Thinking Out Loud with Alan Shlemon - Did Legend Affect the Disciples’ Christology?

Episode Date: October 13, 2025

Alan answers the challenge that the disciples embellished their depiction of Jesus over time.

Bible critics like Alex O'Connor, Bart Aramon, Muslims, and other skeptics of Christianity like to claim that Jesus' claims to divinity are only found in the last Gospel of John, suggesting the disciples embellished Jesus' status over time. But what does the evidence show? Well, I want to address that challenge specifically in today's episode of my podcast. The Bible is routinely under attack, and since its inception, critics and skeptics have sought to undermine its authority. So it's not surprising them, they focus on the Gospels, because after all, if you want to undermine the core of the Christian message, well, you got to target Jesus, right?

So Bible critics like Bart Ehrman, Alex O'Connor, and a whole multitude of Muslims and other skeptics allege that Jesus's disciples' view of Jesus evolved over time. And they claim that the earlier gospel accounts like Matthew, Mark, and Luke, have a low Christology. And so according to these skeptics, Mark is the earliest gospel written in maybe the 50s or 60s. and they say it depicts Jesus in a way that doesn't explicitly ascribe divinity to him. Rather, they say, he's portrayed as just a more human figure, right? Which they claim aligns more with, you know, more closely with like the historical or the true Jesus, if you will. And so they say, by the time that John was penned decades later, Jesus' followers had adopted a higher Christology. And that's probably because they say, you know, legend sort of crept into the narratives, which is why,

John depicts Jesus as this like divine figure, right? Which, of course, reflects theological embellishment. So the question then is, okay, is this true? Or is there another way to understand the differences between the Gospels, especially between the earliest gospel, Mark, and the latest gospel, John? Well, first, it doesn't logically follow that since John contains more explicit references to Jesus' divinity, that he is, embellishing or sort of reflecting an evolved theology, it could be that he simply chooses

to highlight divine references more than Mark does. In fact, it's actually widely understood that each gospel author wrote with a different emphasis to account for his sort of 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. And of course, this explains why he included over 60 Old Testament quotations and illusions. Now, Mark, by contrast, wrote primarily to Gentile believers, which is why he had far fewer Old Testament references. And so, in the same way, it's possible John wrote with a different intent and a different

audience in mind. You know, maybe his purpose was simply to just emphasize Jesus' divinity more than his messianic role. And so, therefore, merely pointing out more explicit divine references in John's gospel, does improve theological embellishment because it doesn't take into consideration that different emphasis that each gospel author had. Now, still, having said that, there is some merit to the critics claim. While Mark's gospel doesn't contain explicit statements of Jesus claiming to be a, you know, pre-existent divine being, John's gospel does contain them, right? For example, there's the famous, I and the Father are one.

or Jesus says, before Abraham was born, I am. Even so, those statements don't prove theological embellishment. In fact, when you take a closer look, the key Christological doctrine, which is Jesus' divinity, is taught in both John and Mark. So, for example, before Jesus healed the paralytic in Mark's gospel, he forgave his sins, which is something the scribes knew only God could do. Furthermore, in Mark 9, Jesus foretells his fate, right? If you recall, he says, you know, the son of man is going to be delivered into the hands of

men, they're going to kill him, and then when he's been killed, he'll eventually rise three days later. And then after Jesus makes this prophecy, what does he do? He fulfills his prophecy by dying and raising himself from the grave, which of course is even more evidence of his divinity. Now, Mark also describes how Jesus has power. over creation. Notice he calms a storm by rebuking the wind and commanding the waters to be still, right? He multiplies food and walks on top of water. And in fact, even Jesus has power

over death itself. So for example, he was able to raise the daughter of Gyrus back to life after she died in Mark 5. And then Jesus's command over creation, I think then, is evidence of of Mark's understanding of his divine status. Now, one final example I'll leave you here of Jesus' divinity in the early Gospels can be found in the divine titles that are ascribed to Jesus. So in Matthew's Gospel, which, by the way, is believed to be the second earliest account, the disciples call Jesus the Son of God after he has Peter walk on water with him, and then after Jesus calms a storm.

Now, likewise, Mark reports that when asked him, directly by the Sanhedron, whether he's the Christ, the son of the blessed one, notice how Jesus answers. He says, I am, and you shall see the son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven. Now, by quoting Daniel chapter 7 in his answer, Jesus is applying the description of the divine figure to himself. And in fact, This was such an obvious claim to divinity that the high priest tore his clothes and declared Jesus a blasphemeer. So therefore, when you consider what the earliest gospel author, which is Mark, included in his gospel, you discover he held the same high Christology that the final author John held, right?

Mark affirmed characteristics of Jesus that are hallmarks of his divinity, right? Jesus is able to forgive sins, foretell the future, control creation, raised the dead. But of course, Jesus did even more than that because he capped off those sort of divine actions by ascribing a divine title to himself and then raising himself from the dead. And if Mark held this Christology when he wrote his gospel, well, then the critics can't sustain the accusation that legend crept in or that John sort of theologically embellished Jesus' identity. Because both Mark and John affirm the same Christology. But perhaps the real death knell here to the critics' thesis that the Christology of Jesus' followers somehow evolved over time is found in the New Testament epistles.

Now, these letters univocally affirm the divinity of Jesus and offer, I think, some of the highest and clearest high Christology in the Bible. Philippians, Galatians, Romans, and a whole bunch of other epistles, right? were written years before Mark's Gospel and described Jesus's divinity. So, take for example, Philippians. I think actually it contains one of the most exalted depictions of Jesus. Because it affirms that Jesus, and this is Philippians 2, it says, he existed in the form of God. He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself. In other words, this epistle describes Jesus as a pre-existent, divine being, who is equal with God.

Now, granted, Philippians is not a gospel, that's true. But it is, however, a letter that is written by a follower of Jesus prior to any gospel being written. So therefore, if the critics claim Christ's divinity evolved over time or was added later to the gospel accounts,

then it's going to be fair to cite Philippians as a refutation of that thesis, since it contains the same high Christology as the last gospel account. John. Now, I want you to notice what I did. 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 that is presented in each. In fact, my colleague, Greg Kochel, terms this tactic, just the facts, ma'am, right? Just the facts. In other words, when presented with a challenge like, hey, John's gospel has

embellished Christology, simply ask what facts are relevant to the claim? Of course, in this case, cited the Gospel of Marks, or the Epistle of Philippians, right? Siding those biblical books, their high Christology provides a necessary fact to evaluate the claim and to show it is inaccurate. All right, well, that's all I have for you today. I hope if you've enjoyed this episode that you'll be encouraged to share it with a friend. friend. And also don't forget to subscribe to my podcast, and that way you won't miss any future episodes. And thank you for listening. I look forward to thinking out loud with you next time. I don't know.