THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST IN THE GOSPELS

Author(s): Christian P. Ceroke

Source: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly , April, 1962, Vol. 24, No. 2 (April, 1962), pp.
125-139
Published by: Catholic Biblical Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43711155

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Catholic Biblical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Catholic Biblical Quarterly

This content downloaded from

103.6.151.149 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023 15:53:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST IN THE GOSPELS
The doctrine of the divine sonship of Jesus, so patently pre
Pauline epistles,1 poses two questions which exegesis must res
clarity and precision: (1) how did Jesus set about revealing
sonship to His monotheistic contemporaries? (2) how and whe
Church grasp and express this doctrine?2 It is to the first of
tions that this study addresses itself.
The doctrine of the divine sonship of Jesus in the gospel tra
be understood in the setting of the apostolic teaching. As P.
observed, "... the synoptic gospels were written at a time wh
the divinity of Jesus was clearly expressed in Christian circl
larly by Paul whose great letters are earlier than the edited ve
second gospel. In view of the strictly divine significance given
the name, 'Son of God/ it is unthinkable that Mark, a disciple
his influence, would make the same title mean something els
used it in his own gospel. This is true, a fortiori, for Matthew
All four gospels become more comprehensible documents, once
ceded that they were written for Christians whose faith in the
Jesus was firm. This doctrine, the faith of the Church, lies at
each evangelist's presentation of the public ministry. The eva
preoccupied with the divinity only to the extent necessary to
of their gospels as a whole.
As is indicated by the pattern of discourses that contribute
to the structure of Matthew's gospel, the teaching of Jesus is his
cern. The evangelist makes clear that the supreme value of th
derives from the divinity of Christ: the entire gospel is brack
inclusio (Mt 1,23; 28,20), the theme of Emmanuel, "God w
indicates how the divine sonship of Jesus is to be understood -
of strict equality with the Father - by citing a saying of Jesus

1 Cf. M.-E. Boismard, "La divinité du Christ d'après saint Paul," Lum Vi 9
(1953) 75-100. This article appears in English translation in Son and Samor , trans-
lated by Anthony Wheaton, (London, 1960) 86-112.
2 On the NT formulations of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, cf. David M.
Stanley, S .J., "The Divinity of Christ in Hymns of the New Testament," Proceed-
ings of the Society of Catholic College Teachers of Sacred Doctrine, 4 (1958) 12-29;
and the same author's study, "Carmenque Christo Quasi Deo Dicere . . . ," CBQ
20 (1958) 173-191.
3 P. Benoit, O.P., "La divinité de Jésus dans les évangiles synoptiques," Lum Vi
9 (1953) 44. An English translation of this article may be found in Son and Savior,
50-85.
4 Charles H. Lohr, "Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew," CBQ 23 (1961)
410.

125

This content downloaded from

103.6.151.149 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023 15:53:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
126 The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [Vol. 24

exclusively to the Father and Himself a mutually perfect

11,25-27). He accounts for the origin of the Church's fait
sonship of Christ (Mt 16,17), ascribing it to a revelation m
Finally, he records Christ's question to the Pharisees conce
ordination of David to the messias-king from his line whos
to endure forever (Mt 22,41-46). The importance of these
of Mt to the doctrine of the divinity is evident. Yet they do n
of a sustained effort by the evangelist to elucidate the di
Jesus, whether from the historical or the theological stan
reader is quite unprepared for them, except on the suppo
Christian he may be expected to understand them readily e
Luke evinces no more concern than Matthew to dedicate h
exposition of the divinity. At the outset of his work,
Church's faith in the divine sonship of Jesus: the angelic m
calls the child "Son of God," and the announcement to the
scribes Him as the "Savior . . . who is Christ the Lord" (Lk
Of the three themes - Savior, Messias, Lord - here announc
as Savior that is the chief interest of Luke. "The gospel of
all the gospel of salvation and mercy. Jesus is Savior, and t
men, the second Adam (3,38) who re-establishes the relation
ity to God."6 The Lucan scene of the preaching in the syna
reth (4,14-22), in which Jesus applies to Himself the them
(Is 61,1-2), strikes the keynote of the gospel, salvation thr
Lk Jesus is depicted as Savior in intent and purpose. The m
of fish is a sign of His saving mission to the world (Lk 5,10
thou shalt catch men"). The sinful but repentant woman w
over Simon the Pharisee, who sees no need of repentance
rewards the interest of Zacchaeus with a personal visit, and, hi
repentance accepted, declares that . . salvation has come to
(Lk 19,10). On the cross He forgives the repentant thief (
made special appeal to those most conscious of guilt, the pu
ners, who were in fact attracted to Him (Lk 15,1-2). The s
cross, "foolishness to the gentiles" (1 Cor 1,24), is offset by
6 A particularly difficult passage is presented by Mt 14,33, where
said to worship Jesus as "the Son of God" after Peter's walking on
Schmid, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Regensburg, 1956) 234-23
Mt cannot mean the confession of divine sonship here in the profou
16,16, the confession of Peter. This observation is sound. There is
admitting the verbal historicity of this passage in Mt (14,33) ; fo
comprehended in the sense of the (unresolved) mystery of Jesus' id
resolved mystery is developed in Mk, as will be shown below.
6 E. Osty, "L'Évangile selon saint Luc," BJ (Paris, 1948) 21.

This content downloaded from

103.6.151.149 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023 15:53:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Divinity of Christ in the Gospels 127

determination of Jesus to embrace this death (Lk 9,51,

set his face to go to Jerusalem"), which He undertook in
the scriptures (Lk 24,26-27). But for Lk as for Mt the d
divinity must be called upon if one is to perceive the tr
Jesus and His ministry. Lk makes the allusion at the cl
when he refers to the sending of the Spirit by Christ
send forth upon you the promise of my Father").
In contrast to Mt and Lk, the gospels of Mk and Jn ar
cated to the exposition of the divinity of Jesus (Mk 1,
like Jn (1,1-18), however, the gospel of Mk does not pr
gelist's approach to this doctrine. It is necessary to
approach to the divinity if we are to gain a proper unde

Mk 1,1: The Faith of the Church in Jesus

The opening verse of the gospel, "The beginning of the
Christ, Son of God," encompasses the whole thought of
the scope of the verse is substantiated by a comparison o
terms in the Christian thought of Mk's time with the mate
itself. The two significant terms are "gospel" and "S
"gospel" is the good news of salvation through Jesus.8 T
only to the crucifixion and death of Jesus, accepted by
the saving act in which he has placed all his faith (Rom
Mk, as for Mt and Lk, any doctrine about Jesus receives
His actual identity, namely, His divine sonship. Followi
development of the public ministry, Mk first attends
Jesus' identity (Mk 1,21-8,26), then turns to His teachi
ficial death (8, 31-10, 45). 9 The gospel takes as its point
faith of the Church in Jesus, redeemer- Son of God. It
that Mk has the intention of elucidating these two doctr
of Nazareth.
The treatment of Mk, however, does not pose a theology of the in-
carnation or of the redemption through which the reader may enter into a

7 Although the manuscript evidence is not unanimous for the presence of "Son
of God" in Mk 1,1, the phrase is attested by the great majority of manuscript wit-
nesses, is supported by Patristic evidence, and by Mk's christology. Cf. Vincent
Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London, 1955) 152; M. J. Lagrange,
Évangile selon S. Marc (Paris, 1947) 3.
8 Cf. Lagrange, op. cit., 2, where he explains the sense of "gospel" in Mk 1,1 as
"the preaching of salvation in Jesus"; also Taylor, op. cit., 152, and Josef Schmid,
Das Evangelium nach Markus (Regensburg, 1954) 16, who adopt the same ex-
planation.
0 These two points about Mk will be developed in the course of this study.

This content downloaded from

103.6.151.149 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023 15:53:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
128 The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [Vol. 24

profound understanding of Jesus and His salvific work. The g

alludes to the trinitarian doctrine (1,9-11), and takes for gran
ful condition of man (10,45). An historical view of the ministr
dominant in Mk. But even on the level of historical presentati
has its peculiarities. Never in Mk do Jesus' contemporaries, in
own disciples, understand His divine sonship. Only supernatu
recognize Him as the Son of God : the heavenly voice at the
Transfiguration (1,11 ; 9,7), and the diabolically inspired cries
sessed (3,11 ; 5,7). The divinity of Jesus is not for Mk, as it
controversial issue of the public ministry. This standpoint o
is all the more surprising in view of the question of the Sanh
you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" (Mk 14,61).
sion of Peter at Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8, 27-30) has prepared
for the issue of the messiahship ; but one has no way of know
that the court had reason to be concerned with Jesus' claim
divine sonship.10 This lacuna serves to clarify the Marcan ap
the question of the divinity. The claim of Jesus to divine so
posed by the Sanhédrin to have been an important reality of t
is not a concern of Mk. Nowhere does the evangelist propose
ship between such a claim and the miracles. Rather he propo
tionship between the doctrine of the divinity and the miracl
tion of Mk is that this doctrine, the origin of which he does
explains what could not well be explained during the public m
mystery of Jesus' activity, and therefore of His person.

Mk's Presentation of the Mystery of Jesus' Person

The confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi is central to th
ment of the Marcan gospel.11 The whole public ministry hin
both for the disciples and for Jesus. For the disciples Caesare
but a fleeting moment of triumph; for Jesus it is the sprin
new teaching, designed to disabuse them of the falsities inherent
messianism.12

10 Schmid, Das Evangelium nach Markus , 283, explains "Son of the

as an honorary messianic title. Taylor, op. cit., 567, remarks, "It may
the high priest has in mind echoes of the teaching of Jesus," citing
10,22). We shall attempt to show below that the Sanhedrin's questio
was conducted against the background of His actual teaching on His d
and therefore "Son of the Blessed One" in Mk is not simply a messi
Schmid suggests.
11 This fact has been recognized by X. Léon-Dufour, "Les évangiles
in Introduction à la Bible (Tournai, 1959) II, 209, who writes, "The c
Peter marks the turning point (in the object and economy of revelati
12 A. Vögtle, "Messiasbekenntnis und Petrusverheissung. Zur Kom

This content downloaded from

103.6.151.149 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023 15:53:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Divinity of Christ in the Gospels 129

The evangelist makes three salient observations in

events at Caesarea Philippi: (1) Jesus Himself initia
concerning His identity (Mk 8,28-29) ; (2) He forba
communicate His identity as Messias outside their own
(3) He spent the week after Caesarea Philippi teaching
sias it was necessary for Him to suffer to death, and
prepared to die with Him (Mk 8, 31-9,1). 13
An examination of Mk 1,21-8,26 shows how intent t
build up the religious impact of Jesus' ministry, prior t
upon the minds of His contemporaries. The teaching a
by Him and His decisive manner of exorcising cause r
Him throughout Galilee (Mk 1, 22.28). The Pharisees ar
by Jesus' friendly attitude toward publicans and sinn
piqued by His challenge to their authority over Sabbat
2, 23-3,6) ; finally, they convince themselves, and att
others, that Jesus can only be in league with Satan
their resolution of the mystery of Jesus.
The disciples of Jesus become more deeply aware of t
person when He stills the storm on the lake, and they
"Who is this . . . ?" (Mk 4,40). 14 For the people of Na
tery of Jesus' teaching authority and of His miracles
ridiculous for one who was a carpenter (Mk 6,1-3). Th
is eagerly discussed at the court of Herod : some opine
tional prophet, others that He is Elias, arrived to prep
age. Herod fears that He is John the Baptist returned
6,14-16).
Throughout the discussion over Him, Jesus' conduct follows a pattern

16,13-23," BZ 1 (Neue Folge, 1957) 252-272; 2 (1958) 85-103, has shown that Mk
records the complete confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippl. Mt 16,13-20 places
the confession of divinity and the promise of the primacy, which are post-resurrection
occurrences, in this historical context. Cf. also Josef Schmid, Das Evangelium nach
Matthäus , 246.
13 The word dei, "must," applied to Jesus in Mk 8,31 expresses the absolute
necessity of His suffering, imposed by the divine will. Cf. Walter Grundmann,
TWNT, II, 21-25. The suffering of the disciples is of a different degree of necessity.
On Jesus' teaching that the disciples are to be prepared to die with Him, cf. notes
21 and 24.
14 The doubts expressed by Taylor, op. cit., 273 and 327, on the miraculous
character of Jesus' calming the storm and walking on the water, appear to be based
on the position that no satisfactory reason can be assigned for such displays of
power. But Mk has assigned the reason : the desire of Jesus to highlight the mystery
of His person in the minds of His disciples.

This content downloaded from

103.6.151.149 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023 15:53:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 130 The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [Vol. 24

of silence concerning His own relationship to the kingdom

claims. At times, He refuses to permit the cured to conne
with His person (Mk 1,44), or to allow witnesses to rep
complished the miracle (Mk 5,43). He silences the cries of
when they declare that they know Him (Mk 1,25; 3,12;
reth Jesus admits that He has undertaken the role of pro
but other than the imminence of the kingdom He offers no
His authority or His powers.
When at Caesarea Philippi He Himself asks, "Who do m
am?," the group of disciples testifies that popular opinion
to be a prophet of greater or less importance.15 Jesus the
view of His disciples: "But you yourselves, who do you say
Peter reports that the view of the disciples is unanimous:
Messias." The close cohesion between these questions and t
Mk 1,21-8,26 reveals that the mystery of Jesus' identity h
most in the thought of Mk. The questions presuppose that p
and the disciples have been preoccupied with the problem
tity of Jesus. Mk in fact notes the reactions to Jesus of
groups: the crowds (impressed by His authority and mi
2,12), the Scribes and Pharisees (distressed at His air of au
24; 3,2), the court of Herod (fearful, 6,14), the Nazaren
6,2-3), and the disciples (wondering, 4,40; 6,51).
As the main cause of the mystery about Jesus the evangel
miracles. For the crowds, the court of Herod, the disciples,
Jesus was thought-provoking. For the Scribes and Pha
Nazarenes, such power should not have been utilized on th
displayed by one of lowly origin. It is noteworthy that, p
count of Caesarea Philippi, Mk relates fifteen miracle stor
narrative of the confession he records only three such stor
the epileptic boy, 9,13-28; and of the blind Bartimaeus, 10,46
ering of the fig tree, 11,20). This pattern of distribution s
is concerned to draw a direct connection between the powe

15 The views expressed are the same as those attributed to Hero

Mk 6,14-15. Authors consider it surprising that Jesus is not held
some segment of popular opinion. One must recall, however, that th
Him is the faith of Israel as a whole. A popular movement toward Jesus was
prevented by the leadership, which spurned Him as possessed. Jesus Himself was not
in accord with a messianic movement in His favor (Jn 6,15).
16 As Taylor, op. cit., 376 , has pointed out, in the construction, 'ymeis de tina me
legete einai , ' ymeis is emphatic: the view of the disciples is sharply distinguished
from popular views.

This content downloaded from

103.6.151.149 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023 15:53:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Divinity of Christ in the Gospels 131

the miracles and the mystery of Jesus' person, the issu

Caesarea Philippl.17

The Eclipse of the Mystery of the Divinity

Despite the fact that the gospel of Mk deliberately rais
mystery of Jesus' person, already resolved in the faith
1,1), the evangelist does not attribute to the disciples a
identity at Caesarea Philippi that transcends the level of
sias. It is the further view of Mk that the disciples wer
trate the mystery of His divinity, due to Jesus' teachin
suffering and death.18
While Jesus concurs in the declaration of His discipl
Messias, He does not accept the implications which the
role.19 He begins, Mk observes, a week of didache,20 th
is to explain the reason for the secrecy He imposes ab
role: the Messias is to suffer and die, and His followers must also be
prepared for a similar destiny (Mk 8, 31). 21 For the first time, the dis-

17 The position of Vincent Taylor, The Person of Christ in New Testament Teach-
ing (London, 1958) 161-162, accurately corresponds to the view of Mk, "Jesus
accomplished mighty works, to which adequate parallels have not been found, with
an ease and certainty which bespeak a consciousness transcending the ordinary powers
of human personality."
18 That Jesus concealed His divinity during the public ministry seems to be the
thought of Phil 2,5-8: "Who, while he kept his character as God, did not consider
his divine equality something to be proudly paraded. No, he despoiled himself, by
taking on the Servant's character, becoming similar to mortal men. And looking
outwardly like any other man, he carried self-abasement through obedience, right
up to death, yes, death by the Cross." The translation is that of David M. Stanley,
S.J., Proceedings of the Society of Catholic College Teachers of Sacred Doctrine, 4
(1958) 21.
19 Oscar Cullmann, Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen, 1958) 123,
exaggerates when he writes that "Jesus neither affirms nor denies Peter's messianic
confession." Because of the implications for His disciples, Jesus replaces the title,
"Messias," by Son of Man, and begins to teach the true function of the Messias. He
thus accepts the idea that He is savior of Israel.
20 It is very clear in Mk that Jesus concentrated upon His doctrine of the suffer-
ing of the Messias and His followers for the period of a week following the con-
fession at Caesarea Philippl. Note Mk 8, 31, ". . . he began to teach . . and
Mk 9,2, "after six days." Between these two statements (Mk 8,34-9,1) is the evange-
list's summary of His teaching on the suffering of His followers.
21 It is not clear from Mk why the disciples should immediately conclude to their
suffering when Jesus announces ". . . the Son of Man must suffer. . ." T. W. Man-
son, The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge, 1943) 227-234, proposed that "Son of Man"
was a community concept embracing the Messias and His followers, known to the
apocalyptic circles of Judaism. It remains uncertain, however, whether the Similitudes

This content downloaded from

103.6.151.149 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023 15:53:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
132 The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [Vol. 24

ciples hear the teaching on the suffering Son of Man,

corrective to their preconceptions concerning the coming
begins to transform their ideas about the Messias and the
to Him.
The bare description of the suffering Son of Man - rejection by official-
dom, the suggestion of violent death, the rising in three days - is so well
understood by the disciples that they vent strong opposition to it.22 Peter
takes the Lord aside to reprimand Him for this messianic doctrine of suf-
fering. In full view of the disciples, and in such wise that they readily
perceive Jesus' inclusion of themselves, He rejects Peter's reprimand with
the same mannerisms with which He has silenced evil spirits (Mk 8,32-
33). 23 Jesus makes it absolutely clear that He will not tolerate any ob-
jection to this new teaching.24
of Enoch, on which this theory is principally based, are authentic. The Similitudes
are absent from the fragments of the Book of Enoch found in Cave IV at Qumrân.
Cf. J. T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea, translated by
J. Strugnell (Naperville, 111., 1959) 33.
22 Taylor, op. cit., 377-378, upholds the historicity of Jesus' prophecies concerning
His suffering, death and resurrection against the opinion that they are vaticinia ex
eventu. However, the author's reservation that Jesus may have forecast His resur-
rection in terms less explicit than those recorded by the gospel tradition fails to
grasp the reason for the disciples' incomprehension. The disciples' lack of under-
standing in Mk 9,31 refers, not to intellectual comprehension, as their reaction at
Caesarea Philippi indicates, but to religious understanding, i.e., the necessity of the
suffering of the Messias and His followers (cf. Lk 24,26).
23 Jesus does not accept Peter's apparent solicitude for Him with any more
fervor than He has accepted the declaration of devils that He is Son of God.
24 From Mk's summary of the week of teaching which Jesus now undertakes it
is evident that the issue at stake is not merely the suffering of Jesus, but the disciples'
understanding that they must be prepared to suffer with Him. Jesus warns them
against deserting Him because of this teaching : . . he who would save his life will
lose it; but he who loses his life for my sake . . . will save it" (Mk 8,35). Jesus
explains that His disciples can enter the glorious kingdom only through suffering
with Him: "If anyone wishes to come after me (i.e., to enter the glorious kingdom),
let him deny himself and take up his cross (i.e., make the surrender of his natural
opposition to suffering, illustrated by the metaphor of carrying the cross), and let
him follow me," (i.e., be prepared to die with Him). When the disciples ask how
their deaths will advance the cause of the kingdom, Jesus answers that the central
issue about the kingdom is their willingness to accept the whole of His destiny.
If they do not share in His suffering, He will be obliged to exclude them from a
share in His glory: ". . . whoever is ashamed of me and of my words ... of him
will the Son of Man also be ashamed when He comes with the holy angels in the
glory of His Father" (Mk 8,38). Finally, Jesus promises them that, if they agree to
suffer with Him, not all of them will die without the realization that the kingdom
has actually arrived : ". . . there are some present here who shall not taste death until
they see the kingdom of God arrived in power" (Mk 9,1).

This content downloaded from

103.6.151.149 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023 15:53:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Divinity of Christ in the Gospels 133

The evangelist continues the history of this teaching

suffering and its implications for His disciples throug
chapters of his gospel (Mk 9, 2-10, 45). 25 He makes it
the Twelve finally agree to accompany Him to Jerusale
necessary.26 According to Mk, the disciples of Jesus kn
Caesarea Philippi that He considers Himself to be the
are puzzled and frightened by His forecast of His viol
demand that they be ready, if called upon, to share thi
According to Mk 1,21-8,30, Jesus prepared His discip
by His miracles, for the question at Caesarea Philip
identity. The disciples replied in accordance with thei
tation, the highest tribute they could pay the activity
to Mk 8,31-10,45, Jesus challenged the disciples with a
sianic teaching, one which included not only His own su
but their preparation also to share in this destiny. In t
of the public ministry - the unresolved mystery of Jes
Caesarea Philippi and the teaching of the suffering an
Himself and His disciples during the week of didache
tirely comprehensible why the disciples are never troub
the death of the very Son of God. After Caesarea Philip
Jesus' identity became enshrouded in another mystery,
and His followers.

25 The salient features of the narrative may be summarized: (1) The Transfigura-
tion of Jesus is set into the background of the teaching on the suffering Son of Man.
After the event, He has to remind the three disciples of the previous teaching on
His humiliation (Mk 9,2-12). (2) He repeats the didache on the suffering while
journeying through Galilee, adding the prediction of the betrayal. This brief picture
suggests unrest among the disciples (Mk 10,29-31). (3) A debate occurs among
the Twelve as to who is the greatest, suggesting that the kingdom is now believed
by them to be very imminent in view of Jesus' expectation of death (Mk 10,32-36).
(4) The disciples are amazed to learn that Jesus views His death, not as an oc-
currence pressed upon Him, but as a destiny He is determined to meet. As they
are seized by fear, He takes aside the Twelve, suggesting to them that His end will
be crucifixion (Mk 10,32-34). (5) James and John attempt to secure the first places
in the coming kingdom by pledging to die with Him, causing indignation among
the ten (Mk 10,35-45).
26 From the resolve of James and John to die with Jesus after the account of
the third passion prophecy (Mk 10,32-34), it is clear that the Twelve have agreed
to risk death with Jesus. Cf. also the statement of Thomas in Jn 11,16. Mk 14,31 has
Peter and the Ten (excluding Judas) making a pledge to die with Him, if necessary.
27 The position of Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition
(4th ed.; Göttingen, 1958) 277, that the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi
demands a response from Jesus, is well sustained by Mk. The response is the doctrine
of the suffering Son of Man rather than the blessing of Peter and the promise of
the primacy as maintained by Bultmann.

This content downloaded from

103.6.151.149 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023 15:53:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 134 The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [Vol. 24

The Divinity of Christ in Jn

There is no need to fortify with evidence the presence of
of the divinity of Jesus in the fourth gospel. In the perspe
origin of Jesus is viewed, not simply from the beginning
ministry as in Mk, nor from His birth of the Virgin Mar
Lk, but from eternity. Jesus is the eternal Son of God bec
The fourth gospel differs from the synoptics on the qu
divinity when it attributes to the audiences of Jesus (i
comprehension of this doctrine in His teaching. Three tim
list makes an explicit issue of the point that Jesus was und
Himself on a level with God: He is accused of claiming
in His defense of miracle-working on the Sabbath (Jn 5,16
ence attempts to stone Him for asserting priority to Abrah
and again for declaring unity between Himself and God, H
25-38). In these passages Jesus' statements on His relati
are understood in a sense of divine equality, a conclusion wh
tic tradition never ascribes to His audiences.29

The significant fact about the context of these passages in Jn is that the
audience in each instance is the Jewish religious authorities who are hostile
to Christ.30 It is not those in Jerusalem who are interested in Him (Jn
7,11-13, designated as "the crowds"), nor those actually favorable to Him
(Jn 7,25-27, designated as "some of the Jerusalemites,,) who perceive a
claim to divinity in His speech. It is the enemies of Jesus who perceive
this implication. They are only too ready to attribute a claim of divine
equality to Him in order to have grounds to condemn Him.31 In the

28 The fact that the audience attempts to stone Jesus makes it clear that it under-
stands Him to be borrowing the divine title used of Yahweh in the Scriptures, 'ani hu',
rendered by LXX and Jn egõ eimù Cf. the discussion in C. K. Barrett, The Gospel
according to John (London, 1955) 282-283.
29 Notable examples are Mk 2,12, the conclusion to the story of the cure of the
paralytic, which fails to note any apprehension of a claim to divinity by Jesus'
audience; the rebuke of Jesus by Peter at Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8,32) ; the struggle
the disciples experience in accepting the teaching of Jesus (Mk 10,24, where they are
amazed at His teaching on riches, and Mk 10,10 at the doctrine against divorce and
re-marriage).
30 From Jn 5,15, it is clear that "the Jews" of Jn 5,16-18 are the religious authori-
ties, in this instance the Pharisees and Scribes, who object to miracle-working on
the Sabbath (cf. Jn 5,10). In Jn 8,48, "the Jews" are those who accuse Jesus of
being possessed, the Scribes of Jerusalem according to Mk 3,22. From Jn 10,39, it
is evident that "the Jews" of Jn 10,25-38 are again the religious authorities, for they
attempt to arrest Him. They are the hostile Scribes and Pharisees of Mk 3,2.
31 This viewpoint fits perfectly into the pattern of attack by the enemies of Jesus

This content downloaded from

103.6.151.149 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023 15:53:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Divinity of Christ in the Gospels 135

presence of a charge motivated by hostility, Jesus falls bac

tures (Jn 10,31-38), citing Ps 81 (82), 6, which applies
to the judges of Israel. While He lays claim to a uni
(Jn 10, 36), 32 He does not press this claim to the poin
tion of blasphemy may be sustained.
The Johannine tradition incorporates numerous sayin
carry the connotation of divinity.33 Nevertheless, it is
with the synoptic tradition on the veiled manner in w
His divine sonship. As in the synoptics, so in Jn Je
upon His contemporaries a claim to divinity in the stri
miracles in direct support of such a proposition. He is
upon His divine sonship in the sense of perfect obedie
God : "... I preach only what the Father has taught me
me is with me; he has not left me alone, because I do
that are pleasing to him" (Jn 8,28-29). He portrays th
Himself and His Father in terms of His mission: H
power of the Father are equal in leading His sheep to e
Father who has given them (i.e., the sheep) to me i
and no one is able to snatch anything out of the ha
I and the Father are one" (Jn 10,29-30). Jesus pro
sonship in terms that should be acceptable to His conte
in the sense that the impeccability of His life (Jn 8,4
lous works testify to an altogether unique relationship
and God : ". š . if you are not willing to believe me, beli
you may know and believe that the Father is in me an
(Jn 10,38).
While the gospel of Mk sketches the mystery of Jesus' person in terms
principally of His assumption of absolute religious authority and His
miraculous powers, the gospel of Jn relies mainly on His words to frame
an unmistakable argument that He clearly taught His divine sonship in a
unique sense during the public ministry. The charge of His enemies that
this teaching was tantamount to claiming divine equality forms the proper
background for the questioning of Jesus by the Sanhédrin.

depicted in the synoptic tradition: they seek to entrap Him in His speech (Mk
ll,27ff. ; 12,31ff. ; 12,18ff.).
82 There are the well-known sayings in the synoptic tradition which imply that
the Fatherhood of God over Jesus is not identical to the Fatherhood of God over
the rest of men.
33 E.g., Jn 5,19-30; 6,48-52.54-59; 8,42.
34 The reading of the passage has its difficulties, but the following is the preferred
reading, based on very good grounds. Cf. D. Mollat, S.J., "L'Évangile ... de Saint
Jean" in BJ (Paris, 1953) 131; and C. K. Barrett, op. cit., 317.

This content downloaded from

103.6.151.149 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023 15:53:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
136 The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [Vol. 24

The Interrogation of Jesus by the Sanhédrin

The synoptic accounts of the questioning of Jesus by th
pose difficulties which have received divergent solutions. W
by the court only if He claimed to be the Messias, or was H
He laid claim to divinity? In Mt (26,63) and Mk (14,61)
tion is presented to Him in which two titles are used, "th
"Son of the Blessed One" (rendered "Son of God" in Mt
has been taken that these two titles are equivalent in mea
simply for a messianic claim: "Messias" and "Son of Go
the same concept in the mind of the Sanhédrin.85 Acc
opinion, the Sanhédrin demanded to know if Jesus entertai
pretension. According to a second opinion Jesus was a
claimed divine equality.36 The latter view seems to be sup
(22,66-71), who has two questions posed to Christ by the
to inquire if He is the Christ, the second if He is the Son
In order to ascertain the import of the Sanhedrin's questio
one must posit His teaching as the background . The fourth
expressly that the court's interrogation bore upon His
high priest therefore questioned Jesus concerning his disci
cerning his teaching" (Jn 18,19). In examining Jesus c
messianic claim and His divine sonship the court had gott
heart of His teaching. At the trial of Jesus the Sanhédrin itsel
the central issue of His life : His claim to be Messias and Son of God.37

35 Josef Blinzler, The Trial of Jesus (Westminster, Maryland, 1959) 128; Josef
Schmid, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 283.
36 Lagrange, op. cit., 401-402.
87 The manner in which the gospel material was formed has obscured the fact
that the teaching of Jesus was the true setting for the questions of the Sanhédrin.
The passion narrative enjoyed an independent formation and existence before its
incorporation into the written gospel. Cf. L. Cerfaux, "En marge de la question
synoptique," in La Formation des Évangiles, J. Cambier, L. Cerfaux, Br. de Solages,
et alti (Bruges, 1957) 31; and Vincent Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradi-
tion (London, 1957) 44-48. The first Christian audiences for which the passion story
was composed would have understood the titles, "the Christ, the Son of the Blessed
One," in accordance with the faith of the Church, i.e., in the Christian senses of
savior and of a uniquely transcendent divine sonship (as in Acts 2,36). Since the
pre-passion material in the synoptic tradition makes the messiahship of Jesus a
more express issue than the divine sonship, the sense of the Sanhedrin's questioning
of Jesus becomes obscure if it be read only in the light of the synoptic data concern-
ing the public ministry. While the fourth gospel does not seem to be overly pre-
occupied with the sense of the questions put to Jesus on His identity, since it omits
them altogether, it is noteworthy that Jn 19,7 has the Jews explaining to Pilate,
". . . he must die, because he has made himself Son of God." In the Johannine

This content downloaded from

103.6.151.149 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023 15:53:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Divinity of Christ in the Gospels 137

While it cannot be said that the terms, "the Christ" a

Blessed One," were simply interchangeable in the min
does not follow that the Sanhédrin employed "the Son
in a metaphysical sense of divinity. This title was f
stood by it from Jesus' own statements. He was convi
sonship so unique as to set Him apart from all other m
placing Himself on a level with God. It was this astoni
in the words of Jesus that the Sanhédrin chose to make
of its examination.

The Replies of Jesus to the Sanhédrin

The replies of Jesus to His examiners have been
evasive.38 Mťs "Thou hast said it" (26,64) and Lk's
say that I am" (22,70) appear to be in contrast to Mk's
The difficulty, however, turns out to be only apparent
mind the objective of the court: it is to examine Jesu
taught about Himself.
In the conduct of the examination the Sanhédrin atten
ments throughout His ministry and at this moment a
it. As to His past doctrine, the court knows it well eno
no need or intention of repeating it at this moment.
Lk (22,67-68) to the question of His messiahship,
will not believe me; and if I question you, you will
let me go." He informs His examiners that they no
messianic implications of His teaching, but have alread
and settled upon His condemnation. When in the cour
ings the high priest places Him under oath39 to state H
messiahship and divine sonship, now that He lies under
court, He replies, "You have said it" (Mt 26,64), i.e., "I

context, as has been pointed out above, "Son of God" can be u

sense of a divine equality. The gospel evidence that "Son of th
for the Sanhédrin a claim to a unique divine sonship is impr
of Jesus in the synoptic tradition imply a unique divine sonsh
8,48-59; 10,25-38) the enemies of Jesus challenge Him on pre
this pattern of attack is in accord with the synoptic traditio
His enemies attempt to embarrass Him in doctrinal matters; (4)
the interest of the Sanhédrin at the trial of Jesus lay in His
of the bystanders at the cross (Mt 27,40.43) and of the centurio
that the divine sonship of Jesus has been one of the issues of th
88 Cullmann, op. cit,, 118-119, who argues from the sense of
word, 'âmartã, that would have been employed by Jesus.
89 Only Mt (26,63) records the oath, a demand by the cou
considering the intent to examine the teaching of Jesus and Hi

This content downloaded from

103.6.151.149 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023 15:53:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 138 The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [Vol. 24

things and do not now retract them."40 He makes no defense o

before the court. Instead, He prophesies, alluding to Dn 7,
is put to death, His teaching on His identity will be show
for He will be exalted to heaven at the right hand of G
Mk 14, 62). 41
The Sanhédrin perceived and spelled out the implication of Jesus' words
that He considered Himself to be the Son of God in a unique sense. At
His trial, He refused to deny that He had taught this doctrine about
Himself, and foretold that with His death His divine identity would be
revealed. The cries of the bystanders at the cross indicate that the court
chose to make public its condemnation of Jesus for His teaching on His
divine sonship (Mt 27,40-43). It thus made the crucifixion of Christ
a religious argument: if He were abandoned by Yahweh, who left Him to
die on the gibbet, the Sanhédrin would have proved that He was neither
Messias nor Son of God. The apostolic teaching (Acts 3,13-18) posed the
resurrection as the divine reversal of this judgment by the court. In view
of the resurrection, it would be no longer possible to deny that Jesus was
Son of God. It would be rather necessary to plumb the depths of this
mystery.42
Conclusion

The sketches of the public ministry in the gospels of Mk and Jn provide

a clear insight into Jesus' self-revelation. Mk supplies the basic datum
that Jesus admitted at Caesarea Philippi that He was the Messias, as His
disciples had hoped and had come to believe. But entirely contrary to their
expectations He viewed Himself as a suffering Messias, and imposed
upon their faith in Him the necessity of being prepared to share His suffer-
ing so as to participate in His glory. Due to their faith in Him as Messias,
buttressed by His own admission, and to personal preoccupations with
their own roles in the coming kingdom, their intellectual curiosity was
not stirred by His declarations of divine sonship. They understood these
observations of Jesus in the light of their faith in His messianic mission.
These data in Mk on the teaching of Jesus make it comprehensible that
the disciples did not understand His divinity during the public ministry.
40 Thus we have a simple, natural sense for the sy eipas of Mt 26,64, the sub-
stance of which Mk can correctly render "I am."
41 Lk places the allusion to Dn 7,13 in connection with Jesus' admission of the
messiahship. Then follows the question on the divine sonship (Lk 22,70-71) with
the response, "You yourselves say that I am," i.e., "You would not ask the question
unless you already knew that I have taught this doctrine." The reply of Jesus in
Lk is meaningful only in reference to His teaching.
42 For a sketch of the primitive Church's gradual understanding and explicitation
of the mystery of Christ's Person, cf. J. Schmitt in Son and Savior, 36-49.

This content downloaded from

103.6.151.149 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023 15:53:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Divinity of Christ in the Gospels 139

The synoptic tradition, however, fails to explain in

Sanhédrin charged Jesus with claiming divine sonsh
filled by the fourth gospel. According to Jn, the enem
perceived grounds in His teaching to accuse Him of l
divine equality. Prior to the trial, Jesus warded off this
ing to Scripture and to His miracles, to which He point
that God worked through Him in a unique way. While
questioning of Jesus as to His identity is omitted by Jn
factors of the ministry must be brought to bear to gr
Jesus' trial. At the trial, He refused to explain His d
any sense other than He had previously maintained, nam
a unique relationship to God. He predicted (alluding
upon His death His true identity would come to light. W
tion of the significance of the crucifixion for the Chu
divinity of Jesus, Mk (15,39) cites the judgment of the c
this man was the Son of God."
Christian P. Ceroke, O.Carm.
The Catholic University of America
Washington, D. C.

This content downloaded from

103.6.151.149 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023 15:53:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms