God Revealed from the Beginning
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Mark 1:1, ESV)
I recently re-listened to a debate between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Michael F. Bird on the deity of Christ. Ehrman argued that Christ’s divinity was a later invention, while Bird argued that Jesus has always been God. What immediately stood out was that Bird did not begin with John’s Gospel, where many assume the clearest statements of divinity appear. He went straight to Mark. Chapter one.¹ This is important because both men believe in Markan Priority (that Mark’s Gospel was written first.)
That matters, because one of the most common claims today by skeptics is that the deity of Christ is a later development. The argument suggests that Mark presents a more human Jesus, while later Gospels elevate Him into divine status. Yet when Mark is read carefully, especially in its Jewish and scriptural context, that theory does not simply weaken. It becomes untenable. Mark’s original audience, shaped by a Second Temple Jewish worldview, would have immediately recognized these as claims to deity without viewing them as violations of God’s commandments. This is confirmed later when the High Priest reacts to Jesus’ own words at His trial, recognizing the claim and responding with charges of blasphemy (Mark 14:61–64).
Mark does not develop Jesus’ identity. Instead, he reveals it, and he does so immediately and unapologetically within a deeply Jewish theological framework that would not allow casual or careless divine identification.
The opening line identifies Jesus as “the Son of God,” and within the framework of Second Temple Judaism, this is not a mere royal title stripped of divine significance. It becomes unmistakably divine when Mark anchors Jesus in Isaiah 40:3: “Prepare the way of the Lord/Yahweh.” In its original context, this is a reference to YHWH returning to His people. Yet Mark applies this directly to Jesus without explanation or defense. John the Baptist is preparing the way, not for a prophet, but for Israel’s God Himself.
For a Jew in the Second Temple period, this was not ambiguous. “Lord” here meant YHWH. They would have heard it this way:
“Behold, I send my messenger before your face . . . the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of YHWH; make His paths straight.’”
And Mark applies that directly to Jesus.
“For a Jewish reader, the term ‘Lord’ in Isaiah 40:3 would unmistakably refer to YHWH. Mark’s application of this passage to Jesus is therefore not incidental but a direct identification of Jesus with the God of Israel.”— Richard Bauckham
“The earliest Christians did not merely ascribe divine functions to Jesus; they included Him within the unique identity of the one God of Israel.” – Richard Bauckham
“In Mark’s narrative, the coming of Jesus is nothing less than the coming of Israel’s God to Zion.” — N. T. Wright²
This is not theological evolution. It is theological identification, and it establishes from the outset that Mark’s Gospel operates with a high Christology embedded in narrative rather than abstract formulation.
The baptism of Jesus reinforces this claim in a way that is both theological and experiential. The heavens are “torn open,” (Gk: σχιζομένους τοὺς οὐρανούς, schizomenous tous ouranous) echoing Isaiah 64:1, where the prophet pleads for God to rend the heavens and come down. The Spirit descends upon Jesus, and the Father declares, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11). Father, Son, and Spirit are all present simultaneously. This is not a later doctrinal construct of the Trinity imposed onto the text but a revealed reality of the Trinity embedded within the earliest Gospel tradition.
Jesus is then driven into the wilderness by the Spirit to confront Satan. This is not merely a period of testing but a confrontation between the kingdom of God and the powers of darkness. Jesus does not enter as a passive participant or as a prophet seeking divine assistance. He enters as one who stands in authority over the adversary, anticipating the defeat of evil itself.
When Jesus begins preaching, His message is both simple and profoundly theological: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:15). Within Jewish expectation, the coming of the kingdom was inseparable from the coming of God Himself to reign. The kingdom is not merely a future event or a geographic domain. It is the active rule and presence of God.
So when Jesus proclaims that the kingdom is at hand, He is not merely announcing something external to Himself. He is announcing that in His own person, God’s reign has arrived. This becomes even more striking when later texts record language such as “my kingdom” (cf. Luke 23:42; John 18:36). The kingdom belongs to Him because the reign of God is embodied in Him. The proclamation of the kingdom is, therefore, inseparable from the proclamation of His identity.³
“Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom is not merely about God’s rule; it is about God’s rule embodied in His own person.” — Gordon D. Fee
“Jesus’ message of the kingdom cannot be separated from His person; He brings the kingdom because He embodies God’s reign.” — George Eldon Ladd⁴
The spiritual realm recognizes this immediately and without hesitation. In Mark 1:24, a demon cries out, “I know who you are—the Holy One of God.” In Isaiah, the phrase “Holy One” is repeatedly used of YHWH, making this recognition theologically loaded (Isaiah 1:4; 5:19; 10:20; 17:7; 29:23; 30:15; 41:14; 43:3; 48:17). The irony is striking. The religious leaders question Him, the crowds are amazed, but the demons recognize Him instantly. Jesus silences them, not because they are incorrect, but because revelation itself is under His authority and control.
Mark emphasizes that same authority in Jesus’ teaching. The people are astonished because He teaches “as one who had authority, and not as the scribes” (Mark 1:22). The scribes relied on tradition and cited prior authorities. Jesus does not. He speaks as the source. That kind of authority is not derived or delegated. It is inherent.
This authority extends into the spiritual realm as Jesus commands unclean spirits, and they obey Him (Mark 1:27). He does not pray, invoke, or appeal to a higher authority. He commands, and they respond. Within Jewish thought, authority over the unseen realm belongs to God alone, making this a functional demonstration of divine identity.⁵
“In Mark, Jesus does what only God can do, and He does so on His own authority.” — Craig A. Evans
“Jesus does not appeal to divine authority; He exercises it. This is the clearest indication of His divine identity in Mark.” — R. T. France⁶
This authority also extends into the physical world as Jesus heals sickness with a word (Mark 1:31). Disease does not resist Him, and creation itself responds to His command. This is not the language of a prophet asking God to act but of the Creator restoring what has been broken within His creation.
One of the most theologically rich moments in the chapter occurs in the healing of the leper. The man approaches Jesus and says, “If you are willing, you can make me clean” (Mark 1:40). This is not a request for intercession but a recognition of authority. The man understands that Jesus Himself possesses the power to cleanse.
Jesus responds, “I am willing; be clean” (Mark 1:41). While this is not the explicit “I am” (ἐγώ εἰμι) formulation found in John, it reflects the same reality of personal authority. Jesus does not appeal upward or defer to another. He speaks directly, and the result is immediate. Dr. Ehrman recognizes this in John’s Gospel:
“In John’s Gospel, Jesus does indeed make divine claims for himself . . . when he says, ‘Before Abraham was, I am,’ he appears to be taking upon himself the divine name.” — Bart Ehrman⁸
If the “I am” statements in John’s Gospel (ἐγώ εἰμι) are rightly understood as claims to divine identity, then consistency demands we take seriously the same language when it appears in Mark. While Mark does not present extended “I am” discourses, he does preserve key moments where Jesus uses this exact phrase. In Mark 6:50, as He walks on the water, Jesus says, ἐγώ εἰμι· μὴ φοβεῖσθε (“I am; do not be afraid”), a statement set within a context where only YHWH treads upon the sea (Job 9:8) and reveals Himself to His people in their fear (Isaiah 43:2–3). In Mark 14:62, before the High Priest, Jesus responds to the question of His identity with a direct and unambiguous ἐγώ εἰμι (“I am”), immediately followed by imagery from Daniel 7:13 and Psalm 110:1, and the response is not confusion but a charge of blasphemy. The claim was understood. Even Mark 13:6 shows that “I am” language carried identity-level significance, as false claimants would come saying ἐγώ εἰμι. When these uses are taken together, Mark’s Gospel is not silent on divine self-identification but presents it in concentrated, contextually loaded moments. Therefore, when we return to Mark 1 and hear Jesus say “I am willing” (θέλω), spoken not as a request but as a command that immediately cleanses, we are not hearing a mere expression of intent but the voice of one who speaks with the authority of God Himself.
The most profound element, however, is what follows. Jesus touches the leper. According to Levitical law, that act should render Him unclean. Instead, the opposite occurs. The leper becomes clean. Impurity does not transfer to Jesus. Purity flows from Him. This is not merely healing but a reversal of impurity itself, demonstrating authority over the very categories of clean and unclean.
In the Old Testament, priests could declare someone clean, but they could not make them clean. Only God could do that. Jesus does both, revealing a level of authority that belongs properly to God alone.
“The reversal of impurity demonstrates that holiness resides in Jesus in a way that transforms reality itself.” — Craig S. Keener⁷
As noted, even Bart Ehrman acknowledges that in John 8:58, when Jesus says, “before Abraham was, I am,” He is making a profound claim about His identity, associating Himself with divine existence. While Ehrman argues that such explicit claims develop later, Mark demonstrates that the same high Christology is already present, not merely in words but in unmistakable actions that reveal divine authority.⁸
The Greek word exousia (ἐξουσία, “authority”) used throughout Mark 1 refers to inherent authority, not delegated power. Jesus does not act as a representative of authority. He acts as its source.
Mark 1 is not a low Christology awaiting development. It is a high Christology expressed through narrative, action, and authority. Jesus fulfills passages about YHWH, reveals the Trinity, commands the spiritual realm, teaches with inherent authority, heals with a word, reverses impurity, and proclaims the kingdom because He is the King.
So while it is technically true that Jesus does not walk through Galilee repeating the phrase “I am God,” the claim that His divinity is absent from the earliest Gospel is not sustainable when the text is taken seriously within its historical and theological context.
Mark does not argue for Jesus’ deity in abstract terms. He presents it through lived reality, through authority, through action, and through fulfillment. He shows it from the very beginning.
Footnotes
- Bart Ehrman and Michael F. Bird, “How Did Jesus Become God?” debate, YouTube, https://youtu.be/RtkeNuCwinc.
- Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996).
- See the conceptual connection between kingdom proclamation and personal authority in Second Temple Jewish expectations.
- Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007). George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).
- Cf. Jewish expectations of divine authority over spiritual beings in Second Temple literature.
- Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001). R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
- Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1993).
- Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God (New York: HarperOne, 2014).
Related Posts:
Early High Christology Before the New Testament
The Deity of Christ in the Gospel of Mark
The Danger of Asymmetrical Skepticism
Leave a Reply