.  Unquestionably it was the core of apostolic preaching, for it appears in Peter's address on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:22-32), in his sermon in the house of Cornelius (10:36-43), and in Paul's address in Antioch of Pisidia (13:23-33).  The Synoptists could not have been ignorant of this "oral tradition," as it is called; in fact, Luke's preface implies that the writer knew what had been handed down "by ministers of the word" (Luke 1:2). … The purposes of the Evangelists should be taken into account.  Granting that they possessed much material in common, they put it to different uses, and organized it into different frameworks under the direction of the mind of the Spirit.  The very differences between the writers speak of independence; the similarities reflect a common background of information, a common subject of writing, and a common inspiration of God.  (Merrill C. Tenney, New Testament Survey, Eerdmans, 1961, page 139)

Tenney presents a complete technical discussion of these issues in his The Genius of the Gospels, Eerdmans, 1951.

Lewis

C. S. Lewis highlights the incompatibility of describing Jesus only as a great moral teacher when he has made obvious claims of deity.

On the one side clear, definite moral teaching.  On the other, claims which, if not true, are those of a megalomaniac, compared with whom Hitler was the most sane and humble of men.  There is no half-way house and there is no parallel in other religions.  If you had gone to Buddha and asked him 'Are you the son of Bramah?' he would have said, 'My son, you are still in the vale of illusion.'  If you had gone to Socrates and asked, 'Are you Zeus?' he would have laughed at you.  If you had gone to Mohammed and asked, 'Are you Allah?' he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off.  If you had asked Confucius, "Are you Heaven?', I think he would have probably replied, 'Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste.'  The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question.  In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man. … We may note in passing that He was never regarded as a mere moral teacher.  He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met him.  He produced mainly three effects – Hatred – Terror – Adoration.  There was no trace of people expressing mild approval.  (C. S. Lewis, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" an essay in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, Eerdmans, 1970, pages 157-158)

But certain modern "scholars" attempt to avoid this dilemma by suggesting that Jesus never made any claims of deity – that such claims are part of the legend, but were never spoken by the real historical Christ.  Lewis raises two issues which make this suggestion unacceptable.

One attempt consists in saying that the Man did not really say these things, but that His followers exaggerated the story, and so the legend grew up that He had said them.  This is difficult because His followers were all Jews; that is, they belonged to that Nation which of all others was most convinced that there was only one God – that there could not possibly be another.  It is very odd that this horrible invention about a religious leader should grow up among the one people in the whole earth least likely to make such as mistake.  On the contrary we get the impression that none of His immediate followers or even of the New Testament writers embraced the doctrine at all easily.

Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends.  Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends.  I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing.  They are not artistic enough to be legends.  From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don't work up to things properly.  Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so.  Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel.  There is nothing even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence.  In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger.  Nothing comes of this.  No one has ever based any doctrine on it.  And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art.  Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened.  The author put it in simply because he had seen it.  (Lewis, pages 158-159)