Did the divinity of Jesus emerge slowly after many years of embellishments?

How early is the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus?

When I answer this question, I only want to use the earliest, most reliable sources – so I can defend them on historical grounds using the standard rules of historiography.

The 4 sources that I would use are as follows:

  • The early creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, and 1 Corinthians 1
  • A passage in Philippians 2
  • Two passages from Mark, the earliest gospel
  • A passage from Q, which is an early source of Matthew and Luke

So let’s see the passages.

1 Corinthians

I’ve written before about the early creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, which skeptical scholars date to 1-3 years after the death of Jesus, for a variety of reasons I covered in the previous post. Here’s the creed which definitely makes Jesus out to be more than an ordinary man. Ordinary men don’t get resurrection bodies after they die.

Here’s the passage: (1 Cor 15:3-8)

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Additionally, 1 Corinthians 1:21-25 talks about Jesus being “the power of God and the wisdom of God”. Paul is identifying Jesus with the divine.

21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,

23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

But it gets even stronger! You all probably already know that the most important passages in the Old Testament for Jews is the famous “Shema“, which is found in Deuteronomy 6:4-9. The Shema is a strong statement of Jewish monotheism.

Here’s the passage:

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

6 These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts.

7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.

8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.

9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

So how does Paul fit Jesus in with this strong statement of Jewish monotheism?

Paul alludes to the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6.

4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.

5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),

6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Holy mackerel! How did that get in there? Paul is splitting the roles of God in the the Shema and identifying Jesus in one of the divine roles! Jesus is not an ordinary man. That passage “through whom all things came” foreshadows John identifying Jesus as “the Word of God”, which “became flesh and dwelt among us”. Holy snark – did you guys know that was all in here so early?

The date for 1 Corinthians is 55 AD. It should be noted that skeptical scholars like James Crossley accept these passages, and you can check it out in the debate audio yourself.


Check out Philippians 2:5-11.

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,

10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The date for Philippians is 60-61 AD. Still within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, and written by an eyewitness who was in contact with the other eyewitnesses, like Peter and James, whom Paul spoke with numerous times on his journeys to Jerusalem.

Mark’s gospel

Mark’s gospel is the earliest and atheists like James Crossley date it to less than 40 AD, which is 10 years after the death of Jesus at most. When you read the gospel of Mark, you are getting the earliest and best information available about the historical Jesus, along with Paul’s epistles. So what does Mark say about Jesus? Is Jesus just a man, or is he something more?

Check out Mark 12:1-9:

1He then began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey.

2At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard.

3But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed.

4Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully.

5He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed.

6“He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’

7“But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’

8So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

9“What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.

And Mark 13:32, talking about the date of the final judgment.

32“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

And again, this passage is establishing a hierarchy such that Jesus is being exalted above all men and the angels, too. And the passage is embarrassing to the early church, because it makes Jesus look ignorant of something, so they would not have made this passage up. Jesus is not an ordinary man, he is above the angels – God’s unique Son.

The “Q” source for Matthew and Luke

Here’s Matthew 11:27, which is echoed in Luke 10:22:

27“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

22“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”

Since this passage is in both of Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark, scholars believe that it is in the earlier “Q” source used by both Matthew and Luke. Q predates both Matthew and Luke, and so it is also fairly early (maybe 67-68), although not as early as Mark and Paul. Bill Craig writes that this passage is also embarrassing because it says that no one knows Jesus.

Learn more

You can learn more about the early belief in the divinity of Jesus by listening to a lecture by William Lane Craig and reading the related paper, and by listening to the debate between Richard Bauckham and James Crossley on that topic. The first link contains other scholarly debates on Jesus.

7 thoughts on “Did the divinity of Jesus emerge slowly after many years of embellishments?”

  1. This is a very thorough assimilation, WK. Thank you for pulling all of this together. Good stuff, as the Brits say, and useful in witnessing.


  2. Great post!

    Let’s not forget the martyrs.

    It took the Church centuries to grasp the enormity of Christ’s nature. Numerous heresies arose during that time such as “He only appeared to be a man,” or that He was created as we were and only become divine at some point during his earthly life.

    The martyrs died because they knew the divinity of Christ, they knew it in their bones and blood – which was spilled for Him in the first century, second century, third century – and is being spilled for Him today in ever greater numbers.

    People do not die for good teachers, or kind-hearted nice guys, or pithy commentators. We sometimes examine documents and forget the people to whom the document was written, and who often perished preserving them. We wonder what they ‘believed,’ and seek the answer in the document. What about the evidence of their lives?

    Let’s not forget that before the Gospels were written, there was the Church, and ‘Little Christs’ died for Him, showing by their sacrifices what they truly believed.

    Again – an outstanding post!


  3. Jesus of Nazareth declared Himself as divine from many passages – the wealth of them is embarrassing. So obviously these critics have not read much scripture. If He didn’t believe Himself to be divine then why would He say, “I give you a new commandment” (only God gives commandments, yes?) thereby changing the Shema from “love your neighbor as yourself” to “love one another as I, Jesus have loved you”. John 13:34. I could go on for pages with examples…


    1. You make the point by using scripture to verify scripture. What if someone does not believe that scripture is true? They have no reason to believe you, and you seem to be engaged in a circular argument – not with an opponent – but with yourself.

      Scripture must be defended as simply being true, with arguments that take into account the historicity and accuracy of the documents.

      Thus I mention the ancient martyrs – they did not die for a person, they died for God. The God who became man and was called Jesus Christ.

      Seeing the times we are in, I await some ‘scholar’s’ refutation of early Christian martyrs. It is due.


      1. “It is sometimes objected that it is a ‘circular argument’ to refer to biblical passages in support of biblical claims. But, that objection is unfounded for several reasons. (1) Practically, there is no better place to begin than with what is self-claimed. (2) Legally, a man can testify in his own behalf in a court of law. Why should not the Bible be permitted to witness in its own behalf. (3) Logically, the claim is not being used to support itself, but as a point of departure to study itself.” — A General Introduction to the Bible, by Geisler and Nix.

        My point of bringing this up is that unbelievers treat the Bible in a VERY different way than they treat other documents – which they accept at face value and with a great deal of “faith.” They will let any other author testify on his or her behalf, but not the Author of the Bible,

        Even more discouraging to me is that many “Christians” claim to believe in Biblical inerrancy, until they run into a passage they are not comfortable with. Consequently, we end up with “abortion jesus,” “slavery jesus,” “big government wealth redistribution jesus,” and all sorts of other sicknesses.

        I’m not putting you in either of these categories, Radical, I merely want to show that when the atheist claims that it is a circular argument, you should ask them how they read Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.

        In my anti-Christian years, I was perfectly happy to accept at face value the statement by Carl Sagan that the “Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” I didn’t look for external sources confirming that statement – since there is only One external Source that could! It has been my experience that most atheists operate this way – and they should be called on it.

        Meanwhile, there are thousands of extant manuscripts that support the fact that the Bibles we read are terrifically reliable in comparison to the original (inerrant) texts. And, yes, we should look at what secular historians had to say about Jesus as well. WK has posted that list recently – and it is impressive. I just believe that we shouldn’t automatically throw away one source (the Bible) when atheists are not willing to do the same with their “holy” books.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s