WHERE WE ARE
In Chapter 5 of Evidence for Jesus, the McDowells provide five passages from the Gospel of John in support of the key historical claim upon which the Trilemma Argument is based:
5. Jesus claimed to be God.
In Part 4 of this series, I argued that Jesus never claimed to be God. In Part 5 of this series, I argued that the five passages quoted by the McDowells from the Gospel of John fail to provide any significant support for premise (5).
However, the McDowells also put forward three passages from the Synoptic Gospels in support of premise (5). I will critically examine those three passages in this post.
1. MARK 14:60-62
On the very first page
of the chapter “Did Jesus Claim to Be God?”, the McDowells quote this passage
from the Gospel of Mark:
60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked
Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?” 61 But
he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the
Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 Jesus said, “I am, and
‘you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of the Power’
and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’ ” (Mark 14:60-62, NRSV Updated Edition)
The McDowells then make
this comment about that passage:
The first two words of Jesus’ response were enough to
establish his deity. (EFJ, page 41)
Obviously, Jesus’
response to the question from the high priest does not establish that Jesus
was God.
Even if Jesus had shouted
“I am God! I am the creator of the world!” that would not establish that Jesus
was God. That wouldn’t even be
significant evidence that Jesus was God. What the McDowells should have
said here is that Jesus’ response “I am” was enough to establish that Jesus
claimed to be God. However, they are also wrong
to take this passage as establishing the weaker assertion that Jesus claimed to be God.
First, it is doubtful
that there was any Jewish trial of Jesus.[1]
[Summarize
reasons here]
Second, if there was a
Jewish trial of Jesus, it is doubtful that this passage in the Gospel of Mark
provides an accurate and reliable account of the words spoken by the high
priest and by Jesus at the trial.[2]
Finally, if the
historical Jesus had actually been asked if he was “the Messiah, the Son of the
Blessed One?” Jesus would have understood that the expression “the Son of the
Blessed One” meant the same thing as “the Messiah”, as the Evangelical New
Testament scholar William Lane points out in his commentary on the Gospel of
Mark:
In the formulation “the Messiah, the son of the Blessed
One,” the second clause stands in apposition to the first and has essentially
the same meaning. In Jewish sources contemporary with the NT, “son of God” is
understood soley in a messianic sense. Jewish hopes were situated in a
messianic figure who was a man. The question of the high priest cannot have
referred to Jesus’ deity, but was limited to a single issue: do you claim to be
the Messiah?[3]
So, if the historical
Jesus answered “I am” to that question, he would only be claiming to be the
Messiah. Even if the account of the Jewish trial in the Gospel of Mark were
historically accurate and reliable, it does not show that Jesus claimed to be
God.
2. MATTHEW 11:27
In addition to the
passage from Chapter 14 of the Gospel of Mark, the McDowells point to a
verse from Chapter 11 of the Gospel of Matthew:
27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and
no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the
Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matthew 11:27, NRSV
Updated Edition)
According to the
McDowells, in stating that “his own knowledge of God the Father is reciprocally
exceptional…”, Jesus “makes a remarkable claim of equality with God.” (EFJ,
page 45).
First, Jesus does not
explicitly claim “I am equal with God” in this passage. That is an inference or interpretation of
Jesus’ statement by the McDowells.
Second, even if Jesus
had claimed “I am equal with God”, that is not the same as saying “I am
God.” The idea of being equal with
God, is an unclear idea.
Normally, the equality
of two people is understood in terms of some particular aspect or
characteristic. For example, equality of wealth, equality of skill or expertise
in some area, equality of fame, equality of power or authority, etc. If I say
“I am equal with Bruce Springsteen”, a reasonable response would be this:
In what way or aspect are you equal with Bruce Springsteen?
Are you claiming to be as good a musician as him? Or to be as famous as him? Or
as wealthy as him? Or to have the same basic rights as him?
Apart from such
clarification, the statement is very unclear. In any case, the claim to be "equal with" Bruce Springsteen does not imply
the claim that “I am Bruce Springsteen”.
Furthermore, it is
literally false that “no one knows the Son except the Father”, if we understand
“the Son” to be Jesus, and “the Father” to be God. Obviously, the twelve disciples knew Jesus,
and his mother Mary knew him too. So, Jesus is speaking metaphorically or
hyperbolically here. What does he actually mean by the statement “no one knows
the Son except the Father”?
A plausible
interpretation is that only God knows Jesus deeply, only God knows the
inner thoughts and motivations of Jesus. In that case, Jesus is indeed making a
remarkable claim, a claim to know God deeply, to know God’s thoughts and
motivations, in a way that other people don’t deeply know God.
However, claiming to
have a deep knowledge of God, and to know God’s thoughts and motivations, is not
the same as claiming to be equal with God, and does not imply a
claim to be God himself.
Finally, it is
uncertain whether the historical Jesus actually spoke the words attributed to
him in Matthew 11:27. The N.T. scholar
James Dunn makes the point simply and clearly:
The difficulty here is that scholars cannot agree on this
verse, on whether it is a straightforward transcription of Jesus’ actual words,
or an example of the kind of elaboration which we saw so well developed in
John’s Gospel.[4]
A number of N.T. and
Jesus scholars have concluded that Matthew 11:27 does not provide us with words
that were spoken by the historical Jesus.[5]
The argument of the McDowells here is based on a dubious historical assumption.
3. MATTHEW 5:21-22
The McDowells also point to a passage from the Sermon on the Mount
in the Gospel of Matthew:
21 “You have heard that it
was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder,’ and ‘whoever
murders shall be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that if you are angry
with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment, and if you insult a
brother or sister, you will be liable to the council, and if you say, ‘You
fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21-22, NRSV Updated Edition)
The McDowells argue that in this sermon, Jesus “repeatedly cites the Old
Testament law and then asserts his own authority as supreme.” (EFJ, page 45).
First, Jesus does not make any clear claim about himself in this
passage. Jesus does not say “I am God” or “I am the Son of God” or “I am the
creator” or “I am Yahweh”, etc. Nor does Jesus claim to be all-knowing or
all-powerful or perfectly good here. The McDowells appear to be desperately grasping at straws in
using this passage as proof that Jesus claimed to be God. At most, Jesus
is suggesting something about his authority in theological and ethical matters.
Second, the phrase “but I say to you” can reasonably be understood in
terms of Jesus believing himself to be a prophet, to be a messenger for
God. If Jesus believed that his views
about righteousness and morality were inspired by God, that Jesus was
speaking the words of God, just as the Old Testament prophets supposedly spoke
the words of God, then Jesus would believe that his teachings had the authority
of God behind them. This authority comes from being a prophet and does not
require that Jesus be God himself, nor that Jesus be God incarnate. Therefore, Jesus can reasonably be
interpreted as implying that he was a prophet, and thus was not claiming
to be God in the Sermon on the Mount.
Third, Jesus is not contradicting the Old Testament law here.[6] So, he is not implying that his authority is “supreme” over the Old
Testament law. In fact, in the passage just before the above quotation, Jesus
makes this statement about the Old Testament law:
18 For truly I tell you,
until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter,
will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks
one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will
be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches
them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:18-19, NRSV Updated Edition)
Jesus was clearly not trying to correct or revise the laws of Moses!
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was actually showing great
respect for the Old Testament law by emphasizing the need for people to watch
over their thoughts and motivations, not just their actions. This is a lesson
that was clearly taught by Moses in the Ten Commandments:
17 “You shall not covet
your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, male or female
slave, ox, donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:17, NRSV Updated Edition)
“Coveting” is an attitude or motivation, not an
action. Moses taught that in order for
people to avoid becoming thieves and adulterers, people need to watch over
their thoughts and motivations. Jesus is simply applying this insight of Moses
to the commandment against murder.
Finally, Jesus does not use the phrase “you have heard that it was said”
in any other Gospel, nor in any other Chapter of the Gospel of Matthew.
And Jesus does not use the phrase “but I say to you” outside of Chapter 5 of
the Gospel of Matthew, except once in the Gospel of Luke, where
Jesus is not contrasting his teaching with an Old Testament law or teaching
(see Luke 6:26-28).
Jesus also does not condemn saying “You fool” to “a brother or sister”
in any other Gospel. Jesus does not use the phrases “liable to judgment” or
“liable to the hell of fire” in any other Gospel passage. Because the language
attributed to Jesus in the quoted passage from Chapter 5 of the Gospel of
Matthew is not found in other Gospels, that casts doubt on the authenticity
of this alleged saying of Jesus. In any case, no other Gospel corroborates
Matthew 5:21-22 as being an authentic saying or teaching of the historical
Jesus.
The Jesus Seminar has analyzed and evaluated every alleged quotation of
Jesus in the four Gospels and has assigned a color to each verse (or in some
cases parts of a verse) indicating the degree of likelihood that the quote is
authentic or came from the historical Jesus.
In Chapter 5 of the Gospel of Matthew, there are 46 verses with alleged
quotations of Jesus, and only 5 of those verses were designated as red (meaning: “Jesus undoubtedly said this or something very like this.”),
and only 10 verses were designated pink (meaning: “Jesus probably said something
like this.”).[7] Thus, according to the Jesus Seminar, only
about 33% of the quotations of Jesus in Chapter 5 of the Gospel of Matthew are likely to be authentic words of the
historical Jesus.
Furthermore, the specific passage that the McDowells quote does not
contain any words that are designated as red or pink by the Jesus Seminar:
21 “As you know, our
ancestors were told, ‘You must not kill’ and ‘Whoever kills will be subject to
judgement.’ 22 But I tell you: those who are angry with a companion will
be brought before a tribunal. And those who say to a companion, ‘You moron,’ will be subject to the
sentence of the court. And whoever says, ‘You idiot, deserves the fires of
Gehenna.[8]
The words designated as black were evaluated as “Jesus did not
say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or different
tradition.”, and the words designated as grey were evaluated as “Jesus did not say this,
but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.”[7]
The two key phrases that are the basis of the argument by the McDowells
about this passage are:
You have heard that it was
said…
But I say to you…
Note that both of those phrases are designated in black, meaning
that the Jesus Seminar concluded that “Jesus did not say this” (In the
translation by the Jesus Seminar, the phrases are “our ancestors were told…”
and “But I tell you…”).
Given that the language used by Jesus in this passage is unusual
compared to his language in the other Gospels, and given that the Jesus Seminar
evaluated only 33% of the verses in Chapter 5 of the Gospel of Matthew
as being likely to be the authentic words of the historical Jesus, and given
that neither of the verses quoted by the McDowells were designated by the Jesus
Seminar as likely to be the authentic words of Jesus, and given that the two key
phrases in this passage were judged to not be the words of the historical
Jesus, there is a good chance that this passage in Chapter 5 of the Gospel
of Matthew does not contain the words of the historical Jesus, and that the
argument of the McDowells is based on a false historical assumption.
CONCLUSION
The Trilemma Argument is based on this key historical assumption:
5. Jesus claimed to be God.
In Part 4 of this series, I argued that Jesus never claimed to be God. In Part 5 of this series, I argued that the five passages quoted by the McDowells from the Gospel of John in Chapter 5 of Evidence for Jesus fail to provide any significant support for premise (5).
In this current post, I have shown that the three passages that the McDowells quote from the Synoptic Gospels in Chapter 5 of Evidence for Jesus fail to provide significant evidence in support of premise (5). Thus, we may conclude that premise (5) is false. Therefore, the Trilemma Argument fails because it is based upon a false historical claim about Jesus.
END NOTES
1. First, it is doubtful that there was any Jewish trial of Jesus.
2. Second, if there was a Jewish trial of Jesus, it is doubtful that this passage in the Gospel of Mark provides an accurate and reliable account of the words spoken by the high priest and by Jesus at the trial.
3. William Lane, The
Gospel according to Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1974), page 535.
Other Evangelical NT scholars agree that the phrase “the
son of the Blessed One” used by the high priest meant “the Messiah”:
The high priest is only asking “Do you claim to be
Messiah?” not “Do you claim to be divine?”
Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark (Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), page 384.
…on the lips of the high priest “son of God” need not
signify more than “son of David.” Israel’s kings were sometimes called sons of
God (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; 89:26-27), and the messiah was looked upon as a new
king of the line of David.
James Brooks, The New American Commentary, Volume 23:
Mark (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1991), page 243.
Both Witherington and Brooks argue that Jesus’ quote from
Daniel 7:13 and Psalm 110:1 show that Jesus was claiming to be something more
than just a warrior-King of the Jews:
Both statements imply some sort of divine or quasi-divine
status for the Son of Man.
Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark, page 384.
If the historical Jesus had actually responded to the high
priests with the words attributed to him in the Gospel of Mark, then
Jesus was claiming a “quasi-divine status” by claiming to be the judge of
humankind, but that does not imply that Jesus claimed to be God. Jesus
believed that God could delegate the authority to be the final judge of humans
to somebody else. In fact, according to
the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, Jesus planned to delegate
the authority to be the judge of many humans to his disciples:
27 Then Peter said in reply, “Look, we have left everything
and followed you. What then will we have?” 28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell
you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne
of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or
sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my name’s sake
will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.
(Matthew 19:27-29, NRSV Updated Edition)
29 and I confer on you, just as my Father has conferred on
me, a kingdom, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and
you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
(Luke 22:29, NRSV Updated Edition)
Jesus did not believe, and did not claim, that any of his
disciples were God.
Paul believed that at least some of the final judgment of
humans and of angels would be delegated to Christian believers (“the saints”):
1 When any of you has a grievance against
another, do you dare to take it to court before the unrighteous, instead of
taking it before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the
saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you
incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that
we are to judge angels, to say nothing of ordinary matters? (1 Corinthians 6:1-3, NRSV Updated Edition)
Paul did not believe and did not claim that Christian
believers are God.
4. James Dunn, The
Evidence for Jesus (Louisville, KY: The Westminster Press, 1985), page 48.
5. Here are some
scholars who don’t think the historical Jesus spoke the words attributed to him
in Matthew 11:27:
- Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God (New
York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2014), in Chapter 3, see the section
called: “Did Jesus Claim to be God?”
- Gerd Ludemann, Jesus
After 2000 Years (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), page 174.
- Marcus Borg, “Chapter
4: Jesus Before and After Easter” in The Meaning of Jesus (San
Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), pages 54 to 58, and the footnotes #1,
#5, and #10 to Chapter 4 on pages 255 and 256.
- Gerd Theissen and
Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press,
1998), page 554.
- M. Eugene Boring, “The
Gospel of Matthew” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume VIII
(Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press,1995), page 275.
- Raymond Brown, The
Death of the Messiah, Volume 1 (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1994), page 482.
- Robert Funk, Roy
Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco,
1993), page 182.
- Geza Vermes, Jesus
the Jew (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1981), page 201.
- Gunther Bornkamm, Jesus
of Nazareth (New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1960), Chapter
VIII (pages 169 to 178), and page 226.
6. The point I’m making
here has also been made by a devout Christian who promotes careful study of the
Bible:
Peter Krol, “Context Matters: You Have Heard That it was
Said…But I Say to You”, post published July 27, 2018:
https://www.knowableword.com/2018/07/27/context-matters-you-have-heard-that-it-was-said-but-i-say-to-you/ (viewed 10/7/26)
7. Robert Funk, Roy
Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels (San Francisco, CA:
HarperCollins Publishers, 1993), page 36.
8. Robert Funk, Roy
Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels, page 141.
