The Self-Understanding of Jesus: An Examination of Historical Claims and Theological Implications

-

The Self-Understanding of Jesus: An Examination of Historical Claims and Theological Implications

J. Neil Daniels


Introduction

The historical self-understanding of Jesus of Nazareth constitutes a foundational concern in Christological studies. Amid ongoing debates over the authenticity of Gospel traditions, the question persists: Did Jesus consciously perceive Himself to be the Messiah, the Son of God, or even God incarnate? This essay evaluates select teachings and actions of Jesus widely considered by critical scholars to be historically authentic. Drawing particularly from the work of Dr. Michael Gleghorn, the essay argues that the self-understanding of Jesus, even within this limited critical framework, discloses a profoundly exalted self-perception congruent with His identification as Israel’s Messiah and divine Son.

Jesus and the Twelve: Symbolism and Identity

Among the most well-attested acts of Jesus is His selection of twelve disciples, a fact affirmed by critical scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman.¹ At first glance, this detail may appear insignificant. However, as E. P. Sanders observes, first-century Jewish hope for the eschatological future often envisioned the restoration of the twelve tribes of Israel.² This expectation, rooted in Old Testament prophetic literature, presents the restoration as the work of either the Lord Himself (Isa. 11:11–12) or of a Messianic figure who may embody divine attributes (Mic. 5:2–4).

Jesus’ appointment of twelve followers must be understood in this symbolic and prophetic framework. As Richard Horsley argues, such a gesture suggests that the restoration of Israel was central to Jesus’ ministry.³ If so, then the implication is profound: Jesus assumes the role not merely of a teacher but of the one enacting God’s redemptive plan for Israel. Ben Witherington sharpens this point, noting that Jesus stands outside the Twelve, as their founder and head, much as God in the Old Testament formed the nation.⁴ Thus, this symbolic act reflects a self-understanding in which Jesus assumes divine prerogatives.

Jesus and the Law: Authority over Torah

Jesus’ relationship to the Law of Moses offers further insight into His self-conception. On one hand, He affirms specific Mosaic commandments (Matt. 19:18–19). On the other, He intensifies and reinterprets them. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, "You have heard that it was said... But I say unto you" (Matt. 5:27–28), thereby equating His words with divine revelation. As William Lane Craig explains, this formula suggests that Jesus saw His own authority as at least equal to that of the divinely revealed Torah.⁵

The radical nature of this claim is not lost on Jewish commentators. Ahad ha-Am wrote that the authority with which Jesus spoke—in His own name, rather than with a prophetic "Thus saith the Lord"—alienated Him from Judaism.⁶ This claim is further corroborated by Jesus’ declaration in Mark 7 that all foods are clean, effectively nullifying Old Testament dietary laws. Given that these laws were instituted by God Himself, Jesus’ willingness to override them indicates a self-perceived authority greater than that of Moses or the prophets.⁷ As Witherington remarks, "Jesus seems to assume an authority over Torah that no Pharisee or Old Testament prophet assumed—the authority to set it aside."⁸

Such authority presupposes an extraordinary self-conception. Jacob Neusner, a Jewish scholar who engaged critically with the teachings of Jesus, argued that these departures from Torah render Jesus’ message fundamentally incompatible with Jewish orthodoxy.⁹ In sum, Jesus appears to have regarded Himself not merely as a teacher within the covenantal tradition, but as One who could authoritatively redefine it.

Jesus and the Demonic Realm: Kingdom and Presence

Exorcisms occupy a central role in the Gospel accounts of Jesus, and most scholars, including skeptics, acknowledge that both Jesus and His contemporaries believed in His power over demonic forces.¹⁰ Bart Ehrman calls Jesus’ exorcisms "among the best-attested deeds of the Gospel traditions."¹¹ Of particular interest is Jesus’ statement in Matthew 12:28: "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."

This statement links the advent of the kingdom with the person and work of Jesus. The implications are significant. As William Lane Craig argues, if "kingdom of God" in Jewish idiom can function as a circumlocution for God Himself, then Jesus’ declaration amounts to an implicit claim that in His own person, God has drawn near.¹² Thus, Jesus is not simply announcing the kingdom; He embodies it.

In this light, Jesus’ exorcisms are not only signs of divine power but testimonies to His identity as God’s appointed representative—or perhaps even God in the flesh. The convergence of divine authority, miraculous power, and eschatological fulfillment in Jesus’ exorcistic ministry suggests a self-understanding congruent with a divine mission.

Jesus and the Father: Unique Sonship and Revelation

Among the most striking sayings attributed to Jesus is Matthew 11:27: "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." This logion, widely believed to derive from the hypothetical Q source and to reflect an Aramaic original, enjoys strong scholarly support for authenticity.¹³

The verse reflects a level of mutual knowledge and exclusive relational intimacy between Jesus and God that exceeds what can be ascribed to a mere prophet. Jesus’ claim to reveal the Father to whomever He wills presupposes an authority and uniqueness unparalleled in Jewish literature. As Ben Witherington observes, the saying’s Semitic origin and theological content provide compelling evidence for its historical veracity.¹⁴

This saying distinguishes Jesus’ knowledge of the Father not as derivative or mediated, but as uniquely personal and sovereign. Such a claim has no parallel in the Old Testament or in Second Temple Judaism. It signals a Christology from Jesus’ own lips that aligns with the later doctrinal affirmations of the Church.

Conclusion: Implications for Christology

Even when constrained by the criteria of historical criticism and limited to sayings and deeds judged authentic by skeptical scholars, the portrait that emerges of Jesus reveals a strikingly exalted self-understanding. Jesus assumes divine authority, enacts the restoration of Israel, overrides the Mosaic Law, defeats demonic forces, and claims an exclusive relationship with the Father. These elements resist reduction to mere prophetic symbolism or charismatic leadership.

Following C. S. Lewis's famous trilemma, William Lane Craig rightly concludes that if Jesus was not who He claimed to be, then He was either a fraud or delusional—options that falter before the coherence, moral integrity, and theological depth of His life and teaching.¹⁵ In light of the cumulative evidence, the most reasonable explanation is that Jesus of Nazareth indeed understood Himself to be Israel’s Messiah, the unique Son of God, and the one in whom God had personally drawn near. Such a conclusion, while deeply theological, rests on credible historical foundations.


Endnotes

  1. Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University, 1999), 132–33.
  2. E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 98.
  3. Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 35–37.
  4. Ben Witherington III, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 108.
  5. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 246.
  6. Ahad Ha-Am, “Judaism and the Gospels,” in Nationalism and the Jewish Ethic, ed. H. Kohn (New York: Schocken, 1962), 298.
  7. Craig, Reasonable Faith, 247.
  8. Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 112.
  9. Jacob Neusner, A Rabbi Talks with Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1993), xii.
  10. Michael J. Gleghorn, “The Self-Understanding of Jesus,” Probe Ministries, accessed July 2, 2025, https://probe.org/the-self-understanding-of-jesus/.
  11. Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 197.
  12. Craig, Reasonable Faith, 249.
  13. Ibid., 246.
  14. Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 224–25.
  15. Craig, Reasonable Faith, 255.

Bibliography and Further Study

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008.

Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. New York: Oxford University, 1999.

Gleghorn, Michael J. “The Self-Understanding of Jesus.” Probe Ministries. Accessed July 2, 2025. https://probe.org/the-self-understanding-of-jesus/.

Ha-Am, Ahad. “Judaism and the Gospels.” In Nationalism and the Jewish Ethic, edited by H. Kohn, 289–302. New York: Schocken, 1962.

Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.

Neusner, Jacob. A Rabbi Talks with Jesus. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Witherington, Ben, III. The Christology of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Oneness Pentecostalism: A Critical Examination of Contemporary Modalism

-
Image
Oneness Pentecostalism: A Critique of Contemporary Modalism J. Neil Daniels  Introduction Oneness Pentecostalism—commonly referred to as the "Jesus Only" movement—constitutes a pronounced departure from the doctrinal foundations of historic Christianity. Arising between 1913 and 1916 within the Assemblies of God, the movement diverged sharply from classical Pentecostalism by repudiating Trinitarian theology in favor of a novel reinterpretation of the divine nature. Though birthed within a revivalist milieu, it has since developed into a distinct and theologically aberrant movement, encompassing several major denominations such as the United Pentecostal Church International, Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, and others, collectively claiming an estimated four million adherents worldwide. Institutionally, Oneness Pentecostalism has established a robust infrastructure, including a denominational publishing arm (Word of Flame Press), educational institutions, socia...
Read more

The Catholic Church's Doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: Rome’s Shifting Claims on Salvation and the Church

-
The Catholic Church's Doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus : Rome’s Shifting Claims on Salvation and the Church J. Neil Daniels Nota Bene : An audio overview is available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IapKP-ehgPvp-oZCZQlVPvoq8nahP00z/view?usp=drivesdk Introduction The Catholic Church’s doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (“Outside the Church, there is no salvation”) historically stood as a resolute declaration that salvation is exclusively through explicit membership in the Roman Catholic Church and submission to the Roman Pontiff. Grounded in centuries of papal bulls, conciliar decrees, and anathemas, this teaching was articulated with juridical precision and enforced through infallible pronouncements, admitting neither ambiguity nor exception. However, the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) radically redefined this doctrine, introducing “invincible ignorance” and an inclusivist framework that extends salvation to non-Catholics, including Protestants, Muslims, and...
Read more

The Pierced Messiah: A Grammatical and Theological Analysis of Zechariah 12:10

-
The Pierced Messiah: A Grammatical and Theological Analysis of Zechariah 12:10 J. Neil Daniels Nota Bene: A "Deep Dive" audio overview is available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TSolSl1N_eN1uWVbJFvmzMbAhOHsamS2/view?usp=drivesdk Introduction The messianic interpretation of Zechariah 12:10 has been a subject of intense scholarly debate for centuries. The verse reads: "And they will look at Me whom they pierced. They will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only child and weep bitterly for Him as one weeps for a firstborn" (HCSB). This passage presents significant interpretive challenges, particularly regarding the identity of the "pierced one" and the implications for messianic prophecy. While early rabbis and Christian expositors traditionally interpreted this text as messianic, many contemporary scholars have rejected this interpretation, preferring to identify the pierced figure with slain Israelites or Jewish martyrs.¹ The crux of the interpreti...
Read more