Faith Seeking Understanding
Did the Historical Jesus Claim to be “Very God of Very God”?
© Ken McDuff, 2003
The views of a distinguished presbyter
from Alexandria first brought the issue of
Jesus' divinity to the attention of the church.
His name was Arius, and his assertion that
“there was [a time] when the Son was not”
clearly subordinated the Son to the Father—
not in function only, but in essence. When
Emperor Constantine convened the first
ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325 A.D., the
bishops concluded instead that Jesus was
“very God of very God ... one substance with
the Father.” The church has historically
embraced the propositions of the Nicene
formula as being foundational to Christian
thought, but modern critics charge that the
divinity of Jesus is an invention of the fourth
century church. The critics are wrong: the
historical Jesus claimed deity for himself, and
his contemporaries—both friend and foe—
acknowledged that claim.
Modern attacks on the deity of Christ can
be traced to the rationalism of the eighteenth
century. 1 When the lecture notes of Hermann
Samuel Reimaraus were published in the
1770's, his challenge of the traditional view of
Jesus’ identity sparked a quest for the “real”
Jesus. 2 Underlying all such investigation is the
notion that physical reality is all there is; the
supernatural does not exist. The historical-
critical method is viewed, then, as the best—
indeed, the only—means of arriving at the
truth about who Jesus claimed to be.
The initial quest fizzled for a time when
Rudolf Bultmann asserted that “we can now
know almost nothing concerning the life and
personality of Jesus.”3 Bultmann regarded the
idea that Jesus was the pre-existent Son of
God who provides salvation for man by his
sacrificial death as a mythical representation
of what he nevertheless considered a valid
and saving truth. Because modern man finds
the myth unbelievable, he contends, it must be
represented in a “demythologized” form. A
“New Quest” began when Bultmann's
student, Ernst Kasemann, proposed that Jesus
is not a completely mythological being, so
some interest in the historical Jesus is
theologically valid. And so the quest to
discover the “true” identity of Jesus has
resumed, using rationalism as its method and
doubt as its premise.
Postmodern thought is perhaps more
consistent with the irrational faith proposed
by Friedrich Schleiermacher in his defense of
religion against rationalism. Schleiermacher
simply disposed of the need for rational
thought, arguing that religion is a matter of
feeling and experience rather than revealed
truth. According to Schleiermacher, it does not
really matter whether what you believe is
true; all that matters is that you believe it. He
rejected his own German Reformed
upbringing, writing to his father in 1787, “I
cannot believe that He, who called himself the
Son of Man, was the true, eternal God.”4
Clearly, as Daniel Edward writes, “The Christ
of Schleiermacher was a mere man,”5 and the
nominal religion of post-Enlightenment
Germany made that country ready for
Schleiermacher's ideas. His influence soon
Faith Seeking Understanding
spread to the English-speaking world as well:
“Schleiermacher is correctly viewed as the
chief source of the massive change which has
occurred in the historic Protestant
denominations during the last two hundred
years.”6
Undergirded by the "double whammy" of
philosophical naturalism and irrational faith,
it is no surprise that theological liberalism has
rejected the deity of Jesus. The creeds of the
church are viewed as incomprehensible to the
modern mind, and only the "essence of
Christianity" is deemed necessary. In the
various "Lives of Jesus" written by liberal
theologians during the nineteenth century,
Jesus is presented as “nothing but” a great
teacher and model for humanity. A similar
viewpoint is held today. John Hicks and
several British colleagues published a
controversial book in 1977 entitled The Myth of
God Incarnate. “That the historical Jesus did
not present himself as God incarnate is
accepted by all [theologians],” they argue.
“Jesus did not teach the doctrine of the
trinity… the later conception of him as God
incarnate, the Second Person of the Holy
Trinity living a human life is a mythological or
poetic way of expressing his significance for
us.”7
Modern critics admit the uniqueness of
Jesus: he was a man of wisdom, a great moral
teacher, a religious genius, a social crusader.
But they stop far short of acknowledging him
as God in the flesh. He turns out not to be the
Jesus who is worshipped and adored by the
church, but a Jesus stripped of the garments
and grandeur of deity. Are they right? To
answer that question, we will briefly examine
Did the Historical Jesus Claim to be “Very God of Very God”?
2
how Jesus viewed himself, what his followers
believed to be true about him, and what his
enemies acknowledged as well.
Jesus' Claim to Deity
The logical place to begin is to ask, “Did
Jesus think of himself as God?” That he did is
demonstrated by examining his words and
actions. Yet, because the critics question the
historical reliability of much in the gospels,
this may not be the most convincing line of
argument. Nevertheless, it is important to take
a cursory look at the titles Jesus applies to
himself and the deeds that he performed,
while recognizing the necessity for the
additional arguments that will follow.
Son of Man. While the title that Jesus used
most often of himself, “the Son of Man,” is
commonly understood to emphasize Jesus’
humanity, it is in fact a claim of divine
authority and power. Jesus refers to himself as
“the Son of Man” in all five gospel sources:
Mark, Q, M, L, and John. These multiple
attestations, along with the fact that the term
was not commonly used of Jesus in the
epistles (the principle of dissimilarity),
provide significant historical evidence that
Jesus actually used this term of himself. The
title is used in reference to his authority to
forgive sin (Mark 2:10), to save the lost (Luke
19:10), and to judge the world (John 5:27).
John used the term in contexts that emphasize
his preexistence (John 3:13-14; 6:62) and his
self-existence (John 5:26).
But perhaps the most convincing evidence
that Jesus used this term to appeal to his
identity as deity is found in his encounter
Faith Seeking Understanding
before Caiaphas, the High Priest (Matthew
26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65). When demanded to
answer whether he was the Christ, Jesus
replied, “I am, and you will see the Son of
Man seated at the right hand of Power, and
coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark
14:62, ESV). His reference is to the words of
the prophet Daniel (Dan. 7:13-14), which
speak of the presentation of the Son of Man
with the glory and dominion of deity. No one
there doubted what Jesus was claiming; the
high priest immediately tore his clothes and
declared that Jesus had spoken blasphemy.
Son of God. Interestingly, Jesus rarely
used the title “Son of God” in referring to
himself, yet it is certain that he believed
himself to be the Son of God. In response to
Jesus’ question to his disciples regarding his
identity, Peter exclaims, “You are the Christ,
the Son of the Living God” (Matt. 16:16). Jesus
immediately acknowledged the truth of
Peter's testimony. When the Sanhedrin
questioned Jesus, asking “Are you the Son of
God?” (Luke 22:70), Jesus answered, “You say
that I am.” Some translators add an
explanatory word: “You rightly say that I am.”
This seems consistent with the reaction of the
Sanhedrin, who imply that Jesus has
implicated himself by then initiating his
prosecution before Pilate. Others also referred
to Jesus as the Son of God in his hearing, 8 and
he never felt the need to correct them. The
voice of God from heaven affirms Jesus’
identify as the “beloved Son” at both his
baptism (Mark 1:11) and his transfiguration
(Mark 9:7).
Critics question the historicity of many of
these passages, but there is good reason to
Did the Historical Jesus Claim to be “Very God of Very God”?
3
believe that Jesus understood himself to relate
to the Father as the Son. He says in Matthew
11:27 (ESV), "All things have been handed
over to me by my Father, and no one knows
the Son except the Father, and no one knows
the Father except the Son and anyone to
whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” William
Lane Craig comments:
There is good evidence to show that this is
indeed a genuine word from Jesus: (a) it
comes from the Q source that is shared by
Matthew and Luke; (b) the idea of the
mutual knowledge of Father and Son is a
Jewish idea, indicating its origin in a
Semitic-speaking milieu; (c) early church
theology did not work out the Father-Son
relationship, indicating that this verse is
not the later product of Christian
theology; and (d) the verse says the Son is
unknowable, which is not true for the
post-Easter Church. 9
To what does the title, “Son of God,”
refer? Several passages indicate that the title
as applied to Jesus refers to him as the eternal,
heavenly Son who is equal to God Himself
(Matt. 11:25-30; John 5:18; 10:33; 1 Cor. 15:28;
Heb. 1:1-8). Wayne Grudem states that these
passages “combine to indicate that the title
‘Son of God’ when applied to Christ strongly
affirms his deity as the eternal Son in the
Trinity, one equal to God the Father in all his
attributes." 10 The intent of the phrase is not
that Jesus was generated from God the Father,
but that his nature is identical to the Father’s.
“What any father gives to his son is first of all
his nature, his species, his life. The son is
equal to the father in species, in nature.”11
I AM. Other than Jesus’ reference to
Daniel's “son of man,” perhaps his most
Faith Seeking Understanding

explicit claim of deity can be found in John As, then, he who desires to see God Who
8:58: “Jesus said to [the Pharisees], ‘Truly, by nature is invisible and not to be beheld,
truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I may yet perceive and know Him through
His works; so too let him who does not
AM.’” Although this account is found only in
see Christ with his understanding at least
the Gospel of John, and is therefore considered consider Him in His bodily works and test
less historically reliable by the critics, it may whether they be of man or God13
be argued that the claim is not of necessity
It is difficult to conclude that Jesus was
inauthentic simply because it lacks the typical
less than God when recognizing that he acted
marks of authenticity. “The pursuit of such a
as one who possessed unique authority. He
methodology,” writes Craig, “threatens to
forgave sin (Mark 2:5-7; Luke 7:48-49), he
construct a theoretical and historical Jesus
cleansed the temple (Mark 11:27-33), he
which is in fact very unlike the Jesus of history
claimed that the eternal destiny of people was
—in which case the whole enterprise becomes
determined by their response to him (Matt.
rather pointless.”12 That John alone provides
10:32-33; 11:6; Mark 8:34-38). And while the
this account does not prove inauthenticity any
Old Testament prophets declared, “thus says
more than my single attestation that I wrote
the Lord…”, Jesus declared, “I say to
these words proves that I did not.
you…” (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44). The
In this account, Jesus declares himself to
behavior of Jesus lends strong support to the
be “I AM,” the eternally pre-existing God of
idea that he believed himself to be God, and
the Old Testament who had revealed himself
most New Testament critics acknowledge that
to Moses in Exodus 3:14. The Jews had
these accounts reflect what Jesus actually said
expressed surprise at Jesus' claim that
and did.
Abraham had seen him. How could that be,
Is this enough evidence to justify the
they taunted, since Jesus was not yet 50 years
fourth century affirmation of Jesus' deity?
old? Jesus responded not by saying that he
Many other passages could be reviewed, but
pre-dated Abraham, but that he is the Eternal
William Lane Craig believes that the identity
One. The Jews response would be expected in
of Jesus is evident even in the limited passages
the light of Jesus' claim: they attempted to
that today's critics14 accept:
stone him.
The clues sufficient for a high
Jesus' actions. Jesus not only referred to Christological self-understanding of Jesus
himself with titles that strongly implied deity, are present even in the attenuated twenty
percent of Jesus' sayings recognized by the
but he also acted in ways that indicate he
members of the Jesus Seminar as
understood himself to be God. Athanasius, the
authentic.… Here is a man who thought of
secretary to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, himself as the Son of God in a unique
who had great influence in the formation of sense, who claimed to act and speak with
the doctrine accepted at the first council at divine authority, who held himself to be a
Nicaea, appealed to this argument in his On worker of miracles, and who believed that
the Incarnation. He wrote:

Did the Historical Jesus Claim to be “Very God of Very God”? 4

Faith Seeking Understanding
people's eternal destiny hinged on
whether or not they believed in him. 15
Craig is not alone in this opinion. He cites
several others who draw similar conclusions,
including this statement by Horst Georg
Pohlman:
In summary, one could say that today
there is virtually a consensus concerning
that wherein the historical in Jesus is to be
seen. It consists in the fact that Jesus came
on the scene with an unheard of authority,
namely with the authority of God, with
the claim of the authority to stand in God's
place and speak to us and bring us to
salvation.… This authority only God
himself can claim. 16
We need not rest the case here, though.
Additional evidence can be found in the
acknowledgement of Jesus’ identity by his
friends and followers, and by his foes as well.
The Acknowledgement of His Friends
If Jesus claimed to be God, we would
expect that his early followers would give
evidence of that understanding of his identity
and nature. Gary Habermas asks two crucial
questions: “What facts did the earliest
Christians report concerning Jesus in the
initial years after his crucifixion? Of what did
the earliest Christology consist before the
composition of the New Testament?” 17
Attestations by the disciples and other
early believers as to the unique identity of
Jesus are plentiful in the gospels. After stilling
the storm, for example, the disciples noted
Jesus' unique nature.”What sort of man is
this,” they asked in astonishment, “that even
winds and sea obey him?” (Matt. 8:27 ESV).
Did the Historical Jesus Claim to be “Very God of Very God”?
5
Others also attested to Jesus’ miraculous
abilities. Uncertain of Jesus' identity, John the
Baptist sent his disciples to question Jesus. In a
statement widely regarded to be authentic,
Jesus instructed John's followers to report what
they had seen: “the blind receive their sight and
the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the
deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the
poor have good news preached to
them” (Matt. 11:5 ESV). Even among those
early followers who had doubts about Jesus'
identity, he came to be regarded as “Lord and
God” (John 20:28).
But the best historical data comes not from
the gospels, but from the writings of the
Apostle Paul. Habermas argues that the creeds
reiterated by Paul comprise some of the
earliest reports concerning the identity of
Jesus, and that they may be dated to within a
few years of Jesus' death. Habermas
summarizes:
The earliest Christians were confident that
‘Jesus Christ is come in the flesh,’ as
proclaimed in the confession found in 1
John 4:2. Seldom was the belief in Jesus'
incarnation expressed more clearly than in
the ‘pre-Pauline hymn’ of Philippians
2:6ff., which speaks of both Jesus' human
and divine natures. His humble life on
earth is clearly contrasted with his
heavenly position ‘in the form of God’ and
his later exaltation and worship. 18
Because these creeds pre-dated Paul and
were simply “passed on” by him, it is clear
that these early teachings did not originate
with Paul, but reflected the understanding of
the church in its earliest days. That Paul's
messages was reviewed by the other Apostles
(Gal. 2:1-10) demonstrates that his teaching
Faith Seeking Understanding
was not contrary to that which the Apostles
believed, and it is clear that Paul presents
Jesus as deity:
…These early letters already reveal a
Christianity, shared by Paul and all the
other apostles, that centers on Christ's
divinity, atonement, and literal
resurrection. If his divinity is a myth, if
the story of the Gospels is a myth, if the
historical Jesus never claimed divinity,
forgave sins, performed miracles, or rose
from the dead, then this myth was
invented by Jesus' apostles themselves,
not by later generations or the early
Christian community. 19
Of course, Kreeft is not truly suggesting
that Jesus did not claim to be God, but is
emphasizing that the Apostles—those who
walked and talked with him—believed that to
be his claim. Craig concurs:
Studies by NT scholars .. . have proved
that within twenty years of the crucifixion
a full-blown Christology proclaiming
Jesus as God incarnate existed. How does
one explain this worship by monotheistic
Jews of one of their countrymen as God
incarnate, apart from the claims of Jesus
himself? .. If Jesus never made any such
claims, then the belief of the earliest
Christians in this regard becomes
inexplicable. 20
“Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3)
was perhaps the earliest, most basic
confession of the church. Because of its use in
the Greek Old Testament, the title
“Lord” (kyrios) would be understood by the
early church to refer to God. “There are many
instances in the New Testament where ‘Lord’
is used of Christ in what can only be
understood [in] this strong Old Testament
Did the Historical Jesus Claim to be “Very God of Very God”?
6
sense, 'the Lord' who is Yahweh or God
himself.”21 There is no doubt, however, that
the ante-Nicene fathers struggled with the
difficulty of explaining the mystery of the
incarnate person of Christ. Not until the
councils of the fourth and fifth centuries was a
sophisticated Christology developed. And yet,
the divinity of Jesus was certainly part of the
thinking of many of the church's earliest
scholars.
Among them, Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-
107 A.D.) affirmed Jesus as both God and man.
“There is only one Physician,” he wrote “both
carnal and spiritual, born and unborn, God
become man, true life in death; sprung both
from Mary and from God, first subject to
suffering and then incapable of it—Jesus
Christ Our Lord” (emphasis mine).22 Like
other early Christian thinkers, however, he
did not speculate as to the relationship of the
two natures. Clement of Rome (c. 35-110 A.D.)
spoke of Jesus as the preexistent Son of God, 23
and as “the scepter of the majesty of God.” 24
Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 A.D.) developed
an early Christology in the second century. In
his understanding of Jesus as the Logos, Justin
believed him to be the "only and absolute Son
of God… the Reason of reasons, the
incarnation of the absolute and eternal
reason.” 25 As such, Justin viewed him as
creator and sustainer of the universe, the
source of all truth, and a true object of
worship. He failed to understand the
generation of Jesus as an eternal act, however,
and thus falls short of the Nicene affirmations.
Schaff argues, however, that Martyr's “whole
theological tendency, in opposition to the
heresies, was evidently towards the orthodox
Faith Seeking Understanding
system, and had he lived later, he would have
subscribed [to] the Nicene Creed.”26
Many other ante-Nicene fathers
recognized Jesus as the God-man as well.
Irenaeus (c. 130-200 A.D.) refers to Jesus as "the
invisible becoming visible .. . the Word being
made man.”27 Clement of Alexandria (c.
150-215 A.D.) speaks of Jesus in the terms of
divinity, and Origen (c. 185-254 A.D.) applies
the term homoousios to Jesus, declaring him to
be the “same substance” as the Father, though
he wavers at times on this point. 28 Melito of
Sardis, known only from fragments quoted in
the writings of others, was quite clear as to
Jesus’ identity. “Being perfect God and
likewise perfect man,” he wrote, “He gave
positive indications of His two natures: of His
deity, by miracles during the three years
following after His Baptism; of His humanity,
in the thirty years which came before the
Baptism.… He concealed the signs of His
deity, although He was the true God existing
before the ages.” 29
Although deep speculation regarding the
two natures of Jesus was missing from the
writings of the early church leaders, there is
little doubt that Jesus was viewed as both God
and man. Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan
summarizes the understanding of the young
church: “Clearly, it was the message of what
the church believed and taught that ‘God’ was
an appropriate name for Jesus Christ.”30
The Acknowledgement of His Foes
The biblical and historical evidence
indicates clearly that Jesus claimed to be God
and that his followers came to believe that
claim. And yet what is perhaps most notable is
Did the Historical Jesus Claim to be “Very God of Very God”?
7
not the claim of Jesus, norcthe commitment of
his followers, but the reaction of those who
opposed him. The simple question could be
asked, “If Jesus never claimed to be God, why
did his opponents so violently reject him—
even to the point of death?”
Non-Christian historical sources provide
only limited information about Jesus, but they
do establish the reality of Jesus' existence and
the facts that people followed him, that he
healed people, and that Pontius Pilate
condemned him to death. 31 Why he was
condemned is addressed often in the gospels.
Many of these passages have already been
referenced, so we will review only briefly here
several similar events:
• when Jesus applied to himself the imagery
of Daniel's “son of man,” the high priest
reacted with extreme grief and declared
that Jesus had spoken blasphemy
(Matthew 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65),
• when Jesus acknowledged the truth of the
Sanhedrin’s question whether he was the
“son of God,” the religious leaders took
Jesus immediately to Pilate for
prosecution (Luke 22:70),
• when Jesus healed on the Sabbath, the
Jews sought his death not only because of
his violation of Sabbath laws, but because
“he was even calling God his own Father,
making himself equal with God” (John 5:18,
ESV, ephasis mine),
• when Jesus declared himself to be the
eternal “I AM,” the Pharisees attempted to
stone him (John 8:58), and
• when Jesus claimed to be one with the
Father, the Jews sought to arrest and stone
him “for blasphemy, because you, being a
man, make yourself God” (John 10:33,
ESV).
Faith Seeking Understanding
Others had claimed to be prophets,
speaking the message of God, but without the
severe reaction that Jesus’ words brought.
Time after time, the religious authorities
correctly understood Jesus’ claim to divine
authority, but they interpreted his claim as
blaphemous32 and sought his execution.33 The
historicity of these events is supported by the
principle of embarrassment: it would be in the
best interest of the followers of Jesus to not
have reported these accounts if Jesus was
simply a moral teacher.
Not only did the religious leaders of the
day understand Jesus to claim to be God, but
at least one early pagan thinker also
responded to Jesus in ways that implied an
understanding of him as claiming deity.
Origen records the philosopher Celsus’
argument that Jesus, if he was God, only
claimed to be human: “Either God really
changes his self, as they say, into a mortal
body… or he himself is not changed, but
makes those who see him think that he is
changed. But in that case he is a deceiver and
a liar.”34 His argument assumes that, in fact,
Jesus claimed to be God; Celsus challenged
the assertion that God had come as man but
did not doubt that a claim to deity had been
made.
Conclusion
While we are not able to be exhaustive in
this consideration of Jesus understanding of
His identity, it is clear that there is reason
enough here to understand Jesus to claim
nothing less than deity. We have not examined
many additional passages that might be
considered, nor have we contemplated any of
Did the Historical Jesus Claim to be “Very God of Very God”?
8
the philosophical arguments employed
through the ages to validate Jesus' claims. 35 36
Even so, an honest examination of the limited
data presented leads to the conclusion that the
first ecumenical council at Nicaea did not
formulate the idea that God came as a man,
but only began an intentional process of
explaining it.
When we attentively peruse the warm,
vigorous, eloquent, and discriminatingly
controversial writings of Athanasius and
his co-laborers, and compare with them
the vague, barren, almost entirely negative
assertions and superficial arguments of
their opponents, we cannot escape the
impression that, with all their exegetical
and dialectical defect in particulars, they
have on their side an overwhelming
preponderance of positive truth, the
authority of holy Scripture, the
profounder speculations of reason, and
the prevailing traditional faith of the early
church.37
The critics would have us believe that
Jesus said and did little of what we
traditionally attribute to him—and certainly
did not presume himself to be God! On what
basis do they make this claim? Craig asserts
that “the refusal of radical critics to draw the
obvious Christological implications… is due
not tothe lack of historical evidence but to
their personal... prejudices.”38 Kreeft adds:
All of the historical data we have confirm,
rather than deny, refute, or disconfirm,
these claims [that the Bible's writers were
either eyewitnesses to the historical Jesus
or recount firsthand observations]. All
documents by or about Christians, from
the beginning, both Christian and anti-
Christian, assume that all Christians have
Faith Seeking Understanding
always literally believed what we today
define as Christianity, in other words,
what the New Testament teaches.39
We have, then, an accurate historical
record of Jesus' words and deeds, confirmed
by both the confession of his followers and the
accusations of his enemies. The data confirms
the theological assertions offered at Nicaea
and refined at Constantinople 56 years later:
“We believe… in one Lord Jesus Christ…
Light of Light, very God of very God… being
one substance with the Father.”40 The case
made by Athanasius at Nicaea and
throughout the rest of his life has been an
anchor for the church throughout its history. If
Jesus were not truly God, Athanasius argued,
he could not free us from sin and death. Praise
be to God that we can confidently assert the
deity of our Redeemer and Lord, Jesus Christ.
_____________________
Bibliography
Athanasius. On the Incarnation. Public domain
in Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
Downloaded at http://
ccel.wheaton.edu.
Bultmann, Rudolf. Jesus and the Word. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958.
Clement of Rome. The First Epistle of Clement to
the Corinthians. Translated by J.B.
Lightfoot. Accordance Bible Software v.
5.3, Oak Tree Software, Inc, 2002.
Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith.
Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1984.
Edward, Daniel. “Schleiermacher Interpreted
by Himself and the Men of his School,”
British and Foreign Evangelical Review,
vol. 25. London: Nisbet, 1876.
Did the Historical Jesus Claim to be “Very God of Very God”?
9
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Habermas, Gary. The Historical Jesus. Joplin,
Mo.: College Press Publishing Co., 1996.
Hicks, John. The Myth of God Incarnate.
London: SCM, 1977.
Ignatius, To the Ephesians. Translated by J.B.
Lightfoot. Accordance Bible Software v.
5.3, Oak Tree Software, Inc, 2002.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies. Cited by John D.
Hannah in Our Legacy: The History of
Christian Doctrine. Colorado Springs:
NavPress, 2001.
Kreeft, Peter. "Why I Believe Jesus is the Son of
God." In Why I Am a Christian. Edited by
Norman Geisler and Paul Hoffman.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.
Melito of Sardis, The Guide 13. Cited by John
D. Hannah in Our Legacy: The History of
Christian Doctrine. Colorado Springs:
NavPress, 2001.
Murray, lain H. Evangelicalism Divided.
Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust,
2000.
Origen, Against Celsus. Cited by John D.
Hannah in Our Legacy: The History of
Christian Doctrine. Colorado Springs:
NavPress, 2001.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A
History of the Development of Doctrine,
vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic
Tradition (l00-600). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1971. Cited in William
Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith.
Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1994.
Rowan, F. (trans.). Life of Schleiermacher, vol. 1.
London: Smith, Elder, 1860.
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church,
vol 2: Ante-Nicene Christianity. Peabody,
Faith Seeking Understanding

13Athanasius, On the Incarnation, chapter viii,

Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002.
_____ . History of the Christian Church, vol 3:
Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity.
Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2002.
_____________________
End Notes
1The following four paragraphs are borrowed from
a paper previously published by the author
entitled, “One Person, Two Natures: The Meaning
and Coherence of the ‘Hypostatic’ Union.”
2Between 1774 and 1778, the philosopher/poet
Lessing published a series of essays by Reimarus, a
recently deceased Hamburg language professor.
3Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958), p. 8.
paragraph 54.
14The critics in view in the quote that follows are
the scholars who comprise the Jesus Seminar, a
group formed in 1985 “to renew the quest of the
historical Jesus and to report the results of its
research.…” The 200 or so members of the Jesus
Seminar vote on the authenticity of the words of
Jesus by dropping colored beads in a box. Different
colors of beads represent various grades of
authenticity, ranging from red ("Jesus said this or
something very like it") to black ("This saying was
created by later tradition"). These scholars have
rejected almost 80% of the recorded sayings of Jesus
in the gospel as inauthentic.
15 Craig, p. 244, 251-252.
16Horst Georg Pohlman, Abriss der Dogmatick, rev.
ed. (Dusseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1966), p. 230,
quoted in Craig, p. 252.

Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Mo.:

17
4F. Rowan (trans.) Life ofSchleiermacher, vol. 1
(London: Smith, Elder, 1860), p. 46-7. College Press Publishing Co., 1996), p. 143.

18 Ibid., p. 144-145.
5Daniel Edward, "Schleiermacher Interpreted by
Himself and the Men of his SchooL" British and
19 Kreeft, p. 232.
Foreign Evangelical Review, vol. 25 (London: Nisbet,
1876), p. 610. 20 Craig, p. 243.
6lain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided (Edinburgh: 21 Grudem, p. 544.
The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), p. 11.
22 Ignatius, To the Ephesians, 7.2.
7John Hicks, The Myth of God Incarnate (London:
SCM, 1977), p. 3. 23Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement to
8 the Corinthians, 36.
E.g. Martha (John 11:27); the disciples (Matt.
14:33); evil spirits (Mark 3:11; Luke 4:41); Nathanael 24 Ibid., 16:2.
(John 1:49).
25Justin Martyr, cited in Philip Schaff, History of the
9William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton:
Christian Church, vol 2: Ante-Nicene Christianity
Crossway Books, 1984), p. 245-246.
(Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), p.
10 549.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), p. 547. 26 Ibid, p. 550.
11Peter Kreeft, "Why I Believe Jesus is the Son of
Irenaeus, Against Heresies IlL16, cited in John D.
27
God" in Why I Am a Christian, Norman Geisler and
Hannah, Our Legacy: The History of Christian
Paul Hoffman, eds. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), p.
Doctrine (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001) p. 114.
224.
28 Schaff, p. 551-555.
12 Craig, p. 239.

Did the Historical Jesus Claim to be “Very God of Very God”? 10

Faith Seeking Understanding

29Melito of Sardis, The Guide 13, cited in Hannah, p.

115.

30 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History

of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1, The Emergence
of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1971), p. 173, cited in
Craig, p. 243.

31Pagan sources: Pliny (Epistles x.96); Tacitus

(Annuals xv.44); and Suetonius (Lives xxv.4). Jewish
sources: Josephus (Antinquities xviii.3.3); and the
Talmud.

32Blasphemy may be defined as defaming God by

attributing His nature, prerogatives, or works to
another.

33Because supernatural events are routinely

disregarded by the critics, accounts in which
demonic forces acknowledge Jesus' identity (Matt.
8:29; Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34, Acts 19:15), which might
be mentioned, do not lend strong support, nor does
angelic attestation (Luke 1:35).

34Origen, Against Celsus 4.18, cited in Hannah, p.

113.

35 For example, the moral argument asks why the

lie of Jesus deity has made people better than any
truth? Athanasius utilized this argument when he
wrote, "If He is a man, how is it that one man has
proved stronger than all those whom they
themselves regard as gods, and by His own power
has shown them to be nothing (On the Incarnation,
chapter VIII, paragraph 48).

36Philosophical arguments are explored in a paper

previously published by the author entitled, “One
Person, Two Natures: The Meaning and Coherence
of the ‘Hypostatic’ Union.”

37Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol 3: Nicene

and Post-Nicene Christianity (Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), p. 662.

38 Craig, p. 253.

39 Kreeft, p. 231.

40 From the Nicene Creed (381 A.D.)

Did the Historical Jesus Claim to be “Very God of Very God”? 11