When Jesus stood before the high priest, the case against him was falling apart. Mark 14:56 says the testimony of the witnesses “agreed not together.” What finally condemned him was his own answer. That moment frames the question this guide takes up: did Jesus himself claim to be God, or did his followers put that claim on him later? You can work through it alone in about an hour, or with a group over one or two sessions. Instead of collecting proof texts, you will call witnesses (friends, enemies and the high priest) and ask what their reactions establish. In the earliest Gospel, the people who rejected Jesus heard his words as a claim to divine authority, and that is why they condemned him.
Dr. Mikel Del Rosario, a professor of Bible and Theology at the Moody Bible Institute, builds his case on this kind of testimony. He points out that “Even his enemies believed that he was claiming to be divine.” This guide tests that statement and names what such testimony can and cannot prove.
Stating the case before hearing the witnesses
An honest investigation starts by asking what we would expect to find under each possibility. Suppose the skeptic is right and later believers invented the divine claim. Then the earliest material should present Jesus as a teacher or prophet. His opponents should object to his politics, his company or his view of the Sabbath, but not to any claim that put him in God’s place. Divine language should appear mostly in later writings.
Suppose the traditional view is right. Then even the earliest material should show Jesus doing and saying things his Jewish audience reserved for God. His hearers, and his enemies most sharply, should react as if he had crossed that line.
That is why this guide works mainly in Mark. Del Rosario notes that most scholars believe Mark was the first Gospel written, and that historians value early sources because there’s “less chance for legend to creep in and begin changing the details of the story.” He also observes that someone who does not treat the Bible as God’s word can still begin here, because “you can approach it like a historian.” The group does not need to agree in advance about inspiration. It only needs to read carefully.
Facilitator note: Before reading anything, ask everyone to write down which outcome they expect and why. You will return to these predictions at the end. Treat honest doubts as data to test, never as positions to correct.
Three questions to ask every witness
Keep three questions separate as you read. Mixing them up is the most common error on both sides of this debate.
- What does the text report? What did Jesus say or do, and in what setting?
- How did the witnesses react? What did the hearers conclude, and what reason does the text give?
- What can we responsibly infer? What does the reaction establish, and what would still need other evidence?
People can misunderstand a speaker, so a reaction is only as strong as its context. For each witness, also ask whether Jesus corrected the misunderstanding or let it stand.
Witness one: the scribes in a house in Capernaum
Read Mark 2:1-12 aloud, slowly. A paralyzed man is lowered through a roof, and the room expects a healing. Jesus speaks first about something else. Mark 2:5 records it: “When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.”
Look at the grammar before the reaction. The verb is passive. On its own, a prophet could have said those words while announcing what God had done. A careful investigator should admit that possibility.
Now take the witness statement. The scribes reason in Mark 2:7, “Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?” Their charge has a stated premise: forgiveness of sins belongs to God alone. They are not offended by bad manners. They think he is taking God’s role.
Then check whether Jesus corrects them. He does not retreat to the modest reading. In Mark 2:10 he says, “But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins,” and he heals the man as a public sign of that authority. He leaves their premise undisputed and challenges their verdict about him.
Del Rosario explains why the premise was so strong: “there’s no such thing as third party forgiveness in the Jewish tradition.” Only the one who has been wronged can forgive. He also makes a comparative historical claim: “No prophet ever said that. No priest ever said that.” He adds that he knows of no evidence that Greco-Roman miracle workers even claimed to forgive sins. Treat that comparison as his assertion, worth noting for further checking. The text alone establishes the core point: the scribes heard a claim to God’s prerogative, and Jesus did not deny it.
Observation prompt: Read Psalm 103:3, which describes the LORD as the one “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases.” Put that verse beside Mark 2. Which actions line up, and in what order do they occur?
Witness two: the disciples in the boat
Read Mark 4:35-41. Jesus calms a storm with a word. The disciples respond with a question, not a confession, in Mark 4:41: “What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”
Notice what this witness shows and what it does not. The disciples are confused and afraid, not stating a doctrine. Their question still matters, because Israel’s Scriptures describe the LORD as the one who rules the sea. Del Rosario makes this connection, and he draws a similar contrast in Mark 5:41. Elijah prayed when he raised the dead in 1 Kings 17. Del Rosario observes, “When Jesus raised Jairus’s daughter, he didn’t even pray, and he didn’t mention God.”
This witness establishes less than the scribes do, and that is useful. Followers can be expected to admire their teacher. What stands out is that Mark records their bewilderment instead of a finished creed, which fits an account that lets the claim unfold through events.
Witness three: the high priest and the council
Read Mark 14:55-64. This is the most formal setting in the Gospel, a hearing before the highest religious authority. When the testimony fails, the high priest asks directly. Mark 14:61-62 records the exchange: “Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”
Jesus’ answer draws on two passages his judges knew. Psalm 110:1 reads, “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Daniel 7:13 describes “one like the Son of man” who “came with the clouds of heaven.” Del Rosario argues that by combining them, Jesus claims the authority to judge the men who are judging him: “He is on the creator side of the creator creature divide.”
Now record the reaction. Mark 14:63-64: “Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.” The case that failed on testimony succeeds on Jesus’ own words, and the council treats those words as blasphemy worthy of death.
Cross-examination: where the case has limits
Good investigators test their own conclusions. Raise these challenges in the group and do not hurry past them.
The enemies did not write these accounts. This is the most serious objection. Mark, a follower of Jesus, reports what the scribes thought and what the council decided. Del Rosario explains why historians value testimony from people who are “not trying to make Christianity look good.” Here, though, the hostile testimony reaches us through a friendly writer. What the reactions show is that the earliest Gospel already portrays Jesus’ claims as divine and his death sentence as the result. Whether every detail happened as Mark reports depends on the wider reliability of the Gospels, which needs its own study.
Son of man can simply mean a human being. True. God addresses Ezekiel that way repeatedly, so the title alone proves nothing. The force of Mark 14 comes from the context: the clouds, the right hand of power, and the council’s response.
The clearest claims are in John. John 8:58 and John 10:30 do sound more direct. In both scenes the hearers pick up stones, and in John 10:33 they explain why: “for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” Del Rosario comments on those scenes: “So clearly the Jewish people who heard him got the message loud and clear, and Jesus didn’t correct them.” For this investigation, John adds testimony that agrees with Mark. It is not the foundation of the case.
Then why not just say it? Del Rosario begins with a distinction: “We shouldn’t confuse the existence of a claim with the directness of a claim.” He also suggests Jesus did not want to sound like a rival deity to the Father. That second point is his interpretation of Jesus’ purpose. It is reasonable, but the Gospels do not state it.
Practice: build the witness file
This exercise takes about 25 minutes in a group, or one focused sitting alone.
- Divide a page into three columns: What was said or done, How the hearers reacted and why, and What this establishes.
- Fill in one row each for Mark 2:1-12, Mark 4:35-41 and Mark 14:55-64. In a group, assign one passage to each of three smaller groups.
- In the third column, write one sentence about what the passage establishes and one about what it does not.
- Bring the rows together. Do friends and enemies, in very different settings, react to the same kind of claim?
- Write the skeptic’s best response to your strongest row in two sentences. Then write how you would answer it without claiming more than the evidence supports.
Facilitator note: Resist correcting the third column too quickly. If someone writes that a passage proves Jesus is God, ask what the passage itself shows and what a doubter could still question. Reaching a modest conclusion you can defend is the skill this practice builds.
Questions for discussion
- Before reading, what did you predict the earliest Gospel would show? What surprised you, and what confirmed your expectation?
- The scribes state, and Jesus does not dispute, that only God forgives sins. Why does that undisputed premise make the scene stronger evidence than an open disagreement would?
- Which witness do you find most persuasive: the scribes, the disciples or the council? What makes that witness carry more weight for you?
- How much does it matter that Mark, a follower, reports the enemies’ reactions? What would you need to know to settle that question?
- Del Rosario distinguishes a claim’s existence from its directness. Can you think of another case where people communicate something clearly without stating it outright? Where does your example break down when applied to Jesus?
- If a friend told you Jesus was a great teacher and nothing more, which row of your witness file would you show them, and what would you say about its limits?
What you can say when the question comes up
By the end, you should be able to make a statement you can actually defend. Here is a fair version. The earliest Gospel records no sentence in which Jesus says the words I am God. It does show him forgiving sins in his own name, ruling the sea, and claiming before the high priest a seat at God’s right hand. The people who opposed him understood these as claims to divine authority and condemned him for them. That counts strongly against the idea that the claim first appeared in later sources. Whether the claim was true is a further question, and it leads to the resurrection.
Set that statement beside the prediction you wrote at the start and note where they differ. Then, before your next session, read John 10:22-39 and add it as a fourth row to your witness file. Compare how its witnesses react with what you found in Mark, and record in the third column what the new row adds and what it does not.