Jesus never claims to be God in the synoptic gospels?

[HungryInherit]

Someone just shared this on my Facebook. What are your thoughts? Even if Jesus was never recorded as saying he was God in the synoptic gospels, his resurrection was recorded in each. I don't agree with the author that even the disciples didn't think Jesus was God.
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/30024...npr&utm_campaign=nprnews&utm_content=04072014

 

[ktn4eg]

If, as the title of this thread states, "Jesus never claims to be God in the synoptic [Matthew, Mark, and Luke] gospels," is to be believed, then I'd have to say that this report is incorrect.

I base my statement on the fact that in Luke 2:42-51 is found the account of Jesus (along with Joseph and Mary) travelling to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12 YO.

Verse 49 of Luke 2 records these words spoken by Jesus Himself: And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"

Christ's reference to "my Father's business" obviously pointed to the First Person of the Trinity--God the Father. Thus, Jesus was asserting the fact that He was, indeed, a member of the Trinity; IOW--making Himself out as God.

FWIW, IMHO, National Public Radio (NPR)--the source being cited in the link, which receives the bulk of its funding via the Federal Government's National Endowment of the Arts [IOW, yours and my tax dollars]--would not be my primary source of completely accurate and totally unbiased information on Biblical interpretation.

NPR has a very long history of being quite left-wing in its editorial opinions and/or interpretations of what it reports not only as being news, but also in its broadcast features and in its "feature programs" such as "Fresh Air," which was the program on which this interview with Bart Ehrman took place.

(Please note that what I have posted above is not an attempt on my part to "shoot the messenger"--in this case HungryInherit--because I don't really believe that he would support such heresy as what is displayed in the link he provided [via his Facebook account].)

 

[John of Japan]

To say of one's self that one is the "son of God" is to say that "I am deity," as the Jews of the day well knew. "The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" (John 19:7). When I say, "I am the son of a man," I am claiming to be fully human, since like begets like. Likewise Jesus as "son of man" was fully human, and as "son of God" is fully God.

Jesus claimed in the Synoptics to be the Son of God (Matt. 27:43, Luke 22:70), therefore He claimed to be God in the Synoptics. Also, many others in the Synoptics called Jesus the Son of God, and He never once denied the title. Strange that Bart Ehrman, the anti-Jesus "scholar" interviewed in the article, didn't know this basic fact of the Jewish belief system.

 

[InTheLight]

Jesus claimed in the Synoptics to be the Son of God (Matt. 27:43, Luke 22:70), therefore He claimed to be God in the Synoptics. Also, many others in the Synoptics called Jesus the Son of God, and He never once denied the title. Strange that Bart Ehrman, the anti-Jesus "scholar" in the article, didn't know this basic fact of the Jewish belief system.

Indeed.
Matthew 16:16-17 NKJV
Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

 

[John of Japan]

Indeed.
Matthew 16:16-17 NKJV
Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Shucks. Forgot that verse! :thumbs: It definitely proves that Jesus proclaimed Himself to be God.

 

[prophet]

Jn 8:58-59
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him:but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Jn 5:18
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Jn 19:7
7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

Jn 10:30-33
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

 

[John of Japan]

Jn 8:58-59
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him:but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Jn 5:18
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Jn 19:7
7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

Jn 10:30-33
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Um, John is not one of the Synoptic Gospels. Perhaps reading the article in the link would help you here. :type:

 

[HungryInherit]

Indeed.
Matthew 16:16-17 NKJV
Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Nailed it!

 

[prophet]

Um, John is not one of the Synoptic Gospels. Perhaps reading the article in the link would help you here. :type:

The point was that the reason He was killed is expressed here.
He was killed in the first three Gospels as well.

Mat 26:64-66
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said:nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

Mar 14:61-64
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am:and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy:what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

 

[prophet]

Here are some hard to misunderstand references by Jesus, to His Lordship:

Luk 19:30-31
30 Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat:loose him, and bring him hither.
31 And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.

Luk 18:31-33
31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death:and the third day he shall rise again.

 

[John of Japan]

The point was that the reason He was killed is expressed here.

Just trying to make sure you know what the Synoptics are. :saint:

He was killed in the first three Gospels as well.

Yeah, I think I knew that.

 

[prophet]

Just trying to make sure you know what the Synoptics are. :saint:
Yeah, I think I knew that.

When agnostics try to use the Scriptures to misrepresent Jesus, they (usually very intelligent men) suudenly become incapable of seeing the obvious.
The man in the OP link quoted John, but left out the correlation to the other Gospels, in that those quotes got Jesus crucified.

One can hardly read a page of any of the 4 gospels, w/o seeing a reference to His Kingdom, Resurrection, Lordship, fullfillment of Prophecy, and etc.

 

[Zaac]

Someone just shared this on my Facebook. What are your thoughts? Even if Jesus was never recorded as saying he was God in the synoptic gospels, his resurrection was recorded in each. I don't agree with the author that even the disciples didn't think Jesus was God.
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/30024...npr&utm_campaign=nprnews&utm_content=04072014

When Bart Ehrman was a young Evangelical Christian, he wanted to know how God became a man, but now, as an agnostic and historian of early Christianity, he wants to know how a man became God.

Why is this being entertained/ He once was an evangelical Christian and now he's a agnostic and he's managed to pull folks into a conversation about Jesus not declaring He was God in the synoptic Gospels?

How is he an agnostic if he's presenting what took place in the first three Gospels and not the last as truth to be compared?

Tell him how to be saved and leave his book on the shelf.

 

[DHK]

Someone just shared this on my Facebook. What are your thoughts? Even if Jesus was never recorded as saying he was God in the synoptic gospels, his resurrection was recorded in each. I don't agree with the author that even the disciples didn't think Jesus was God.
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/30024...npr&utm_campaign=nprnews&utm_content=04072014

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

The man Christ Jesus was baptized.
God the Spirit testified of Christ.
God the Father testified of Christ.

All three persons of the triune Godhead are here as individual persons--separate but one God. For Isaiah 43:10,11 clearly says there is only one God: there shall no God be formed after me and no God was formed before me. I am the Lord and besides me there is no other savior.

Here is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

 

[Greektim]

Why is this not in the theology & bible study section????

To say of one's self that one is the "son of God" is to say that "I am deity," as the Jews of the day well knew. "The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" (John 19:7). When I say, "I am the son of a man," I am claiming to be fully human, since like begets like. Likewise Jesus as "son of man" was fully human, and as "son of God" is fully God.

Jesus claimed in the Synoptics to be the Son of God (Matt. 27:43, Luke 22:70), therefore He claimed to be God in the Synoptics. Also, many others in the Synoptics called Jesus the Son of God, and He never once denied the title. Strange that Bart Ehrman, the anti-Jesus "scholar" interviewed in the article, didn't know this basic fact of the Jewish belief system.

I take "son of God" back to its OT origin as a statement of humanity for the king or an Adamic like figure (Exo. 4; 2 Sam7; Ps. 2 & 8). I.e., this applies to Israel or Israel's king. I think if we let the the OT and the 2nd temple period interpret the phrase rather than modern notions as you reasoned out here ("like begets like"), we'd have to conceded that "son of God" does not imply deity. After all, it didn't for Adam in Luke 3:38 nor whoever is referenced in Gen. 6 or Job 1.

My bet is, in the new response to Ehrman's latest attack (How Jesus became God), (How God became Jesus), this argument will not be posed at all.

 

[John of Japan]

I take "son of God" back to its OT origin as a statement of humanity for the king or an Adamic like figure (Exo. 4; 2 Sam7; Ps. 2 & 8). I.e., this applies to Israel or Israel's king. I think if we let the the OT and the 2nd temple period interpret the phrase rather than modern notions as you reasoned out here ("like begets like"), we'd have to conceded that "son of God" does not imply deity.

I'm sorry, you lost me here. None of these passages have the term "son of God/god." In fact, Ps. 8 has "son of man."

After all, it didn't for Adam in Luke 3:38 nor whoever is referenced in Gen. 6 or Job 1.

You missed Dan. 3:25, which does seem to reference deity, or at least someone way beyond a normal human being. Same for Job and Gen. 6. As for Luke 3:38, the Greek there is not "son of God."

Regardless, we're talking about the time of Christ. What your point needs then, is evidence that at the time of Christ "son of God" did not refer to deity. My belief is that it did, because of the violent reaction from the Jews to the use of that term for Jesus. If "son of God" did not mean deity at the time of Christ, then how do you explain that reaction?

 

[John of Japan]

I take "son of God" back to its OT origin as a statement of humanity for the king or an Adamic like figure (Exo. 4; 2 Sam7; Ps. 2 & 8). I.e., this applies to Israel or Israel's king. I think if we let the the OT and the 2nd temple period interpret the phrase rather than modern notions as you reasoned out here ("like begets like"), we'd have to conceded that "son of God" does not imply deity. After all, it didn't for Adam in Luke 3:38 nor whoever is referenced in Gen. 6 or Job 1.

I waited too long to edit my previous post, but here is another thought.

The Hebrew parallelism in Ps. 8:4 ("man" and "son of man") would indicate that to the Jews "man" and "son of man" mean the same thing. Why would not "God" and "son of God" then, ergo, usually (note the caveat) mean the same thing in Jewish thinking?

Furthermore, IMO, "like begets like" is not a modern notion at all, but simple common sense. Surely the ancient Jews were smart enough to know that the son of a horse would be a horse, and the son of a rabbit would be a rabbit. So, "like begets like" is common sense.

 

[Greektim]

I waited too long to edit my previous post, but here is another thought.

The Hebrew parallelism in Ps. 8:4 ("man" and "son of man") would indicate that to the Jews "man" and "son of man" mean the same thing. Why would not "God" and "son of God" then, ergo, usually (note the caveat) mean the same thing in Jewish thinking?

Furthermore, IMO, "like begets like" is not a modern notion at all, but simple common sense. Surely the ancient Jews were smart enough to know that the son of a horse would be a horse, and the son of a rabbit would be a rabbit. So, "like begets like" is common sense.

Common sense is a modern notion! To answer your more salient points later.

 

[Greektim]

I'm sorry, you lost me here. None of these passages have the term "son of God/god." In fact, Ps. 8 has "son of man."

You missed Dan. 3:25, which does seem to reference deity, or at least someone way beyond a normal human being. Same for Job and Gen. 6. As for Luke 3:38, the Greek there is not "son of God."

Regardless, we're talking about the time of Christ. What your point needs then, is evidence that at the time of Christ "son of God" did not refer to deity. My belief is that it did, because of the violent reaction from the Jews to the use of that term for Jesus. If "son of God" did not mean deity at the time of Christ, then how do you explain that reaction?

I am a maximalist when I approach the NT's dependence and use of the OT. I think Sailhamer summarized it best when he said, “The Old Testament sheds a great deal of light on the New Testament. Our primary objective should be to read the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, not vice versa.” This he said in the context of understanding Messianic terms and Messianic theology. Quite appropriate if you keep reading.

That said, as you pointed out, the term "son of man" derives from the OT. Why not "son of God"? In this case, it is the concept moreso than the phrase. But that is not surprising since "kingdom of God" is an OT concept but not a phrase from the OT. And in every one of those passages mentioned above, the concept of God's sonship is mentioned. Gen. 6 & Job 1 aside b/c I don't really care about them, Ps 2 & 2 Sam 7 speak of the king of Israel as God's son. Therefore, I take it as a messianic concept. And Exo 4 speaks of Israel as God's son. Just as Adam is the son of God (cf. Luke 3:38; more on that one). Therefore, Israel is a corporate Adam (read N.T. Wright on this) who in turn was a king and priest (read Sailhamer and Beale for this). The value of thinking this way is that it is restricted to its 1st century conceptual thinking. For Jesus to claim to be the "son of God" is nothing more than Jesus taking on the role and mission of Israel as well as the king of Israel. The authorities are upset not b/c Jesus claimed to be divine (not in the passages you are talking about) but because he was bucking the power system (read more Wright on this historical Jesus view of why he actually was put to death).

As for Luke 3:38, to say that "son of God" is not there is not quite accurate. The genitive use is clearly one indicating parentage (read Wallace on genitives). That is why most translations accurately bring out this genitival aspect and say "son of...". Further, υιος was used back in 3:23 and would be assumed to be supplied in the rest of the situations. So your argument does not stand. Adam was a "son of God". This is in part why I brought out Ps 8, a passage that mixes the king of Israel as an Adam like character (not b/c it says "son of man"). Psalms 1-8 form a theological compendium of the King of Israel and Messiah (read actual Psalm scholars for this).

As for Dan. 3, this could just as easily be an angel or any supernatural being. This might be a passage similar to Job 1 and possibly Gen. 6. The more pertinent passage is Dan. 7:13 and how "son of man" could have been understood to be taken as the Ancient of Days (see Theodotion's Greek on this verse). This would throw your entire notion of "like begets like" out the window. "Son of man" was seen as a divine term in some circles. "Son of God" was taken as a human reference of Israel as a corporate Adam & Israel's King as God's representative and finally attributed to the Messiah who is an embodiment of Israel, the new (last) Adam, and God's premier representative. "Son of God" is a loaded term full of import and value. Modern notions have blurred this, and so we miss much of its theological value and OT undertones.

EDIT:
Read Collins & Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God. It is a book that is exactly what I am talking about. These are two excellent scholars too.

 

[John of Japan]

I am a maximalist when I approach the NT's dependence and use of the OT. I think Sailhamer summarized it best when he said, “The Old Testament sheds a great deal of light on the New Testament. Our primary objective should be to read the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, not vice versa.” This he said in the context of understanding Messianic terms and Messianic theology. Quite appropriate if you keep reading.

That said, as you pointed out, the term "son of man" derives from the OT. Why not "son of God"? In this case, it is the concept moreso than the phrase. But that is not surprising since "kingdom of God" is an OT concept but not a phrase from the OT. And in every one of those passages mentioned above, the concept of God's sonship is mentioned. Gen. 6 & Job 1 aside b/c I don't really care about them, Ps 2 & 2 Sam 7 speak of the king of Israel as God's son. Therefore, I take it as a messianic concept. And Exo 4 speaks of Israel as God's son. Just as Adam is the son of God (cf. Luke 3:38; more on that one). Therefore, Israel is a corporate Adam (read N.T. Wright on this) who in turn was a king and priest (read Sailhamer and Beale for this). The value of thinking this way is that it is restricted to its 1st century conceptual thinking. For Jesus to claim to be the "son of God" is nothing more than Jesus taking on the role and mission of Israel as well as the king of Israel. The authorities are upset not b/c Jesus claimed to be divine (not in the passages you are talking about) but because he was bucking the power system (read more Wright on this historical Jesus view of why he actually was put to death).

As for Luke 3:38, to say that "son of God" is not there is not quite accurate. The genitive use is clearly one indicating parentage (read Wallace on genitives). That is why most translations accurately bring out this genitival aspect and say "son of...". Further, υιος was used back in 3:23 and would be assumed to be supplied in the rest of the situations. So your argument does not stand. Adam was a "son of God". This is in part why I brought out Ps 8, a passage that mixes the king of Israel as an Adam like character (not b/c it says "son of man"). Psalms 1-8 form a theological compendium of the King of Israel and Messiah (read actual Psalm scholars for this).

As for Dan. 3, this could just as easily be an angel or any supernatural being. This might be a passage similar to Job 1 and possibly Gen. 6. The more pertinent passage is Dan. 7:13 and how "son of man" could have been understood to be taken as the Ancient of Days (see Theodotion's Greek on this verse). This would throw your entire notion of "like begets like" out the window. "Son of man" was seen as a divine term in some circles. "Son of God" was taken as a human reference of Israel as a corporate Adam & Israel's King as God's representative and finally attributed to the Messiah who is an embodiment of Israel, the new (last) Adam, and God's premier representative. "Son of God" is a loaded term full of import and value. Modern notions have blurred this, and so we miss much of its theological value and OT undertones.

You've made some good points and I'll consider them, though I'm not convinced yet about some of them which seem speculative to me, without first century proof, or at least that you've given. More than that, though, I don't have time to research or money to buy the books right now.

But tell you what, I'll never be convinced that common sense is limited to modern times! :smilewinkgrin: