Persons who do not believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ often assert that this doctrine is found in the Gospel of John, and perhaps in the Epistles of Paul, but not in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke, often abbreviated M,P, and L). They accordingly state that Jesus never claimed to be anyone supernatural, and that this claim was made in his name, after his death, by overzealous followers. Let us look at the record.
In M 28:19 we have Christ's parting command:
+ Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, + baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son + and of the Holy Spirit.
Without (for the moment) going into the Doctrine of the Trinity, we may note that sandwiching oneself between God, and what is (at least) the transforming activity of God in the world shows a high opinion of oneself.
So, who or what do the Synoptists say that Jesus is? Is he just a great moral teacher, or a prophet, or something more?
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says (M 5:10f):
+ Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, + for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. + Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you + and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely for my sake.
Here "for righteousness' sake" and "for my sake" appear to be equated.
In Greek, the dative case does double duty for the Latin dative and ablative, and so when we encounter "Jones" in the dative, with no proposition attached, we must infer from the context whether the meaning is "to or for Jones" or "by Jones." Twice that I know of, the KJV makes a choice that is rejected by modern translators. In L 23:15, Pilate says of Jesus,
+ Nothing worthy of death is done TO him.
Modern translators say,
+ Nothing deserving of death has been done BY him.
That is, Jesus has committed no capital offense.
Elsewhere, the KJV makes the opposite choice. In M 5:21,33, it represents Jesus as saying:
+ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time...
as if he were referring to a popular maxim. But in fact he is quoting a commandment, and accordingly modern translators say:
+ You have heard that it was said to the men of old... + but I say to you....
It takes some confidence to say, "God has told you A, but I tell you B," even when B does not contradict A, but merely expands it.
In M 9:2-8 = P 2:3-12 = L 5:18-26 we read of a paralyzed man who was brought to Jesus on a bed and let down through the roof by his friends. Jesus said to the man, "Your sins are forgiven." In this connection, C S Lewis wrote to an opponents (I paraphrase):
> Suppose that you complained to me that two of your colleagues > had cost you a job by spreading false and defamatory rumors > about you, and I replied, "I freely forgive them both." Surely > you would regard my reply as (in both senses) impertinent. What > does it mean for me to forgive them? I am not the injured party. > But Jesus, confronted with sin, does take it for granted that > he is the party chiefly offended. He treats sin as a debt owed > to him personally.
This is spelled out explicitly in L 7:36-50, where a woman shows her love and gratitude to Jesus, who then tells a story of a man with two debtors, one who owed him 500 dinars, and the other 50. Neither could pay, so he freely forgave them both. The one who was forgiven more will have more love and gratitude to the man who cancelled the debt. Jesus then draws the moral. The greater the sins that you have had forgiven, the greater will be your love and gratitude to Jesus. I mentioned this story to a Muslim I know, who replied that it is common for people who have received good news to hug the messenger, or give him a handsome present, even though he had nothing to do with the content of the message. (Conversely, Cleopatra in Shakespeare's play has a messenger beaten for bringing bad news, even though it was not his fault that the news was bad.) So, the sinner who was grateful to Jesus in the above passage may have been grateful for the news that she was forgiven, even though Jesus was just the messenger. But this explanation overlooks the fact that Jesus, by the story he tells, explicitly claims to be more than just the messenger. He could have had the creditor send a messenger to tell the two debtors that their debt had been cancelled, and then asked, "Which of the two will love the messenger more." But he doesn't. By implication, he claims to be the creditor. Here, a non-Trinitarian who claims Bible support for his position might say,
> Indeed, Jesus is the creditor. He is not God, but he is the > Lamb of God. He is the sinless man who volunteered to be a > sacrifice for the sins of the world. His suffering and > death paid the price for our sins and redeemed us from eternal > damnation. Of course it makes sense for a forgiven sinner to > thank and praise and love him.
Here again, if that is what Jesus claimed to be, one might have expected him to make his claim a little clearer. "A certain man had two debtors... and when neither of them could pay, a generous bystander stepped forward and volunteered to pay their debts in full. Now which will love the bystander more?" That makes things clear. But Jesus claims to be the one to whom the debt was owed in the first place.
A more serious objection, to my way of thinking, is that, if Jesus is not in any sense God, then his death is in no sense a sign of God's love for us. If I may step outside the Synoptics for a moment and quote J 3:16....
+ For God so loved the world that he gave his only son....
If the Father and the Son are not in some sense one, then this is no evidence of the Father's love. It reminds me of the humorist (C F Browne?) who, during the war of 1861-5, wrote, "I have already given two cousins to the war, and I stand ready to sacrifice my wife's brother sooner than that the rebellion be not crushed." Volunteering someone else is no evidence of generosity.
Jesus demands, quite casually and as a matter of course, that his followers shall have an absolute devotion and allegiance to him personally. He says (M 10:37f):
+ He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, + and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
+ Whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. + (M 16:25 = P 8:35 = L 9:24)
Repeatedly, especially in Luke, we find Jesus referred to in the third person as "the Lord." See L 7:13; 10:1; 11:39; 12:42; 13:15; 17:5f; 18:6; 19:8; 22:61; 24:34.
When Jesus is asked why his disciples do not fast, he replies:
+ Do the wedding party fast while the bridegroom is with them? + (M 9:15 = P 2:19 = L 5:34)
Who is this man who says, "No one need fast while I am here," whose mere presence suspends the rules? If a school has a visitor, and all classes are automatically suspended, we draw an inference about the rank of the visitor.
Jesus teaches his disciples to pray, "Our Father," but that is the only context in which that phrase is found in the Gospels. Jesus frequently speaks of God as his father (M 7:11; 10:32,33; 11:27; 12:50; 15:13; 16:17,27; 18:10; 18:19,35; 20:23; 24:36; 25:34; 26:29,39,42,53; P 8:38; L 2:49; 10:22; 22:29; 24:49). He frequently speaks of God as the Father of his listeners (M 5:16,45,48; 6:1,4,6,8,14,15,18,26,32; 7:11; 10:20,29; 13:43; 18:14; P 11:23; L 6:36; 12:30,32). [NOTE: If you find typos in the preceding lists, please let me know. <Kieferj@aol.com>] Nowhere, however, does he use language like "Our heavenly Father loves us and cares for us," or "We ought all to obey our Father." He never implies that his relationship with God is like that of his listeners.
If you are debating the point with an anti-Trinitarian, he may at this point quote the words of Jesus to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection (J 20:17):
+ Go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father + and your Father, to my God and your God.
You might take the precaution of getting him to commit himself earlier to the proposition that the Gospel of John is totally worthless as evidence of what Jesus thought or said. Then, if he quotes John at you, you can remind him that the question before the house, by his own request, was: "What do the Synoptists say about Jesus, and what do they say that he said about himself?" You will debate with him some other time about John's views, but right now the question is one of the Synoptists, and he will not be permitted to change the subject just because he is losing. However, in case anyone is honestly concerned about the statement in John, I point out that at the beginning of the Gospel (J 1:12), we read of Jesus:
+ But to all who received him, who believed in his name, + he gave power to become children of God.
Thus Jesus, having completed his work of redemption, of reconciling men to God, emphasizes the result. He who is God's Son by nature has united us with him and so made us God's sons and daughters by adoption. He says: "Because I live, you shall live also. Where I am in glory, there you shall be with me." (see J 14:3).
Let us now consider Jesus' description of the Last Judgement (M 25:31-46). When he speaks of how all the nations will appear at the last day to be judged, he does not suggest that he will at that time be one of those who are judged, even judged and triumphantly acquitted. No, indeed. He is described as the one who will do the judging, who will sit on his glorious throne and pronounce judgement on the nations of the earth. Moreover, he gives as a reason for doing good to those in need: "What you do for them, you are doing for me." Now, suppose I were to say: "President Clinton has asked us to get involved in volunteer work, so let's pitch in and do so. Remember, when you work in a shelter or a remedial reading program, you are doing it for Clinton!" I suspect that even lifelong Democrats might feel that this was not a good argument. "Remember, when you give a quarter to a homeless person, you are really giving it to Governor Rockefeller!" Somehow, it just doesn't have the right ring to it. But Jesus says that loving and helpful deeds done for our neighbor count as good deeds done for him, and expects this to be taken as a good reason.
And now a word about the phrase, "Son of Man." Jesus uses it repeatedly to refer to himself. It is found on his lips in all four Gospels. Moreover, it is found in those passages that are unique to Matthew, those that are unique to Mark, those that are unique to Luke, those that are found in Matthew and Mark but not Luke, those found in Matthew and Luke but not Mark and those found in Mark and Luke but not Matthew. There is no tradition of the sayings of Jesus that does not make use of it. Is it a title invented for him by the early church? No, for the early church does not apply it to him. Aside from two visions of Christ in glory (Acts 7:56 and Revelation 1:13), the phrase does not occur in the New Testament except "in red letters," in the words of Jesus as quoted in the Gospels. The Swedish scholar Sigmund Mowinckel has written on the use of the term "Son of Man" in Jewish apocalyptic literature, and concludes that it was understood to mean a personage who had been associated with God in the creation of the orld, and who would come at the end of the age to judge the living and the dead. In other words, when Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man, if he was not claiming to be God, he was claiming something pretty close to it. For a summary of Mowinckel's conclusions, send the one-line three-word message GET JESUS SONOFMAN to the address LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU, or consult the Web at http://www.ihi.aber.ac.uk/^spk/library/author.index.html