The Bible is routinely under attack. Since its inception, critics and skeptics have sought to undermine its authority. It’s not surprising they focus on the Gospels. After all, if you want to undermine the core of the Christian message, you need to target Jesus.
Bible critics like Bart Ehrman, Alex O’Connor, and a multitude of Muslims and other skeptics allege that the disciples’ view of Jesus evolved over time. They claim that the earlier Gospel accounts—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—have a low Christology. According to the skeptics, Mark is the earliest Gospel, written in the AD 50s or 60s, and it depicts Jesus in a way that doesn’t explicitly ascribe divinity to him; rather, he is portrayed as more human, which they claim aligns more closely with the historical (i.e., true) Jesus. By the time John was penned decades later, Jesus’ followers had adopted a higher Christology. Legend crept into the narratives, which is why John depicts Jesus as a divine figure, reflecting theological embellishment. Is this true, or is there another way to understand the differences between the Gospels?
First, it doesn’t logically follow that since John contains more explicit references to Jesus’ divinity that he is embellishing or reflecting an evolved theology. It could be that he simply chose to highlight divine references more than Mark.
In fact, it’s widely understood that each Gospel author wrote with a different emphasis to account for his particular audience. Matthew, for example, wrote his Gospel with Jewish believers in mind and with the intent of showing how Jesus is the prophesied Messiah. This explains why he included over 60 Old Testament quotations and allusions. Mark, by contrast, wrote primarily to Gentile believers, which is why he had far fewer Old Testament references.
In the same way, it’s possible John wrote with a different intent and audience in mind. His purpose could have been to emphasize Jesus’ divinity more than his messianic role. Therefore, merely pointing out more explicit divine references in John’s Gospel doesn’t prove theological embellishment because it doesn’t take into consideration the different emphasis of each Gospel author.
Still, there is some merit to the critics’ claim. While Mark’s Gospel doesn’t contain explicit statements of Jesus claiming to be a preexistent divine being, John’s Gospel does (e.g., “I and the Father are one,” and “Before Abraham was born, I am”).
Even so, those statements don’t prove theological embellishment. When you take a closer look, the key christological doctrine—Jesus’ divinity—is taught in both John and Mark. For example, before Jesus healed the paralytic in Mark’s Gospel (Mark 2:10–12), he forgave his sins (Mark 2:5), something the scribes knew only God could do (Mark 2:6–7). Furthermore, in Mark 9:31, Jesus foretold his fate: “The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later.” Then, he fulfilled his own prophecy by dying and raising himself from the grave, which is more evidence of his divinity.
Mark also describes how Jesus has power over creation. He calmed a storm by rebuking the wind and commanding the waters to be still (Mark 4:39). He multiplied food (Mark 6:41–42) and walked on top of water (Mark 6:48). In fact, Jesus even has power over death. For example, he was able to raise Jairus’ daughter back to life after she died (Mark 5:41–42). Jesus’ command over creation is indicative of Mark’s understanding of his divine status.
One final example of Jesus’ divinity in the early Gospels can be found in the divine titles ascribed to Jesus. In Matthew’s Gospel (believed to be the second earliest account), the disciples call Jesus the Son of God (Matt. 14:33) after he has Peter walk on water with him and calms the storm. Likewise, Mark reports that, when asked directly by the Sanhedrin whether he’s the “Christ, the Son of the Blessed One,” Jesus answers, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61–62). By quoting Daniel, Jesus applied the description of the divine figure of Daniel 7:13–14 to himself. This was such an obvious claim to divinity that the high priest tore his clothes and declared Jesus a blasphemer.
When you consider what the earliest Gospel author—Mark—included in his Gospel, you discover that he held the same high Christology that the final author—John—held. Mark affirmed characteristics of Jesus that are hallmarks of divinity: forgiving sins, foretelling the future, controlling creation, and raising the dead. Of course, Jesus capped off those divine actions by ascribing a divine title to himself and raising himself from the dead. If Mark held this Christology when he wrote his Gospel, then the critics can’t sustain the accusation that legend crept in or that John theologically embellished Jesus’ identity. Both Mark and John affirm the same Christology.
But perhaps the death knell to the critics’ thesis that the Christology of Jesus’ followers evolved over time is found in the New Testament Epistles. These letters univocally affirm the divinity of Jesus and offer some of the clearest high Christology in the Bible. Philippians, Galatians, Romans, and many other Epistles were written years before Mark’s Gospel and describe Jesus’ divinity. Philippians, for example, contains one of the most exalted depictions of Jesus. It affirms that Jesus “existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself.” In other words, this Epistle describes Jesus as a preexistent divine being who is equal with God. Granted, Philippians is not a Gospel. It is, however, a letter written by a follower of Jesus prior to any Gospel being written. Therefore, if the critics claim Christ’s divinity evolved over time or was added later into the Gospel accounts, then it’s fair to cite Philippians as a refutation of that thesis.
I want you to notice that all that was needed to respond to the claims of these Bible critics was simply to read the Gospel accounts and take note of the Christology presented in each. My colleague Gregory Koukl has termed this tactic “Just the Facts, Ma’am.” When presented with a challenge (e.g., “John’s Gospel contains embellished Christology”), simply ask what facts are relevant to the claim. In this case, citing the Gospel of Mark’s (or Philippian’s) high Christology provides the necessary facts to evaluate the claim and show it isn’t accurate.