Jesus and Divine Christology

Jesus and Divine Christology by Brant Pitre is a tour de force through New Testament scholarship.

Pitre begins by presenting a conflict among New Testament scholars. On the one hand, the majority of historical Jesus scholars have concluded that Jesus did not view himself as divine. On the other hand, the majority of early Christology scholars (how Jesus was perceived) have concluded that Jesus was “regarded as divine in some sense” (8).

How can both conclusions be true? If Jesus did not view himself as divine, how did his monotheistic followers come to see him this way?

After refuting alternate possibilities, including Jesus’s resurrection, Pitre says, “In this study, I will argue that the best explanation for why the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus believed he was divine shortly after his death is because Jesus himself spoke and acted as if he were a divine being during his lifetime” (12). He then adds a caveat: “the historical Jesus claimed to be divine, but he did so in a very Jewish way—using riddles, questions, and allusions to Jewish Scriptures to both reveal and conceal the apocalyptic secret of his identity” (12).

Perhaps you are thinking that it’s a normal development for a movement to eventually view its founder as divine as seen in Confucianism or Buddhism. Pitre doesn’t address this issue directly in the book, but I think his response would be two-fold: (1) Jesus was viewed as divine within the same century in which he lived whereas the claims for the divinity of Confucius or Buddha come centuries later and (2) Jesus was viewed as divine by his monotheistic Jewish followers. In other words, we have a unique problem to solve within Christian history and theology.

Using E. P. Sanders’s triple-context approach—first-century Jewish contextual plausibility, coherence with other data we have about Jesus, and consequences in the early church—Pitre proceeds by analyzing twelve episodes in Jesus’s life. The twelve episodes are organized into four categories:

1. nature or epiphany miracles (walking on water, calming the storm, transfiguration)
2. Jesus’s riddles (e.g., sell everything and follow me, etc.)
3. the apocalyptic secret (i.e., Jesus’s statements about the “Son” or “Son of Man”)
4. accusations of blasphemy

Only two of the twelve episodes come exclusively from the Gospel of John so this book highlights the theme of Christ’s deity in the first three Gospels, which are usually deemed as having a low Christology in comparison to John’s high Christology.

In each section, Pitre summarizes the relevant passage then analyzes it using the triple-context approach (context, coherence, consequences) then concludes in favor of its historicity. Although things unfold rather predictably, Pitre makes a compelling case in the way he handles each passage. I especially enjoyed the chapters on epiphany miracles and blasphemy. There’s a lot more going on in these Gospel stories when read in light of their Old Testament background.

After showing that Jesus’s divinity is clearly revealed in these twelve episodes and concluding in favor of their historicity, Pitre concludes, “the ‘smoke’ of early divine Christology originated in the ‘fire’ of Jesus’s own divine messianism” (331). So this solves the problem with which the book began: Jesus viewed himself as divine and that explains the rise of early high Christology.

Reflection

I think Pitre’s conclusion is right. The Synoptic Gospels present Jesus with a divine self-conception and they do so most likely because he viewed himself as divine. But Jesus expressed that belief in a way that did not get him instantly killed in his first-century Jewish world. If Jesus had said, “I am God” at the start of his ministry we would have never heard about him. Eventually, though, Jesus’s belief in his divine identity is exactly what led to his condemnation and crucifixion.

I also agree that the resurrection alone does not prove Jesus’s divinity because others were raised without being worshiped. Something else must have been going on in the minds of Jesus’s first followers and that something else takes us back to Jesus himself.

If there’s a serious flaw in this book, something that undermines the entire structure, it would have to be in the exclusive use of the triple-context method. To be clear, Pitre should not be faulted for sticking to one approach; it’s just that every approach has its weaknesses. To his credit, Pitre mentions weaknesses with the approach he employs in the opening chapter, namely, gaps in our knowledge of early Judaism. In other words, if we learn more about the ancient context our verdict on a particular event may change. I don’t know what other scholars think about Sanders’s triple-context approach so it would have been helpful to hear other critiques of this method.

With any study of this kind, it’s vital for the reader to understand the intended goal. Historical criticism cannot prove that something happened; it can only give probabilities. Hence, readers must pay careful attention to what is being shown. For example, in chapter 2 on the epiphany miracles, Pitre concludes, “it seems clear to me the arguments in favor of the historicity of the transfiguration are much stronger than those against it” (107). “Clear to me . . . much stronger.” Again, historical criticism can only produce probabilities based on a particular method. The goal is to reach “the best explanation” of the evidence. (For more details on the limits of historical criticism, see Dale Allison’s The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus. Allison concludes that we are on the most solid historical ground when we look for patterns in the Gospels.)

If you come from a Christian background and this is new to you because you have always accepted everything in the Bible as true, keep in mind that this is what historical scholars do with any part of history. Also, whenever you hear something about the past, you also have criteria that are instantly activated, resulting in the thought, “That’s not true,” or “I doubt it,” or “Wow, that’s amazing!” The point is to make our criteria explicit, analyze them, and be aware how they lead to our verdicts.

Here’s another observation: Pitre begins with noting that the majority of early Christology scholars have concluded that Jesus was “regarded as divine in some sense.” What does “in some sense” mean? Did ancient Jews have different concepts of divinity? I don’t recall him following up with this idea.

I do wish there was more wonder and surprise interspersed throughout the book, but I understand that objectiveness is the goal of scholarly writing. While reading I caught myself thinking how crazy the incarnation really is: a first-century Jew claiming to be divine. We will never be able to plumb the depths or reach the heights of this idea. Just think of James, the brother of Jesus. How did he process the thought that his brother was divine and seated at God’s right hand? Where would he even begin?

Even with those critiques noted, Jesus and Divine Christology is now the go-to book on the topic of Jesus’ divinity in the Synoptic Gospels.

Les Bridgeman

After graduating from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I served as a high school Bible teacher in Asia and the U.S. I am passionate about the Bible and Bible related topics. Check out my summary of the Bible here.