Jesus Speaks About Himself

Magis ChristWiki

Unit II. G

What Did Jesus Say About Himself?

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

Return to Table of Contents

Introduction

We finally arrive at the topic of Jesus’ self-revelation. The reason for placing it after the Unit on miracles may by now be clear – Jesus’ exorcisms, healings, and raisings of the dead by His own authority and power revealed that the authority and power of God was intrinsic to Him during His ministry (not only after His resurrection and gift of the Spirit). Even though Jesus intended His miracles to be primarily the vehicle for the vanquishing of evil and the arrival of the kingdom of God, it was inevitable (and not an unintended consequence) that they reveal who He truly was (and is) – the one who possesses authority and power as Yahweh does, the one who vanquishes evil, raises the dead, and brings the kingdom by His own power and authority. Jesus’ ministry did establish the kingdom of God on earth, but it also revealed Him to be the one who possessed divine power in Himself. His actions truly spoke a thousand words.

Building on the implicit self-revelation contained in the exorcisms, healings, and raisings of the dead is a layer of explicit self-revelation, where Jesus reveals that He intends to vanquish evil by His own authority, bring the kingdom in His own person, and accomplish the mission reserved to Yahweh alone. He also directly proclaims Himself to be the Son of Man (with its eschatological significance), and, indirectly, to be the exclusive Son of the Father (with its implications of divinity).

We may now proceed to an examination of Jesus’ fivefold indirect claim to be the exclusive Son of the Father – a claim which is directly confirmed by Jesus (as He planned) after His gift of the Eucharist during His trial, immediately prior to His crucifixion. The presentation will be divided into two parts:

Jesus Accomplishes the Mission Reserved for Yahweh Alone.

Jesus’ references to Himself.

This will enable us to address the question of why Jesus was not more explicit about His identity as exclusive Son of the Father.

Jesus Accomplishes the Mission Reserved for Yahweh Alone

After the extensive analysis of the historicity of Jesus’ miracles in the previous Unit, it is not necessary to repeat why His power to exorcise, heal, and raise the dead indicated to both His friends and His critics that He possessed the power of God. Furthermore, we need not repeat why Jesus’ performance of these miracles, by His own authority communicated that the power of God was not merely working through Him, but intrinsic to Him, and how this, in turn, showed that He was the vanquisher of evil and the bringer of God’s kingdom, implying an intimate communion with the one He called “Abba.” In light of this, we need only discuss four points to fill out and clarify what we have already seen: (A) Jesus’ use of the emphatic “egō” (showing that His authority to heal originated with Himself); (B) a clarification of Jesus’ understanding of “vanquishing evil,” (C) a clarification of Jesus’ understanding of “bringing the kingdom,” and (D) how these three dimensions of His self-revelation implied that He was accomplishing the mission reserved to Yahweh alone in Jewish scripture.

Jesus’ Use of the Emphatic Ego

Jesus invariably exorcised, healed, and raised the dead by His power and authority alone. We have already seen how this was a clean break from the prophetic tradition (particularly of Elijah and Elisha) in which the prophets used prayer to invoke the power of God and then made themselves instruments of this power of God working through them. Jesus not only broke with the prophetic tradition, He broke with Jewish tradition and custom altogether. We have also seen how Jesus sometimes uses the addition of “legō,” (“I say”) to his direct command for healing and raising the dead (instead of simply saying “young man, arise,” He says, “young man, I say to you, arise” – Luke 7:14). This further accentuates the fact that the power and authority to raise the young man from death to life originated with Jesus Himself.

Joachim Jeremias has identified an even stronger emphasis by Jesus of divine power being intrinsic to Him, namely, His use of the emphatic egō – where the repetition of the first-person pronoun (“egō”) is explicitly stated along with the verb, say, “legō,” which already has the first-person pronoun in it (“I say”). In Greek, it is not necessary to state the pronoun, because the conjugated verb already does this. Thus, to say “egō legō” is calling attention to the first-person pronoun – “I say.” This indicates that Jesus is calling attention to Himself as the power and authority to exorcise, heal, or make a particular statement or proclamation, which clearly indicates that the power and authority of God is intrinsic to Him. Jeremias believes that this use of the emphatic ego was unique to Jesus at the time He preached.

Jeremias identifies four clear cases in which Jesus uses the emphatic egō. First, He uses it to exorcise by His own power (egō epitassō soi exelthe – “I command thee, come forth”). As noted above, Jesus commands the unclean (evil) spirits by His own authority and in His own name.

Secondly, Jesus uses it to interpret the Law, and even to add to the Law by His own authority. With respect to the six antitheses of Matt. 5:21-48, Jesus uses the phrase, “You have heard it said…but I say to you….” The “you have heard it said” part refers to some reference to Torah. Thus, when Jesus uses the emphatic egō (“but I say to you”), He is setting Himself up in contrast to the law of God. Though He is not explicitly contradicting Torah, He pushes it to a place where no scribe would dare to go, and in so doing, legislates a new Torah not only on behalf of God, but on behalf of Himself. In these passages, then, Jesus is claiming the divine prerogative of making law beyond the Torah given by God in the old covenant. Though the contrastive “but” is not contradictory, it comes dangerously close to opposing divine writ in a foregone era. Such authority (especially vested in oneself – “but I say to you”) could hardly have been claimed by any prophet, scribe, or priest during Jesus’ time or before. It has not only an eschatological ring, but also a blasphemous one. As Jeremias notes:

The one who utters the egō de legō humin [“but I say to you”] in the antitheses not only claims to be the legitimate interpreter of the Torah, like the Teacher of Righteousness, but also has the unparalleled and revolutionary boldness to set himself up in opposition to the Torah. He came to bring “the full measure” (Matt. 5:17).

Thirdly, Jesus uses the emphatic egō to mission His disciples through His own authority (egō apostellō humas – “I send you forth”). It should be noted that through this missioning (of the twelve disciples and the seventy), Jesus gives not only the power to heal disease, but authority over unclean spirits. He does this through His own authority, and the disciples use this power through His name.

Fourthly, Jesus uses a substitute for the emphatic egō in a completely unique use of the Hebrew, “amēn;” “Amēn legō humin (soi) – “Truly, I say to you.” As Jeremias notes, this use of amēn is “without any parallel in the whole of Jewish literature and the rest of the New Testament.” The use goes beyond the normal Old Testament meaning of “certainly,” or “truly,” and extends to a virtual doctrinal pronouncement (e.g., Mk 3:28: “Amen I say to you that all will be forgiven to the sons of man, the sins and the blasphemies, whatever they may blaspheme; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit has not forgiveness unto the age…”). Such pronouncements are frequently new doctrines, and are given according to Jesus’ own authority. Jeremias notes that:

The only substantial analogy to amēn legō humin that can be produced is the messenger-formula “Thus says the Lord,” which is used by the prophets to show that their words are not their own wisdom, but a divine message.

Instead of Jesus claiming divine authority by noting that the words are not His own, He claims the authority of doctrinal pronouncement (amēn) on His own authority. As one studies the various uses of the emphatic egō and its amēn substitute, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Jesus believed that divine power and authority was intrinsic to Him – so much so that He could use it without reference or deference to God. This coincides very well with His claims to bring the kingdom of God in His own person, and to accomplish the mission reserved to Yahweh alone.

Throughout the last 25 years, some exegetes have tried to prove Jeremias wrong with respect to his findings and conclusions. Meier makes a comprehensive review of these alternative hypotheses (of Hasler Schlier, and Stiassny), and shows that Jeremias’ assertion about the uniqueness of Jesus’ use of the emphatic egō has stood the test of time. He concludes, “In reviewing all these solutions one cannot avoid the feeling that various esoteric and convoluted explanations are being preferred to the obvious one [Jeremias’].”

Jesus as Vanquisher of Evil

Jesus’ exorcisms initiate the process of the defeat of evil and the arrival of the kingdom. We have seen the famous Q passage which connects the exorcisms with these two eschatological events: “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20). This eschatological theme is brought fully to light when Jesus reveals His privileged vision into the defeat of Satan:

The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” And He said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I have given to you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you. Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” In that same hour He rejoiced in the Holy Spirit…. (Luke 10:17-21).

These statements may be found in a variety of non-Lukan texts (Mark 3:14f, Mark 6:7-13, Matt. 10:7f, Matt. 7:22), and, as Jeremias notes:

There is no analogy to these statements in contemporary Judaism; neither the synagogue nor Qumran knows anything of a vanquishing of Satan that is already beginning in the present.

Wright contends that from the very beginning of His ministry, Jesus saw Himself engaged in a pitched battle against Satan (and all evil along with Him). His key task would be to defeat Satan by a process initiated by His successful overcoming of the temptations of Satan, with His subsequent exorcisms (which bring the kingdom to the world in the present), and finally with the completion of the bringing of the kingdom (at the end of time in the new age). Not coincidentally, this mission happens to correspond with the three tasks intrinsic to the mission reserved to Yahweh alone: the return of the true Israel from exile, the defeat of evil, and the return of Yahweh to Zion (see below, Section II.D).

For Jesus, the battle is initiated in His successful overcoming of the temptations of Satan. Wright characterizes this as follows:

…[W]here did Jesus’ victory over the powers of evil begin? All three synoptic gospels provide an answer: in a dramatic battle at the outset of Jesus’ public career. The fact that the Matthaean and Lukan versions are such stylized and polished literary pieces should not obscure two points. First, some kind of temptation narrative occurs both in Mark and in so-called Q. Second, some kind of experience, early in his career, in which Jesus believed himself to have won an initial decisive victory over the “real enemy”, must be postulated if we are to explain what was said during the Beelzebul controversy.

In Wright’s view, Jesus had a confrontation with Satan (“the strong one” – Mt 12:29, Mk 3:27, Lk 11:21; “the evil one” – Mt 13:19; the “prince of this world” – Jn 12:31; the source of the power of darkness – Lk 22:53 and Acts 26:18) at the very beginning of His ministry (presumably, this is what is being portrayed in the narratives of Jesus’ temptation). During that struggle, Jesus believed that He had defeated Satan, giving rise to His eschatological proclamation: “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Lk 10:18). In Wright’s view, this initial victory over Satan enables Jesus to imply with confidence during the Beelzebul controversy that He is casting out demons by the Spirit of God and therefore that the kingdom is now arriving in the world (see Mt 12:28). Thus, for Jesus, His exorcisms were not merely the liberation of a single unfortunate person from demonic possession, but also a further vanquishing of the dominion of Satan that had taken hold in the world, and a consequent replacement of that dominion with the kingdom of God. But Jesus did not believe that the vanquishing of the dominion of Satan (and its replacement by the kingdom of God) would come from His exorcisms alone. There would be two other parts of His crucial task: the first would be His exceedingly peculiar recipe for the defeat of Satan (beyond the exorcisms), namely, the Sermon on the Mount, particularly the Beatitudes, and then the third stage: the beginning of the culminating event which would displace Satan with the kingdom – His crucifixion and death. Wright contends in this regard:

The symbol of suffering was itself a key ingredient within the Jewish expectation of the great deliverance, the great victory. If, then, Jesus was retelling a story which belonged genetically within this group of Jewish narratives [Daniel facing the lions, the Maccabaean martyrdom, the son of man suffering at the hands of the beasts], as I have argued that he was, there is a strong probability that he envisaged for himself a similar fate of suffering and vindication. The language placed on his lips at various points of the passion narrative [particularly Psalm 22 ] probably reflects an awareness of vocation that, historically, had preoccupied him for much longer. [This event of suffering would bring] to birth the reign of [Israel’s] God.

The vindication of Jesus’ suffering would be Jesus’ resurrection and gift of the Spirit, and so, the three events would constitute the birth of the kingdom of Israel’s God. This kingdom would find its culmination at the end of time when Jesus’ eschatological activity would be brought to completion.

No other figure in Jewish history ever saw himself as responsible for the defeat of evil – the defeat of Satan, no other figure thought he was responsible for replacing the dominion of Satan with the kingdom of God, no other figure had a plan to accomplish this definitive eschatological task, no other figure had the power over Satan to initially effect it, and the vindication of the resurrection and gift of the Holy Spirit to complete it. Jesus is completely unique, and His mission so definitive, kingdom initiating, and kingdom completing that one cannot doubt that He was convinced He was the Messiah. Indeed the evidence (particularly the resurrection and gift of the Spirit) was significant enough to confirm that he was, in fact, the Messiah. Furthermore, as we shall see, this remarkable, unique mission is precisely the one reserved to Yahweh alone; which leaves yet another clue about who Jesus thought He was – Messiah, and much, much more. Who can take on the very mission reserved to Yahweh alone? For Jesus, it would be and could be only Yahweh’s (Abba’s) only begotten Son.

Jesus as Bringer of the Kingdom

As can be seen from the above, Jesus’ view of Himself as vanquishing the dominion of Satan is integrally linked to His being the bringer of the kingdom of God, for He believed that His mission could only be accomplished by replacing Satan’s dominion with that of God. The centrality and importance of this theme to Jesus and His ministry cannot be underestimated. It occurs over 100 times in the New Testament, over 70 of which are in the Synoptic Gospels. If we are to understand Jesus’ view of Himself and His mission, we will have to probe this deep, rich, mysterious, dialectical, immanent, and transcendent, “already-and-not-yet” reality.

So what is this “kingdom of God” with which Jesus intends to replace the dominion of Satan? Meier gives an initial reflection which properly contextualizes the vast content that Jesus gave to this encompassing notion:

…[T]he kingdom of God is not primarily a state or place but rather the entire dynamic event of God coming in power to rule his people Israel in the end time. It is a tensive symbol, a multifaceted reality, a whole mythic story in miniature that cannot be adequately grasped in a single formula or definition. This is why Jesus can speak of kingdom as both imminent and yet present.

The “kingdom of God” is the most synthetic and catalytic concept in the Gospels. It is the reality which is thought to be the way, the means, and the end of humanity, and, as such, is identified with Jesus Himself. It is also identified with the divine life, and therefore, with the perfect, eternal condition of God to which all humanity is called. When Jesus says that “the Kingdom of God is at hand,” He means at once that He is bringing the divine life of the Father (with its incredible dynamic to overcome evil and infuse the goodness and Spirit of God) into our midst, and calling us through this conduit to the divine life of the Father forever.

Jesus’ proclamation of the reality of the kingdom (coming in His person) calls upon His audience’s awareness of the Old Testament, particularly apocalyptic and prophetic literature. According to McKenzie:

The idea of the kingdom of God reflects the OT conception of the kingship of Yahweh…. In Dn 7:14, 18, 22, 27 the kingdom is given to the Son of Man and to the saints. In Dn 4:3 the everlasting kingdom of God is mentioned. The throne of the reign of God appears in Dn 3:54 (Gk). The kingdom of Yahweh is universal and everlasting, a kingdom of glory, power, and splendor (Pss 103:19; 145:11-13)…. These allusions show how Jesus could employ the term with no introductory explanation…

Jesus adds to this Old Testament apocalyptic context the idea of an eternal, messianic banquet (Mt 8:11f, 22:1-10; 26:29; Mk 14:25; Lk 13:28f; 14:16-24; 22:30), and extended the notion to opening the Father’s eternal life, love, and joy to all who have faith in Him (Mt:16:28, Jn 18:36, Mk 9:1,47 Lk 1:33, 9:27, 23:42).

But the kingdom is not limited to its future perfect manifestation; it also causes a dynamic force (the goodness of God) to enter into the world here and now. This dynamic activity is best characterized by Jesus’ many parables of the kingdom (which Jeremias believes to be the “ipsissima vox” of Jesus): Matthew 13 (the parables of the sower, the enemy sowing weeds, the mustard seed, the leaven, the hidden treasure, the pearl of great price, the catch of good and bad fish, the householder with the old and new treasure); Matthew18:23-35 (the parable of the wicked servant); Matthew 20:1-16 (the parable of the generous vineyard owner); and Matthew 25:1-13 (the parable of the foolish virgins). Luke also associates the dynamic force with the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Lk 17:20f). McKenzie summarizes this total dynamic as follows:

The kingdom is the preaching of the word; it contains both good and bad; it grows to greatness from imperceptible beginnings; it is a treasure for which a man should trade all his possessions. It imposes obligations of love and forgiveness. It admits all comers. It demands an alert readiness. The emerging conception is of a single reality which is present and operative but which inevitably must reach a fulfillment of cosmic scope. It presents a challenge to each man which cannot be evaded: the challenge whether he accepts the sovereignty of God or not.

Jesus viewed Himself as the definitive bringer (not mere proclaimer) of the kingdom of God. He clearly believed Himself to be the bringer of God’s salvation. As Jeremias notes:

[Jesus] describes himself as the messenger of God who issues a call to the festal meal (Mark 2.17 par.), as the physician for the sick (ibid.), as the shepherd (Mark 14.27f. par.; John 10), as the master-builder of the Temple of God (Mark 14.58 par.; Matt. 16.18) and as the father of the house, who gathers the family of God at his table (Matt. 10.24f.; Luke 22.29f). These pictures describe in symbolic language the bringer of salvation, and all have an eschatological ring.

This last point about Jesus bringing the salvation (kingdom) of God “with an eschatological ring” is brought to light and confirmed by a virtually unique requirement of His disciples – that His disciples not fast:

Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to Him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot [ou dunantai – “impossible”] fast.” (Mark 2:18-19)

Fasting was a very important regular dimension of Jewish piety, and so this unusual requirement of discipleship would have stood out as an affront to both the Jewish tradition and authority. Why in the world would Jesus have made such a requirement of His disciples? After all, it would seem that fasting is spiritually beneficial.

The answer is directly connected with Jesus’ belief that He is bringing the salvation (kingdom) of God, in its eschatological and eternal significance, to the world, indicating both the presence of Yahweh (in Jesus) and the time of joy which marks Yahweh’s presence. Just as it would be absurd to think about fasting during a wedding feast, so also it is absurd to think about fasting during the time of joy when Yahweh is present. Meier notes in this regard:

…Jesus asserted that the kingdom he was proclaiming for the future had in some sense arrived. As a result, far from conveying a mere inner belief about the state of one’s soul or a fiery hope about the imminent future, Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God had a concrete impact on the socio-religious lives of those who closely followed him – noticeably in the question of fasting. ¶ In this regard it is important to emphasize that Jesus as a matter of principle proclaims that it is impossible for his disciples to undertake voluntary fasts because of the joyful time of salvation he announces and brings (Mark 2:18-19a).

Jesus not only speaks of the kingdom, He acts it out, and with each action further infuses it within the world. We have already seen this effect of the kingdom in the previous Unit with respect to exorcisms, healings, and raising the dead. Brown confirms this by noting:

The miracle was not primarily an external proof of the coming of the kingdom (i.e., the fact that Jesus worked miracles proved that the kingdom had come), but one of the means by which the kingdom came. The acts of power were weapons Jesus used to reclaim people and the world from the domination of evil. When Jesus healed the sick or resuscitated the dead, he was breaking Satanic power that manifested itself in illness and death…. and those activities lock into the coming of the kingdom: “If it is by God’s spirit that I cast out demons, then it follows that the kingdom of God has at last overtaken you” (Matt 12:28).

But it is not only through the miracles that Jesus allows the kingdom to break through into the world; it is through many other consciously selected activities. Meier notes in this regard:

In his exorcisms, in his other striking deeds judged miraculous by his contemporaries, in his formation of an inner circle of disciples, in his table fellowship with toll collectors and sinners, in his “cleansing” of the Jerusalem temple – in all these deeds he was “acting out” his message. Hence it is significant and hardly accidental that at least on some occasions Jesus chose to explain such striking actions in terms of the kingdom of God having already come to his audience.

This “already but not yet” dimension of Jesus’ proclaiming and bringing the kingdom stands in stark contrast to the preaching of John the Baptist (which was well known among many groups within 1st century Israel).

…[U]nlike the Baptist, Jesus declares that certain of his actions (e.g., his exorcisms) mediate a partial experience of the future kingdom even now. Even more than in his proclamation of the future kingdom, Jesus’ proclamation-plus-realization of the kingdom as present inevitably moves the spotlight onto himself.

Brown sums up Jesus’ self-understanding as bringer of the kingdom/salvation of God as follows:

…Jesus claimed to be greater than any figure that had preceded him in the salvation history of Israel – greater than the prophets and greater even than Moses. Some have tried to do justice to this superior role by calling him the eschatological prophet of the last times in and through whom God’s final salvation broke through. I do not think that is an adequate description precisely because in none of the Gospels is there a moment from birth to death in which Jesus is described as receiving the prophetic vocation. Jesus is the eschatological figure through whom God’s final salvation breaks through, but his relationship to the one whom Israel calls God is so uniquely close that his followers had to find titles different from the designations that had been used for previous actors in God’s plan.

In sum, a conservative estimate of Jesus’ self-understanding of “bringer of the kingdom” (bringer of “God’s salvation”) shows that He had not only an understanding of Himself as God’s messenger and agent, but also shared in God’s own authority and power. When this is combined with His remarkable intimacy with God (manifested in His use of “Abba” and implication of being the exclusive Son of the Father – see below, Section II.B), we can see why the early Church believed that Jesus considered Himself to be the exclusive Son of the Father prior to His birth (not merely after His Baptism or after His resurrection and gift of the Spirit).

When the primitive Church reflected back on the above self-understanding of Jesus, it is not surprising that it called Him “the Lord,” “the Son of God,” and even “He who, in the form of God, did not deem equality with God something to be held onto….” The definitive bringer of the power, the authority, the salvation, the Spirit, and the very kingdom of God must be “of God” in the most profound sense. Therefore, He was thought to share power and authority with the Father, and to participate in the life of God even before His incarnation.

We may conclude as follows: the early churches’ proclamation of the present reality of the kingdom through Jesus gives credence to the historicity of his transmaterial-corporeal resurrection, and his resurrection, in turn, confirms the present reality of the kingdom (salvation) of God through Jesus.

Recall from Unit II-D (Section III.B) that the early Church believed that Jesus really had brought the kingdom of God in His own person, even though the prophetic signs of this had not yet occurred (e.g., Israel had not been rescued from pagan oppression, the Temple was not rebuilt, injustice and wickedness were still rampant in the world). The Church not only believed that the kingdom had come; it acted as if it had come in its practice and worldview: “They acted as if they really were the redeemed, new-covenant, returned-from-exile, new-Temple people of the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”. As noted in Unit II-D, this demands a sufficient explanation, and the only one that seems to do this is an experience of the transformed-corporeal risen Jesus. Why? Because the Christian claim has a twofold peculiarity – (1) that the kingdom has come despite the fact that the prophetic signs had not yet occurred (which would seem to require an experience of Jesus’ Lordship to ground it in the absence of the fulfillment of the prophetic signs), and (2) the presence of the kingdom as “…the creator god doing something new within creation, not of a god acting to rescue people from creation.” Thus, the early churches’ proclamation of the presence of the kingdom corroborates Jesus’ resurrection.

The transmaterial-corporeal resurrection of Jesus, in turn, confirms the presence of God’s kingdom (salvation) in the world. As noted in Units II-D&E, the Church viewed Jesus’ resurrection (in the power and glory of God) as a confirmation of everything He said and did during his ministry. The central catalyzing element of His preaching and action in the ministry was “the presence of the kingdom of God.” Inasmuch as this present kingdom is the salvific action of God (through Jesus) in the world, then believers can be certain that God’s salvation is available to those who put their faith in and call upon the mercy of the One who saves.

Accomplishing the Mission Reserved to Yahweh

In two of the foregoing subsections, we saw that Jesus claimed to be defeating evil (the dominion of Satan, the power of Satan, and Satan Himself) by His own authority and power, and to be bringing the kingdom of God in His own person. His claims were embedded in His exorcisms, healings, and raisings from the dead by His own authority and power. These two “embedded claims” coincide with the three tasks which Yahweh had reserved to Himself in Jewish scripture (a coincidence very much intended by Jesus). Wright notes in this regard:

…the kingdom of YHWH was itself [Jesus’] proffered solution [to the impending cosmic battle], with its component elements of the return of the true Israel from exile, the defeat of evil, and the return of YHWH to Zion. … But, if this is one obvious answer, the other one is “Jesus himself”. He claimed that the kingdom had arrived where he was, and with his activity. … His own work – his kingdom-announcement, his prophetic praxis, his celebrations, his warnings, his symbolic activity – all of these were part of the movement through which Israel would be renewed, evil would be defeated, and YHWH would return to Zion at last.

Wright shows that these three tasks (mentioned in italics at the end of the foregoing quotation) were the ones reserved to Yahweh alone in Jewish scripture. This is highly significant because it reveals how Jesus’ claim to defeat evil by His own authority and power, and to bring the kingdom in His own person – here and now – accomplished the tasks reserved for Yahweh alone – here and now. It cannot be thought that Jesus did not realize that His claims to be defeating evil and to be bringing the kingdom were not simultaneously claims to be the very presence and “embodiment” of Yahweh in the world. Jesus not only knew this for Himself, but He also expected that many Jewish scribes and authorities (who were familiar with scripture) would have known it as well. This may explain the Jewish authorities’ “hypersensitivity” to blasphemy in Jesus’ preaching and actions (see below, Section III.B). Wright concludes to this as a matter of history:

Jesus’ prophetic vocation thus included within it the vocation to enact, symbolically, the return of YHWH to Zion. His messianic vocation included within it the vocation to attempt certain tasks which, according to scripture, YHWH had reserved for himself. He would take up himself the role of messianic shepherd, knowing that YHWH had claimed this role as his own. He would perform the saving task which YHWH had said he alone could achieve. He would do what no messenger, no angel, but only the ‘arm of YHWH’, the presence of Israel’s god, could accomplish. …[H]e believed he had to do and be, for Israel and the world, that which according to scripture only YHWH himself could do and be. … I propose, as a matter of history, that Jesus of Nazareth was conscious of a vocation: a vocation, given him by the one he knew as ‘father’, to enact in himself what, in Israel’s scriptures, God had promised to accomplish all by himself.

The implications of this are obvious. Jesus considered Himself to be the very presence of Yahweh in the world. When this is combined with his contention that the power and authority of Yahweh were intrinsic to him (in exorcising, healing, and raising the dead by his own power and authority), it is hard to escape the implication that Jesus saw himself as sharing in the divine life of the Father, implying a status of divine Sonship which further implies a relationship with the Father before his human birth, and even before the world began. This conclusion is further confirmed by His references to Himself as “Son of Man” (Section II.A) and exclusive Son of the Father (Section II.B.).

Jesus’ References to Himself

Jesus made explicit reference to Himself through the title “Son of Man,” and indirect reference to Himself as exclusive Son of the Father. These two references bring to culmination what we have seen throughout Unit II-F and Section I of this Unit, namely, that He believed He shared in the power, authority, and presence of Yahweh implying divine Sonship transcending the material world and its intrinsic temporality. This “familial” relationship stands at the source of His mission in the world to “embody” the very presence of Yahweh and enact the mission reserved to Yahweh alone.

The Son of Man

Raymond Brown, among many other scholars, attests to the likelihood that Jesus used the title “Son of Man” for Himself. Two reasons are generally adduced for this. First, “Son of Man” is used 80 times in the Gospels by comparison with relatively few uses of titles like “Messiah,” “the Lord,” or “Son of God.” As Brown asks:

Why was this title so massively retrojected, being placed on Jesus’ lips on a scale far outdistancing the retrojection of “the Messiah,” “the Son of God,” and “the Lord”?

Such massive retrojection makes little sense if Jesus did not use the title favorably of Himself. Secondly, there are only four non-Gospel New Testament uses of “Son of Man” by comparison with the 80 Gospel uses. Brown again asks:

…if this title was first fashioned by the early church, why has it left almost no traces in nonGospel NT literature, something not true of the other titles?

The answer almost certainly has to be that “Son of Man” was no longer useful in the post-resurrection Church. The theology of the non-Gospel New Testament had evolved because the disciples had witnessed the Lordship of Jesus in the resurrection, the divine power of Jesus in the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the power and authority of Yahweh in Jesus during the ministry. They had already concluded, as Jesus had already implied, that He was the exclusive Son of the Father, and even that He was the Son of the Father from all eternity who was “equal with God” (Philippians 2:6). In light of all this, it would have made little sense to refer to Jesus (anachronistically) as the “Son of Man.”

Perhaps the more difficult question is, how did Jesus intend this title when He used it of Himself? Instead of making a detailed presentation of the intricacies of the long debate on this topic, I will draw on Brown’s conclusions about Mark’s indications of Jesus’ apocalyptic uses of this title, particularly Mark 14:62ff. It should first be noted that “Son of Man” can have rather mundane meanings (e.g., “human being” – as in the 90 addresses to Ezekiel which mean “O human being”); however, many of Jesus’ references (particularly the one in Mk 14:61ff) seem to hearken directly back to Dn 7:13-14:

…there before me was one like a Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

When one compares this passage to Jesus’ response to the high priest (which interestingly elicits the accusation of blasphemy from the high priest), it is difficult to deny an apocalyptic use of “Son of Man” by Jesus:

…the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mk 14:61-62).

Though “Son of Man” in the Daniel passage could have meant “one like a human being” to its original author, the apocalyptic imagery surrounding its use could have led subsequent generations (in the 1st century BC and AD) to use this as a reference to the apocalyptic Son of Man. This is the case for the authors of I Enoch (50 AD) and IV Ezra (100+ AD) and the communities to which they gave their interpretations of Daniel 7. Such interpretations may well have been known and used by Jesus given His strong apocalyptic bent. Brown notes that M. Stone sees “pre-existent Messianic indications” in the four Ezra passages concerned with Dn 7:

The man is interpreted as the Messiah, precreated and prepared in advance, who will deliver creation and direct those who are left.

From this, Brown concludes:

All this evidence suggests that in apocalyptic Jewish circles of the 1st cent. AD, the portrayal in Dan 7 had given rise to the picture of a messianic human figure of heavenly preexistent origin who is glorified by God and made a judge…. Jesus, if he was familiar with apocalyptic thought, could have used “Son of Man” terminology. He need not have read the Parables of I Enoch, but only have been aware of some of the burgeoning reflection on Dan 7 that gave or would give rise to the presentation of the Son of Man in the Parables and of the man in IV Ezra.

Even if Jesus was not aware of the apocalyptic interpretations of Dan 7, He certainly could have given such an interpretation to Dan 7, Himself (for he was quite familiar with and receptive to Jewish apocalyptic thought). Nothing in contemporary scholarship precludes Jesus’ doing this. As Brown notes:

A Jesus who did not reflect on the OT and use the interpretative techniques of his time is an unrealistic projection who surely never existed…. Hidden behind an attribution to the early church is often the assumption that Jesus had no christology even by way of reflecting on the Scriptures to discern in what anticipated way he fitted into God’s plan. Can one really think that credible?

There can be little doubt that Jesus was very familiar with apocalyptic thought not only in the Old Testament, but also in the apocalyptic circles of His day. This makes it reasonable to infer that Jesus likely used the term “Son of Man” to refer not only to His messiahship, but also to His preexistent messiahship (as implied in the Dan 7 passage). We have already encountered Jesus’ self-understanding as “preexistent with the Father” in His proclaiming and achieving the tasks reserved to Yahweh alone (see above, Section I.D). This may explain why Jesus selected this particular title (amidst many other candidates) to describe Himself and His mission. In light of the resurrection and gift of the Spirit, members of the early Church could not have missed the apocalyptic meaning of “Son of Man” and would have seen the implications of it for Jesus’ preexistent messiahship. This correlates with Jesus’ indirect reference to Himself as exclusive Son of the Father, which will be discussed in the next subsection.

Jesus’ Indirect Reference to Being the Exclusive Son of the Father

As has been noted above, Jesus did not directly refer to Himself as the exclusive Son of the Father, but He certainly believed this and indirectly referred to Himself as such by (1) addressing God as “Abba” and teaching His disciples to do likewise, (2) responding to the interrogators at His trial in such a way as to bring upon Himself the charge of blasphemy (Mk 14:61), (3) indirectly referring to Himself as the exclusive Son of the Father in the parable of the wicked vintners (Mk 12:1-12), and (4) indirectly calling Himself “the Son” within the context of His prayer to the Father – “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal Him” (Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22).

It is very probable that each of these references to sonship is historical and has its origin in Jesus. The combination of them makes it difficult to deny that Jesus thought of Himself as the exclusive Son of the Father, and intended that His disciples come to this understanding in its full sense after His resurrection and gift of the Spirit. Let us discuss each in turn.

Jesus Addresses God as “Abba.”

“Abba” is the Aramaic emphatic form of ‘ab – “father” employed as a vocative (as an address). McKenzie notes that Aramaic epistles show that it was a familiar address used by children, which could have the meaning of “my father,” or even a more intimate address, such as “daddy.” The implications of childlike trust and affection should not be written out of the term when Jesus uses it to address the Father. Moreover, Jesus taught His disciples to address God as “Abba.” As noted above, Paul is aware of this, but finds it impossible to use the title without the help of the Holy Spirit because of its high degree of familiarity (Unit II-E, Section II.B). In addition to its explicit use in Mark’s Gospel (14:36), Jeremias sees other implied uses of the term “Abba” in the New Testament: “…we have every reason to suppose that an Abba underlies every instance of pater (mou) or ho patēr in his words of prayer.”

Though this use of “Abba” is not unique to Christianity (as Jeremias conjectured) it is exceedingly rare in Judaism by comparison to its prolific use in Christianity. The probable reason for this is the presumptuousness that the Israelite elders must have felt in addressing God (who is the “Master of the universe” and the “Master of history”) with a possessive (my Father) in a childlike manner.

The significance of this address indicates Jesus’ intimacy with the Father. As Jeremias notes:

He spoke to God as a child to its father: confidently and securely, and yet at the same time reverently and obediently…. Abba as a form of address to God expresses the ultimate mystery of the mission of Jesus. He was conscious of being authorized to communicate God’s revelation, because God had made himself known to him as Father (Matt. 11:27 par.).

Jesus enjoyed a remarkable intimacy with the God He called “Abba” and this intimacy gave Him a the confidence to teach His disciples and all other people to do likewise.

How is it that Jesus felt confident enough to address God so possessively and intimately? And how does He gain the confidence to teach others to do so? The degree of intimacy and kinship, and the filial parity inherent in this intimacy and kinship would seem to be the ground of what might otherwise be thought to be “sheer presumption.” This intimacy appears to run so deep that Jesus takes it upon Himself to change the history of revelation and encourage a love of God hitherto unknown.

Jesus’ use of Abba is not an explicit indication of Jesus’ awareness of and claim to be the exclusive Son of the Father. However, it does imply this. In order for Jesus to have encouraged His disciples (and others) to address the Father confidently in this very intimate, trusting, and affectionate way, He would have had to have had some sense of Himself as Beloved – beloved as a son. Obviously, we cannot draw a perfect inference from this, but then again, we don’t have to, because, as Wright notes, there is other significant evidence of Jesus’ claim to be the exclusive Son of the Father, and when His teaching about “Abba” is set into the context of this other evidence, the point becomes quite probative and clear:

Since Jesus believed himself to be the Messiah who would draw Israel’s destiny to its climax by embodying the new exodus in himself, it is natural to suppose that he would make a special point of praying in a manner that was consonant with this belief, and teaching his followers to do the same. ¶ What we can now suggest…is that within this meaning, and the messianic vocation it implied, Jesus discovered a deeper one, so that he experienced a peculiar appropriateness in designating Israel’s God as ‘father’.

We may now proceed to an examination of this “other evidence.”

The Charge of Blasphemy (Mk 14:61)

As we saw in our treatment of Jesus’ claim to be the son of man (Section II.A), it is likely that Jesus used this expression in an apocalyptic way implying his pre-existence with the Father. Yet there is an even more explicit reference to Jesus’ sonship with the Father in that same passage. Recall that in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is asked by the high priest, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (14:61), to which Jesus responds, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mk 14:62). At this point, the high priest tears his garments and declares that he has evidence of Jesus’ blasphemy. Did the high priest really ask, “Are you the Son of the Blessed One?” and did Jesus really respond, “I am”? Perhaps not in this way, but in Wright’s view, Jesus did respond to the questions of the interrogators in such a way that He was not only charged with messianic pretensions, but also with blasphemy. Wright believes that the trial, the charge of blasphemy, and Jesus’ admission to something significant within the substance of the charge are historical:

All that remained was to extract some sort of confession of guilt in relation both to the Temple and to the charge of false prophecy. That was what the nocturnal hearing succeeded in doing. ¶ Succeeded, indeed, beyond their hopes. The prisoner, in agreeing to the charge of being a would-be Messiah, “prophesied” his own vindication in such a way that a plausible charge of “blasphemy” could be added to the list. …in such a way as to prophesy that he, as Messiah, would sit on a throne beside the god of Israel. “You will see ‘the son of man’ ‘sitting at the right hand of Power’, and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.’”

The charge of blasphemy goes so far beyond the charge of messianic pretensions that there does not seem to be any precedent for it in Jewish judicial history:

Since we have no evidence of anyone before or after Jesus ever saying such a thing of himself, it is not surprising that we have no evidence of anyone framing a blasphemy law to prevent them doing so.

The uniqueness of the charge provokes the questions: What made the Jewish authorities think of the charge of blasphemy during Jesus’ trial when it was so rare (if not unique)? What was it in Jesus’ response at the trial that made this exceedingly rare charge stick? Wright seems to have the most plausible explanation, namely, that Jesus predicted His vindication by the Father in such a powerful way (perhaps referring to Daniel 7 -- the apocalyptic Son of Man coming in divine power to judge the world) that the authorities felt that he was claiming to be more than a prophet and even more than the Messiah – He was claiming to have a uniquely special relationship with God. We may conclude with Wright’s observation:

…granted the charge of false prophecy already hanging over him, and the “two power” implication that the reference to Daniel 7 suggests, it seems to me likely that the reaction of Caiaphas, as in Matthew 26.65 and Mark 14.63-4, is substantially historical. ["He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.”]

Even though the words of Mark’s Gospel may not be accurate, it is not too much of a stretch to believe that their substance has an historical core. The result is clear – the charge of blasphemy will ultimately end, with the help of Roman cooperation, in His crucifixion and death. Perhaps the charge of blasphemy was a result of Jesus referring to Himself as the eschatological son of man (with its implications of divine status and pre-existence—see above Section II.A.). Perhaps it was something more – Jesus accepting or not denying the charge of being “Son of the Blessed One” (as Mark portrays it, 14:61). In any case, the unique charge of blasphemy made its way into history during a judicial hearing in which Jesus apparently did something to provoke it.

Jesus’ Self-Reference in the Parable of the Wicked Vintners (Mk 12:1-12)

The parable of the wicked vintners (Mk 12:1-12) portrays the history of Israel, where the owner of the vineyard (symbolizing God) sends several servants (symbolizing the prophets) to the tenants of the vineyard to obtain his fair share of the produce. The tenants beat and/or kill the servants. Finally, the owner sends his “beloved son” (huion agapēton) who they also kill. The implication is that the owner had only one son (“he had one” – ena eichen) which the parable later describes as being “the heir” (ho klēronomos). Wright believes that this parable was not only uttered by Jesus, but was deliberately self-referential. Thus, this parable is probably one of Jesus’ strongest self-references to being the Beloved Son of the Father.

Some exegetes have challenged the historicity of the story because it is more like an allegory (with many points of connection between symbol and reality – e.g., the owner = God, the servants = the prophets, the beloved son = Jesus) than a parable (which has a more general point of connection—frequently a single one). Jesus spoke mostly in parables and rarely in allegories. Several other reasons have been raised for non-historicity: the foreknowledge of Jesus’ death, the foreknowledge of the fall of Jerusalem, and the Gentile mission.

A cursory examination of these reasons for non-historicity reveals that they are grounded fundamentally in an a priori preclusion of Jesus using allegory and a fundamental misunderstanding of His prophetic role. Both of these contentions demand to be redressed. With respect to the first contention, just because Jesus uses parables most of the time does not mean He has to use parables all the time. Jesus saw many examples of allegory in Old Testament writings and was certainly capable of effectively using them in an appropriate context. This particular context is appropriate, and constitutes an exception to Jesus’ usual parabolic style. The allegory is not about the kingdom of God (as with most parables), but rather, about the judgment of Israel.

Wright notes that this allegory is meant to explain Jesus’ temple-cleansing action as symbolically representing the history of Israel’s rejection of the prophets culminating in His own rejection by the Jewish authorities which will result in God’s cleansing action (the destruction of the Temple). This particular context does not fit the genre of a parable, but neatly fits the genre of allegory, which conveys the history of Israel’s rejection of the prophets and finally of Jesus Himself. In view of this, it seems wholly unjustified to put Jesus in a parabolic straightjacket by implying that He was incapable of using allegories when He had use for them.

We may now move to the second contention against historicity (the unlikelihood of Jesus having foreknowledge of his death, the fall of Jerusalem, and the Gentile mission). There is little doubt that Jesus was viewed as a prophet by the people of His day. There are many texts which speak about Jesus being a prophet, the final prophet, and even more than a prophet. These texts enjoy triple attestation (Mark, Q, and special Luke), and a very strong instance of discontinuity from the early Church. As Wright notes, the early Church had far superceded the title of “prophet” after Jesus’ resurrection and gift of the Spirit. There would have been absolutely no reason for the early Church to have put this anachronistic title into New Testament texts when it had already been superceded, was apologetically unappealing, and could have led to confusion that Jesus was just one among many prophets. Therefore, the association of Jesus with a prophet has to be one of the most certain historical data in the New Testament.

Moreover, Jesus viewed Himself as a prophet (particularly like Elijah) who would bring the prophetic line from Moses to John the Baptist to completion and fulfillment. Wright notes in this regard:

From all of this it should be clear that Jesus regarded his ministry as in continuity with, and bringing to a climax, the work of the great prophets of the Old Testament, culminating in John the Baptist, whose initiative he had used as his launching-pad.

Finally, there are a few references to Jesus being “the prophet” predicted by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18 with its messianic implications. Wright adds specification to this by using Webb’s categorization of prophets – Jesus was specifically an oracular prophet and a leadership prophet. What did oracular and leadership prophets do besides utter oracles and lead? They foretold change, gave warnings about disaster, spoke about judgment, called leaders and people to conversion, and foretold the vindication of the prophets by God. This certainly applied to Jesus. As Wright notes:

Prophets in the Jewish tradition characteristically announced the judgment of the covenant god upon his rebellious people, and (sometimes) announced also the inauguration of a new movement, a time when Israel’s god would again act graciously for his people. Part of Jesus’ prophetic persona was that he did both.

In light of this, we may now return to the allegory of the wicked vintners. Is it justifiable to a priori preclude Jesus from foretelling his death, the fall of Jerusalem, and the Gentile mission? Certainly not. Jesus’ foretelling of His passion not only enjoys multiple attestation, it is also commensurate with the criterion of coherence (continuity). As Wright notes:

It is therefore not surprising, but entirely natural, to suggest that Jesus, in telling the story of Israel reshaped around himself, predicted his own death. It did not take much insight to see that it was very likely from the beginning. From within Jesus’ retelling of the Jewish stories, such a death would carry an obvious, though shocking, interpretation.

The same holds true for the foretelling of the Gentile mission. Though Jesus intended that His mission be primarily for Israel during His lifetime, He believed that His mission to redeem Israel would necessarily affect (and redeem) the Gentile world. This was expected by the prophetic tradition and even in the ordinary strata of second-Temple Judaism. Wright notes in this regard:

In many strands of Jewish expectation, demonstrably current in the first century, the fate of the gentile nations would hinge upon the fate of Israel. … When, therefore, YHWH did for Israel whatever he was going to do for Israel…then the Gentiles would share in the results.

Inasmuch as Jesus viewed Himself as bringing the kingdom of God in His own person and vanquishing evil by His own authority, He would have to have viewed the end result of that messianic and eschatological mission as not being restricted to Israel, and affecting the entire gentile world. Therefore, it should not be surprising to hear Jesus say, within the context of a prophetic judgment about the fate of Israel, “And men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the kingdom of God” (Lk 13:29/Mt 8:11 = Q tradition). Wright concludes here:

…from the historian’s point of view, one would strongly expect that anyone announcing the kingdom, and offering this critique of his contemporaries, would envisage that part of the result of his work would be the ingathering of the nations of which the prophets had spoken.

What about the third and final objection to the historicity of the allegory, namely, Jesus’ foretelling of the fall of Jerusalem? Once again, this prediction must be considered within the context of Jesus’ prophetic mission. Recall that prophets render judgment, issue warnings about impending disaster, call to conversion, and speak of the vindication of the just. The allegory of the wicked vintners puts the accent on the judgment of Israel. The prediction of the fall of Israel is the consequence of Yahweh’s judgment. In view of the fact that Jesus saw Himself as bringing the prophetic tradition to its completion and fulfillment, we should expect that He would have called Israel to its “final repentance,” and predicted a “final disaster” that would take place if Israel did not repent; and then predict a new “Jerusalem” (commensurate with the kingdom of God that Jesus was bringing into the world), and then to see the salvation of the Gentiles “wrapped up” in this new Jerusalem/community.

When we put Jesus back into His historical context, as prophet and judge of Israel, and as having a distinctly eschatological mission (instead of as the sterile “Wisdom figure” frequently portrayed by 19th or early 20th century exegesis), the objections to the historicity of the allegory of the wicked vintners disappear one by one. Instead of seeing Jesus’ passion prediction as problematic, we should have expected it (when we view Jesus as prophet and judge with an eschatological mission). Instead of seeing Jesus’ mission to the Gentiles and His prediction of the fall of Jerusalem as being in need of “demythologizing,” we now see that this would have naturally arisen from His view of mission and self. Indeed, if Jesus hadn’t said these things, we would have had to have asked ‘why?’, because He would not have been acting as a prophetic judge with an eschatological mission.

Wright goes even further. Not only does he show that this allegory is quite commensurate with the mission of the historical Jesus, but he reveals elements in it that would very probably have come from Jesus Himself. First, Wright believes that the allegory was meant as an interpretation of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple (which occurs a few verses earlier in Mark 11:15-17). The allegory sets Jesus’ action into the history of Israel’s rejection of the prophets, which explains how Israel could reject the Messiah who brings the kingdom of God. It also explains Jesus’ cleansing of the temple as a final prophetic call and judgment.

Secondly, Wright sees the passage about the “stone rejected by the builders,” which follows immediately upon the allegory, as being a further interpretation of the allegory because it indicates the vindication of not only the prophet, but of the Messiah and His eschatological mission: “Have you not read this scripture: ‘The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” (Mk 12:10-11).

Interestingly, there is an easily recognized pun between the Hebrew word for “son” (ben) in the allegory, and the Aramaic and Hebrew word for “stone” (eben) in the interpretive passage which establishes a close connection between the two.

When one puts the pieces together, the allegory, along with its reference to “the one beloved son,” seems unavoidably historical. Jesus’ action of cleansing the temple required an interpretation – an eschatological interpretation commensurate with His mission. The allegory meets precisely this need. Furthermore, the removal of “beloved son” from the allegory requires a virtual deconstruction of its eschatological significance. The beloved son is the last one to be sent in the long line of prophets, as the allegory makes clear; to reject him is to bring destruction to the wicked vintners (anticipating the destruction of the temple which Jesus had previously symbolically judged in His cleansing action). If one removes “beloved son” from the allegory, its significance slips away (along with the pun between the son and the cornerstone). So Wright concludes:

The whole picture serves as a further, and richer, explanation of what Jesus had been doing in the Temple, and why. I submit that such an essentially elegant and yet richly textured explanation is far more likely to go back to Jesus – who, after all, had long planned and meditated his climactic symbolic action – than to any subsequent thinker or writer.

I find Wright’s explanation to be quite compelling, and see this passage as another instance of Jesus’ indirect reference to Himself as the Son – indeed, as the beloved Son of the one He called “Abba.”

“No one knows the Son except the Father…” (Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22)

In Matthew 11:25-27/Luke 10:22, we encounter a logion which some have characterized as a “meteor from the Johannine heaven” because of its direct self-reference to Jesus’ exclusive sonship:

I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.

If Jesus truly uttered this prayer, then there can be little doubt that He referred to Himself as the exclusive Son of the Father. The triple repetition of the definite article before “Son” (“ton huion… ho huios… ho huios”) makes this clear.

Furthermore, Jesus claims within the prayer that all things have been given over to Him. As McKenzie notes, “panta” (“all things”) probably refers to all revelation, and “…this is a direct contradiction of the Jewish claim to have the complete revelation of God in the Law and the Prophets.” Jesus’ claim is to have greater revelation than the Law and the prophets, which betokens divine prerogative, and indicates that “the Son” mentioned in the subsequent verse must refer to Him.

So did Jesus utter this prayer? We may first note that this is not a Matthean or Lukan redaction because the two texts closely resemble each other (with the exception of ginōskei – “know” – in Luke vs. epiginōskei “fully know” – in Matthew), and therefore must go back to Q. The many references in the Gospel of John about the intimate relationship between the Father and the Son (and Jesus’ claim to be the exclusive Son of the Father) have evident redactional characteristics. However, the core message underlying these many references may well be historical because it would be highly unlikely that such a central part of the Johannine Gospel would not be grounded in some core way in history. The fact that this theme shows up in the Q logion would seem to support this line of thought. Thus, if we consider the underlying theme in John to have an historical core, then there would be double attestation (one in John and one in Q) of Jesus’ claim to be the exclusive Son of the Father who alone knows the Father and all revelation.

Secondly, the passage which contains the claim of sonship is uttered within the context of a prayer: “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth….” Recall from Jeremias’ extensive study that “pater” or “ho pater” uttered within a prayer is likely a Greek translation of “Abba.” This is precisely what we find in the Q logion under consideration (which many exegetes have confirmed since the time of Jeremias). In the Q logion being considered, the Greek translation for “Abba” is used not only once, but twice—(1) in Mt. 11:25 (Lk 10:21a) where pater is used without the definite article in a prayer context which is translated as a vocative “Abba,” and (2) in Mt 11:26 (Lk 10:21b) where “ho pater” is used as an articular nominative indicating a vocative “Abba.”

Recall also that “Abba” had its origin (as a common address to God) in Jesus, and that passages which use “Abba” (or its Greek translations) likely had their origin in Jesus as well, and so there is probative evidence for this logion’s origin in Jesus. The underlying Semitism indicated by the incorrect Greek usage of “ho pater” and the double use of “Abba” in this logion makes the evidence particularly probative.

Thirdly, Wright implies that this passage may be historical because Jesus’ exclusive knowledge of and access to the Father is the only explanation for how He could believe that He could accomplish the mission reserved to Yahweh alone:

If it is true, as I have argued, that [Jesus] acted upon a vocation to do and be for Israel and the world what, according to scripture, only Israel’s god can do and be, then we may legitimately enquire whether we have any clues as to what generated, sustained, or at least centrally characterized that vocation. When, asking that question, we discover that Jesus seems to have addressed Israel’s god as “father” in a way which, even if not completely unique, is at least very remarkable, we may be near to an answer. And when we find a passage like [Mt 11:25-27/Lk 10:22] – then we may be confirmed in this deduction.

What Wright is saying here is that Jesus has made some pretty extraordinary claims about Himself, such as vanquishing evil by His own authority, bringing the kingdom of God in His own person, accomplishing the mission reserved to Yahweh alone, exorcising, healing, and raising the dead by His own power, changing and fulfilling Torah by His own authority, etc., all of which individually and collectively demand an explanation. How could He possibly do these things? How could He possibly have this power and authority? It would have been very strange for Jesus to have acted in this way (e.g., raising the dead by His own power) and to have claimed divine prerogative (e.g., to accomplish the mission reserved to Yahweh alone) without giving some minimal explanation of it.

This Q logion (and the core message underlying the many similar Johannine texts) provides this minimal explanation: Jesus has special access to the Father and special knowledge of the Father – the access and knowledge which only a son could have – a familial access and knowledge which penetrates right to the heart. If Jesus really did have this exclusive filial access to and knowledge of God the Father, then it would explain how He really could have raised the dead by His own power and accomplished the mission reserved to Yahweh alone.

Notice that this explanation lacks Hellenistic interpretive categories (that might have been utilized by the early Church) and has a very Semitic feel (that would have been used by Jesus). Recall from Unit II-B that the early Church’s first attempts to explain Jesus’ divinity made use of Wisdom categories which have been influenced by Hellenistic thought. These Wisdom-Hellenistic categories have a platonic philosophical influence and may be viewed as ontological or metaphysical in character. They clearly indicate Jesus’ preexistence and are concerned with Jesus “being equal to God” (Phil 2:6), “being in the form of God” (Phil 2:6), or “being God” (“and the Word was God” – John 1:1). Inasmuch as these categories represent the Church’s earliest attempts to explain Jesus’ divinity, their absence in the Q logion would seem to indicate an absence of influence by the early Church (i.e., an absence of early Church redaction in the Q logion to update or clarify Jesus’ divinity in light of His resurrection and gift of the Spirit). This passage is quite open to such redactions, yet they are completely absent.

Instead, we see Semitic expressions – familial and relational terms (Father and Son) and “knowing,” which, in the Semitic mind, is also relational. McKenzie notes:

The Israelite knew with the heart, and Hb has no word which corresponds exactly to our “mind” or “intellect.” … In general it may be said that in Hb to know is to experience; experience develops into acceptance or possession.

The combination of “father knowing son and son knowing father” suggests experiential knowledge of the heart; it does not suggest mere mental, intellectual, or categorial knowledge. Thus, it is very likely that this logion is not an early Church invention. Instead, it is very likely a passage uttered by an Israelite who believed Himself to have a relational intimacy with God whom he addressed as “Abba.”

If Jesus did not actually utter these words, then this Q logion was very ingenuously redacted because it sounds very much like a Jewish messiah claiming divine prerogative and power, and lacks any indication of redaction by the early Church. For this reason I believe that the Q logion represents the authentic teaching of Jesus—and at the very least we can say that if Jesus did not make this statement, he certainly could have or better, should have.

Now, when one situates this logion within the context of the core message in John (a second attestation), the context in which it occurs (a prayer to the Father thanking Him for the gift of all revelation), and the other three references to exclusive sonship (the address Abba, the allegory of the wicked vintners, and the charge of blasphemy leveled against Jesus during His trial), the passage takes on greater probative force.

We may now assess the power of Wright’s contention – Jesus saw Himself as having an intimate experience of the Father which enabled Him to have such a profound knowledge of the Father that He could know the Father in His heart just as the Father knew Him. He believed that no one else had access to this knowledge of God except those to whom He revealed it. This is about as definitive as a Semite can be in claiming that he enjoys complete unity with and possession of the Father (possession in the sense of “loving possession”). Presumably, it was uttered only in prayer to the Father, and in the presence of Jesus’ closest disciples. If it had been uttered in the presence of Scribes or Pharisees, it would have provoked the charge of blasphemy.

Well, how should we translate this passage into ontological or metaphysical categories? Does this passage have implications of Jesus sharing the nature of God or being in a preexistent relationship with the Father (“nature” and “preexistence” being ontological categories)? Though Semites did not think this way, one can see how the passage could lead in this direction. To claim to be so close to God that He experientially knows the heart of God just as God knows Him, certainly suggests being in union with God (loving union), and this union, in turn, suggests a sharing in the divine life. “Sharing the divine life” ontologically implies sharing (equally) in divine power and nature. However, it must be remembered that Semites did not think this way. As McKenzie notes:

The OT does not distinguish between “life” as a principle [power] of vitality and life as living, the concrete experience of vitality. Its language is concrete rather than abstract, and life is viewed as the fullness of power…

Thus, for the Semitic Jesus (and His Semitic interpreters), “knowing the Father as the Father knows Him” implies complete union with the Father; complete union with the Father, in turn, implies sharing in the life of the Father; and sharing in the life of the Father implies sharing in the “fullness of power” with the Father. It is not a far stretch to see how the early Church could have converted this central logion into ontological terms through Wisdom school expressions such as “in the form of God,” “being equal to God,” and “being God.”

It seems to me that after the disciples witnessed Jesus’ transformed-corporeal risen state and experienced the power of the Holy Spirit (given by Jesus), they looked back to Jesus’ self-revelation to explain the divinity they had experienced. They recognized that He claimed to exorcise, heal, and raise the dead by His own power, and that these events were viewed by Him to be the vanquishing of evil by His own authority and the bringing of the kingdom in His own person. They further recognized that He claimed to be the Beloved Son (not only in the allegory of the wicked vintners, but also in His address of the Father as Abba, and the teaching of His disciples to do likewise). They also recognized that such claims brought about the charge of blasphemy at His trail – a charge to which Jesus seems to have acceded. Yet, the most fundamental explanation of all – the one that explains the rest of His claims – was to be found in the claim He makes within the context of a prayer to the Father:

All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.

This is the final piece of the puzzle – the grounding piece of the puzzle – the one that Wright identifies as the explanation we should expect to find – the one whose absence would be very peculiar indeed. Yet we do find it, twice: once in the Q logion, and again in the core message underlying the many independently generated texts of the Johannine corpus. This logion expresses in very Semitic terms the perfect missing piece of the puzzle, and therefore is likely to be Jesus’ own understanding of why He believed that He had the power and authority, indeed the unity with God, to accomplish the mission reserved to Yahweh alone.

When the Church experienced the transformed-corporeal risen Jesus and His gift of the Spirit, and reflected back on this utterance (along with all of the other sayings and actions which pointed toward it), it came to the obvious ontological conclusion (with the help of Wisdom-Hellenistic categories) that Jesus was not only preexistent and shared in the form (nature) of God, but also was quite literally equal to God (Phil 2:6); indeed, that He was God (John 1:1).

Conclusion to Section II.B. The cumulative force of these four references of Jesus to His exclusive sonship with the Father shows that Jesus was not only aware of this exclusive relationship, but also that He made it known to His disciples several times during His ministry. This means that the information was known and discussed by His disciples. It would be recalled after His resurrection and gift of the Holy Spirit and used as the evidential ground for His being called the exclusive Son of the Father, “the Son of God,” and “the Lord.” It now remains to explore why Jesus did not directly claim exclusive sonship with the Father.

Why Did Jesus Reveal His Exclusive Sonship Indirectly?

We now arrive at a question that has probably been percolating in the back of most readers’ minds – why didn’t Jesus simply say, “I am the exclusive Son of the Father” (or even put it in the words of the post-resurrection Church – “I am the Lord” or “I am the Son of God”)? This question may be split into two parts: (1) Did Jesus explicitly know that He was the exclusive Son of the Father? and (2) If He did, why did He reveal His central identity indirectly?

Did Jesus Explicitly Know that He Was the Exclusive Son of the Father?

Some exegetes have suggested that Jesus did not explicitly know that He was the exclusive Son of the Father (with its obvious implications about possessing divine power). Others have suggested that Jesus came to a gradual understanding of this identity during His ministry. And still others have speculated that He had a “sense” or “inner feeling” of His sonship, but not an explicit knowledge of it. The three most popular reasons for these conjectures are: (1) Jesus’ indirect way of referring to His sonship, (2) a fundamental assumption that rules out the possibility of a human being having an explicit knowledge of divine sonship, and (3) a fundamental assumption that rules out a priori any infused knowledge of the divine within human beings. I believe all these conjectures are unjustified, and that the better explanation is the most apparent one – namely, that the early Church was correct in stating that Jesus really knew who He was – the exclusive Son of the Father. Let us examine the best explanation first.

It seems to me that the most appropriate question is not, “Did Jesus know…?” but rather, “How could Jesus not know…?” How could Jesus not know that divine power and authority was intrinsic to Him when He was exorcising, healing, and raising the dead by His own power? Recall that Jesus consciously broke with the prophetic tradition of Elijah and Elisha (which prayed for the power of God and effected the raising of the dead through the name of Yahweh), and instead effected the raising of the dead by His word and authority alone. Considering this radical break with the prophetic tradition with which He was intimately acquainted, how could Jesus not know that the power over life and death – the power of God – was intrinsic to Him?

Recall also that Jesus not only exorcised demons by His own authority, He linked His exorcisms to the arrival of the kingdom of God on earth (“But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” – Luke 11:20). How could Jesus not know that the power to vanquish evil – the power of God – was intrinsic to Him? Further, how could He not know that the power to bring the kingdom of God was intrinsic to Him? As we have seen, Jesus willingly took on the mission reserved to Yahweh alone. How could Jesus not know that He shared in the life (power) of Yahweh which gave Him the authority to carry out the mission reserved to Yahweh alone?

As we have seen, Jesus called Himself the eschatological Son of Man, who will come as divine judge clothed in divine glory. How could Jesus not know that He had the power and authority to be the divine judge? And given this passage’s implications of preexistence (in the apocalyptic circles of Jesus’ day), how could He not have had some sense of His own preexistence with the Father?

If, following Wright and others, we are even remotely correct in suggesting that the parable of the vintners and the famous Q logion have their origins in Jesus Himself, we must finally ask, how could Jesus not know that He was the Beloved Son of the Father? How could He not know that His “knowledge of the Father as the Father knows Him” did not imply that He shared in the divine life (power)? How could He have made these claims and not have known that He was in complete union with the Father (in the Father’s eternity)? Quite frankly, if the above historical analysis is even remotely on target, Jesus would have had to have been “lights out” not to have known about His union with the Father (with all of its divine implications). We can assuredly say He was not “lights out.”

We may therefore conclude that Jesus would have to have known that divine power and authority was intrinsic to Him; that the power and authority to raise the dead, to vanquish evil, to bring the kingdom of God, to accomplish the mission reserved to Yahweh alone, and to be the preexistent divine judge was likewise intrinsic to Him; and therefore, that He was not granted divine power by God, but rather, He shared divine power with the one He called “Abba.” This sharing of divine power is integral to His union with the one whom He addressed as “Abba.” When Jesus’ references to Himself as exclusive Son of the Father are placed within the context of His awareness of divine power and authority being intrinsic to Him, it is difficult to deny that He did not have a thoroughgoing understanding of Himself as exclusive Son of the Father, of being in union with the Father, and of sharing in the Father’s divine life (and power).

With respect to the exegetes whose fundamental assumptions rule out the possibility of human beings having knowledge of divine sonship, or rule out the possibility of human beings having any infused knowledge of the divine whatsoever, I would submit that such claims are, in principle, unprovable. Naturally, a finite consciousness cannot have knowledge of infinite being in the same way as infinite consciousness can have that knowledge, but that does not mean that finite consciousness cannot have some knowledge of infinite being. Since the days of Plato, Aristotle, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Saint Augustine, and Saint Thomas Aquinas, philosophers have discussed and been aware of apophatic knowledge (negative knowledge), knowledge by analogy, contemplative intuition, inspiration, mystically infused knowledge, and other vehicles by which finite (human) consciousness can achieve awareness of, knowledge of, and certitude about the divine – albeit less perfectly than the Divine thinks about the divine. If these philosophers are not completely misguided about the power of human consciousness (which I do not believe they are since I can affirm this power within myself), Jesus’ true humanity was quite capable of having an optimal awareness of, knowledge of, and certitude about Yahweh in the above-mentioned ways. For these reasons, I believe that the simplest explanation is the best – the early Church was correct in saying that Jesus knew quite transparently that He was the exclusive Son of the Father.

We may now proceed to the question about why Jesus makes only indirect reference to Himself as the exclusive Son of the Father. This will respond to the critics who speculate that Jesus’ indirectness is evidence of His uncertainty about His divine status, because it will present evidence for His motives for so doing.

Why Did Jesus Reveal His Identity as Exclusive Son in an Indirect Way?

If Jesus was so transparently aware of His identity as exclusive Son of the Father, why didn’t He just come out and directly declare it? Meier probes the same question:

Even more than in his proclamation of the future kingdom, Jesus’ proclamation-plus-realization of the kingdom as present [exorcisms, healings, and raisings of the dead] inevitably moves the spotlight onto himself. And yet Jesus persists in veiling himself in indirect references and metaphors. He alludes to himself in Mark 3:37 under the curious image of a bandit. He speaks of the miracles of the end time to John’s disciples without ever saying “I” (Matt 11:2-6 par.). Even when he does speak in the first person, he often does so indirectly, as in the famous subordinate clause “If by the finger of God I cast out the demons….” It is almost as though Jesus were intent on making a riddle of himself.

So why did He persist in this indirect self-reference? Why, in the midst of exorcisms, healings, and raisings from the dead (by His own authority and power) which called attention to His divine authority and power and His trans-prophetic, messianic status, did He persist in veiling His exclusive sonship with the Father?

The answer, I believe, is threefold: (1) by choice and temperament Jesus did not aggrandize Himself, (2) He would not have used a more explicit title of Himself prior to the completion of His revelation, and (3) the timing of His mission. Let us take each in turn.

(1) By choice and temperament, Jesus did not aggrandize Himself. Jesus authentically lived the humility which He professed: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle (praus) and humble (tapeinos) in heart” (Matt. 11:29). Wright believes that this logion is authentic to Jesus and is part of His central message to trust Him and find rest (peace) through His way – gentleness and humbleness of heart. This central text corresponds closely with the first and third beatitudes which He holds out for us: “blessed are the poor in spirit” (ptōchoi tō pneumati) and “blessed are the meek” (praeis). The Greek term ptōchoi (in the first beatitude) refers to the anawim who were exceedingly lowly and so placed their trust in God (having no one or anything else in which to place their trust); and the term tapeinos (from Matt. 11:29) also means lowly, humble, and cast down. Interestingly, both references attach one’s interior disposition to the sense of lowliness or humility. The first beatitude attaches “in spirit” (“tō pneumati”), and Matt 11:29 attaches “in heart” (“tē kardia”). Furthermore, Matthew 11:29 uses the same Greek term to signify “meek/gentle” (praeis) as the third beatitude (praus). In view of the centrality of these teachings, there can be little doubt that these two fundamental attitudes – lowliness/humbleness of heart and meekness/gentleness of heart are central to Jesus’ identity and proclamation of the kingdom.

In addition to this, there are multiple authentic logia where Jesus extols humility. Among many other texts, we find: “…whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (Mt 23:12), and “Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 18:4). Jesus tells the parable of a guest taking too high a place at the table and suffering the humiliation of being asked to go lower, whereas the one who takes too low a place is praised when asked to go higher (Lk 14:7-11).

It cannot be imagined that Jesus, who put humbleness and gentleness of heart at the very center of His proclamation and self-revelation, would not Himself be faithful to it. And so it should not be surprising that Jesus does not go around the countryside of Galilee or into Jerusalem proclaiming, “I am the exclusive Son of the Father,” or “I am the exclusive Son of Yahweh,” or “I am He who is to come,” or “I am the exclusive Son of the blessed One.” He couldn’t even bring Himself to claim that He was the messiah (the one anointed by God to save Israel). Everything He did and said pointed indirectly to His messiahship and to His being the exclusive Son of the Father, but He could not bring Himself to proclaim this directly. It would have been, for Him, a betrayal of Himself, a betrayal of His heart, a betrayal of His mission. It would have been the most profound manifestation of self-contradiction – and that certainly was out of the question. This fundamental disposition of Jesus dovetails perfectly with His second motive for revealing His exclusive sonship indirectly.

(2) The incompleteness of revelation during the ministry. Recall from Unit II-D (Section III) that Jesus began the process of redefining the idea of messiahship (Israel’s expectation for the anointed bringer of salvation) during His ministry, but He did not complete the task, because this could only be done after the Eucharist, His passion, death, resurrection, and gift of the Holy Spirit. If Jesus had directly claimed to be the Messiah prior to these central events of His mission, we would be left with a very different notion of messiahship – one that did not include the total self-sacrifice of the Messiah, the complete demonstration of unconditional love, the resurrection and glory of the one who gave Himself completely, and the gift of His Spirit.

What is true for the notion of messiahship also holds for the notion of exclusive sonship. Jesus could not have spoken directly about himself as exclusive Son of the Father during His ministry any more than He could have spoken directly about Himself as Messiah without leaving a radically incomplete impression. Even amidst raisings of the dead by His own power and authority (which showed the power of God to be intrinsic to Him) the declaration of exclusive sonship without the Eucharist, passion, death, resurrection, and gift of the Spirit would be very different than the one we have today (see Units II-D,E,L,&M). We experience Jesus as exclusive Son of the Father on Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Pentecost, and that experience transforms our entire idea of God. In light of this immense set of events, we believe that God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son; we believe that God loves us unconditionally, even to the point of total self-sacrifice; and this causes a kind of worship, relationship, and surrender in love which we would never be able to have without our belief in “the self-sacrificial, loving and glorious end of the story.”

In sum, even if it had been Jesus’ proclivity to directly declare Himself Messiah or exclusive Son of the Father, He would not have been able to do so during His ministry (even after raising the dead) without giving the wrong impression – a seriously incomplete impression about His sonship—which would have lacked the unconditionedness of His love, and therefore the unconditionedness of the Father’s love. This would have led to a very different Christian Church, a very different course of Western history, and a very different experience of God – even today.

(3) The timing of His mission. As may be clear from even a cursory view of the Gospels, the Jewish authorities felt threatened by Jesus’ miraculous power, and even more threatened by the implication that it signified His messiahship, and even more threatened by any implication of His being the divine Son. This is clear from their accusation that He casts out demons by Beelzebul, but even clearer from their recognition of possible blasphemy. Jesus makes statements which indirectly refer to His divine prerogative, and which elicit the immediate charge of blasphemy. For example, He says to the paralyzed man, “My son, your sins are forgiven” (Mk 2:6), which elicits the immediate response from the scribes, “Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mk 2:7).

Recall what was said about the historicity of Jesus’ trial, the exceedingly rare charge of blasphemy, and the way He apparently acceded to it (Section II.B.2). If Jesus had directly declared Himself to be the exclusive Son of the Father earlier in His ministry, He would have probably brought on an earlier demise (perhaps by stoning in Galilee?); but in accordance with what I believe to be His plan, He decided to complete His ministry by His visit to Jerusalem, and ultimately by His crucifixion during the Passover, for which he had prepared, by planning His gift of the Holy Eucharist (see Unit II-L).

Conclusion. The above three contentions adequately explain why Jesus only indirectly refers to Himself as the exclusive Son of the Father – He did not want to be a profound self-contradiction; He wanted to complete His revelation about messiahship, sonship, and God the Father; and He did not want to bring His mission to a premature, unsatisfactory conclusion. It seems to me that these reasons are far more probative than the speculation that Jesus was somewhat vague or confused about His divine status while He was raising the dead by His own power and authority, and indirectly claiming, “no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.”

Conclusion

In light of the above, it is difficult to deny that Jesus understood Himself to be the exclusive Son of the Father who was to accomplish the threefold mission reserved to Yahweh alone. He believed that He was to accomplish this task in a way that went far beyond second-Temple Judaism’s anticipation of it – He would vanquish evil by His own authority and bring the kingdom of God in His own person. His exclusive sonship with the Father enabled Him to exorcize, heal, and raise the dead by His own authority and power, revealing that God’s authority and power was intrinsic to Him during the ministry. Though Jesus did not directly express to His disciples His exclusive sonship with the Father, He did this indirectly, but quite clearly – in His remarkable address to God as Abba, in His admission of divinity which caused the charge of blasphemy at His trial, in His indirect reference to Himself as the Beloved Son, and in His acknowledgement of direct access to and knowledge of the Father as Son.

When the early Church reflected on the divine glory intrinsic to Jesus’ risen state, the divine power of the Spirit (who was at once the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of Jesus operating through the name of Jesus), and the fact that He exorcised, healed, and raised the dead by His own authority and power, it could not help but reflect back on the claims He made about His mission and Himself – claims about vanquishing evil and bringing the kingdom of God in His own person, claims about being the Beloved Son. They would have been particularly aware of Jesus’ claim recorded in the famous Q logion where He asserts such closeness to the Father that He has complete interpersonal knowledge of Him (He knows the Father just as the Father knows Him). This implied being in complete union with the Father, which, in turn, implied sharing in the Father’s divine life. For Semites, the notion of “life” includes the fullness of power; so Jesus’ sharing in the Father’s divine life would also include His sharing in the fullness of the Father’s divine power.

Note here that the Church never held that Jesus became Lord after His resurrection or even after His birth. It understood very well that divine power and authority was intrinsic to Him during His ministry, and that He claimed to be in such close union with the Father that He shares in the Father’s divine life and power as an exclusive Son. This had to belong not to an adopted son, but to a natural Son who shared co-naturally in the Father’s divine life, power, and Spirit. Jesus’ naturally sharing in the divine life, power, and spirit implied that He is divine, and co-natural divinity implied co-natural eternity. Thus, the early Church believed that Jesus was as eternal as the Father whose life He co-naturally shared. It thought Him to be preexistent not simply because He claimed to be the eschatological Son of Man (with its implications of preexistence), but most importantly because He claimed to be the exclusive Son of the Father and to be in such natural union with the Father that He knew the Father as the Father knew Him.

For this reason, the Church at its earliest origins proclaimed Jesus to be “the Lord” (with all its divine implications) and shortly thereafter, “the Son of God.” But this was not enough. In the Hellenistic world in which the early Church preached, it became essential to give ontological meaning and explanation to this incredible revelation of Jesus. They would have to find some suitable way to express the co-natural divinity and eternity implied in the combination of Jesus’ divine power (during the ministry), His self-revelation of being the exclusive Son of the Father, His glorious risen appearance, and His gift of the divine Spirit. As Wright notes:

…kyrios meant not only ‘lord of the world’, in the sense that he was the human being now at the helm of the universe, the one to whom every knee, including that of Caesar, must bow, but also ‘the one who makes present and visible what the Old Testament said about YHWH himself’. That was why the early Christians ransacked texts about God’s presence and activity in the world in order to find appropriate categories to speak of Jesus (and the Spirit, though that is of course another topic).

It found a remarkable resource in Wisdom speculation which spoke about Wisdom as the personification of the image and essence of God. Early converts (who were probably well educated Scribes familiar with the Wisdom schools and the Hellenistic categories utilized by them) began to fashion remarkable explanations of Jesus’ natural divinity. Two such expressions are sufficient to reveal the extent and depth of the early Church’s well-verified conclusion.

Phil 2:6-7:

[Jesus], subsisting (huparchōn – “being from the beginning” – note archē root – or, with reference to God, “being from all eternity” – participle – implying a continuing state) in the form (morphē – which, in a Hellenistic context, probably implies an unrefined sense of “nature”) of God (predicative use of theou without the definite article, implying “divinity,” “divine status,” or “divine nature” in an unrefined way)

did not deem equality with God (literally, the “to be equal with God” – “to einai isa Theō – predicative use of Theō, implying “divinity,” “divine status,” or “divine nature” in an unrefined way)

something to be held onto (harpagmon)

but emptied (ekenōsen – aorist – precise point in time) Himself

taking (labōn – participle – implying a continuing state) the form (morphē) of a servant,

being born (genomenos – aorist participle – becoming or being born – the latter being preferable in context) in the likeness (homoiōmati – more than mere resemblance – probably “similar in every way”) of men (anthrōpōn – referring to generic human qualities – “of humans”)….

and John 1:1-3:

In “all eternity” (en archē – as “source”) was (ēn – imperfect of “to be” implying continuation) the Word (ho Logos – the complete self-expression of the divine nature),

and the Word was dynamically in the presence (pros) of the Father (ton Theon – “Theos” accompanied by the definite article in the New Testament is generally translated as “the Father”),

and the Word was (ēn – imperfect, implying continuation) God (Theos – without the definite article, implying “divine” or “divine nature” in an unrefined way).

This One was (ēn – imperfect, implying continuation) in the presence (pros) of the Father (ton Theon – “Theos” with a definite article, indicating “the Father”) in “all eternity” (en archē – as “source”).

All things came to be (egeneto) through Him,

and without Him not one thing which has come into being came to be.

The evidence for the early Church’s proclamation of Jesus’ divinity was quite extensive, and its conclusions were reasonable, responsible, and well corroborated. Even though skeptics might think that the message is too good to be true, the Church proclaimed it as too true to be denied, indeed, it believed that this proclamation was worth giving up everything for – social status, reputation, financial status, even relationship to the synagogue, and life itself. It believed that Jesus truly was Emmanuel – God with us.

Yet, there is more. As will be seen in the next five units, there is Jesus’ preaching about the Father of the Prodigal Son; His claim that love is the highest commandment, with its implication that love is the essence of God; and above all, the unconditional love He manifests in His Passion and gift of the Holy Eucharist. When the evidence of Jesus’ exclusive Sonship with the Father (given above Units II-C-F) is combined with the evidence for His and the Father’s unconditional love (given below Units II-J-M), the reasons of the mind and heart reach a dynamic synergy revealing how reasonable and responsible is the confession: “Yes, He is the One. He is Emmanuel. And therefore, God must be Unconditional Love with us and for us forever.”