When Jesus said “I AM” (John 6:35; 8:12; 9:5; 10:7,9; 10:11,14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1,5; Matt 27:43; Mark 14:62; John 8:24,28,58; 13:19; Rev 1:8, 17-18) – that was a direct claim of divinity. God told Abraham to say that he was sent by ‘I AM’ (Ex 3:14). The Jews listening to Jesus understood His claim (John 8:43-59) and were going to stone Him for blasphemy.
In claiming to be “I AM” (the one God) Jesus is claiming to be the only God there is, which rules out ordinary humans (He mentions the ordinary human Abraham specifically in John 8:58… keep reading). Keep in mind that one has to pick between these two contradictory criticisms: 1) Jesus claimed divinity in the sense that we can all be divine and 2) Jesus implied He was not God, in pointing out He believes there is only one God (Tunis’ claim – see III. and IV., and the Abrahamic Covenant thread). The reality is that Jesus claimed He is the only God there is (keep reading). If you think God cannot take physical form, you have a lot of explaining to do about theophany in the Old Testament (a small sampling: Gen 11:5; 18:1, 13, 17, 20, 22, 26, 33; 32:24; Ex 33:18-23; Num 11:25; 12:5; 14:10; Josh 5:13 – and that’s if you don’t count sound waves and thoughts). The captain/Captain of Joshua 5:13 might be an angel, rather than a theophany (not that God cannot take the form of an angel – as was the case when He wrestled with Jacob, see Gen 32:24-32 and Hosea 12:3-4). If God is the Captain… reminds me of Dead Poets Society… Oh Captain, my Captain!
II:
In my Abrahamic Covenant thread, I wrote: “In claiming to be ‘I AM’ (Ex 3:14) of the Jews, Jesus was claiming to be the God who made and keeps the Abrahamic Covenant (John 6:35; 8:12; 9:5; 10:7,9; 10:11,14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1,5; Matt 27:43; Mark 14:62; John 8:24,28,58; 13:19; Rev 1:8, 17-18).” But I left out the part (see I.) where the Jews showed they understood His claim by attempting to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:43-59).
The Zondervan NASB Study Bible note on Exodus 3:12 points out that “The Hebrew word translated ‘I will be’ is the same as the one translated ‘I AM’ in v. 14.” It also notes that in v. 14, “I AM” is not completed by “be there” as “I will be” is completed by “be there” in v. 12. It refers us to 34:5-7 for “the Lord’s proclamation of the meaning and implications of His name” (NASB). Jesus was claiming all the meaning and implications of the Lord’s name in saying “I AM”. I didn’t say it before, so I’ll say it now: the Jews showed they understood His claim by attempting to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:43-59)
Jesus’ words in context:
Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.
– Jesus (John 8:58)
“In the Greek, the words [ I am ] are solemnly emphatic and echo Exodus 3:14,” (NASB, 6:35). “Jesus did not say ‘I was’ but ‘I am,’ expressing the eternity of His being and His oneness with the Father (see 1:1). With this climactic statement Jesus concludes His speech that began with the related claim, ‘I am the Light of the world’ (v.12),” (NASB, 8:58). “The Jews could not interpret Jesus’ claim as other than blasphemy, for which stoning was the proper penalty (Lev 24:16),” (NASB, 8:59). Of course – God claiming to be God is not blasphemy… but the Jews did not recognize Jesus as God.
A repeat from I. – Keep in mind that one has to pick between these two contradictory criticisms: 1) Jesus claimed divinity in the sense that we can all be divine and 2) Jesus implied He was not God, in pointing out He believes there is only one God (Tunis’ claim – see III. and IV., and the Abrahamic Covenant thread). The reality is that Jesus claimed He is the only God there is (keep reading). If you think God cannot take physical form, you have a lot of explaining to do about theophany in the Old Testament (a small sampling: Gen 11:5; 18:1, 13, 17, 20, 22, 26, 33; 32:24; Ex 33:18-23; Num 11:25; 12:5; 14:10; Josh 5:13 – and that’s if you don’t count sound waves and thoughts). The captain/Captain of Joshua 5:13 might be an angel, rather than a theophany (not that God cannot take the form of an angel – as was the case when He wrestled with Jacob, see Gen 32:24-32 and Hosea 12:3-4). If God is the Captain… reminds me of Dead Poets Society… Oh Captain, my Captain!
Neither Jesus nor Paul introduced a ‘new kind of god’ – and that Jesus is God was not a “later development” (no one has claimed that the incarnation is presented as a systematic doctrine in the NT, but as a doctrine it is rooted there) – keep reading…
III.
“Son of God” is a Messianic title indicating the deity of Jesus Christ. His own claims (to deity): Matt 11:27; 26:59-66; 27:41-44; Mark 2:1-12 (Jesus does what only God can do: forgive sins); 14:61-64 (“Blessed One” is God; again more accusation of blasphemy – the Jews understood what He was claiming); John 5:17-47; 6:25-51; 7:16-31; 8:54-59; 10:22-39 (more accusation of blasphemy); 14:8-11; 17:1-5, 20-24; 19:7 (more accusation of blasphemy); also God’s word: Matt 17:1-8; Mark 1:9-11. The opinion of His disciples and others (concerning His deity): Matt 4:3; 8:29; 16: 13-20; 27:50-54; Mark 1:21-27 (Holy One of God); 3:11; 5:1-13; Luke 1:31-35; 4:34 (Holy One of God); 23:47 (“innocent” or “The Righteous One” … essentially equivalent to “the Son of God”); John 1:1, 14, 29-34, 43-51; 6:66-69 (Holy One of God); 11:23-27 (after raising Lazarus, the whole of the Sanhedrin are plotting His death: vv. 47-54); 20:28; Acts 2:22-36; 7:54-60; 9:17-22; 10:34-43; Rom 1:1-4; Eph 1:20-23; Phil 2:5-11 (vv. 6-11 may have been an early Christian hymn); Col 1:15-20; Heb 1; 1 John 1:1-4; 2:22-25; 4:9-16.
“Son (of God) (Matt 11:27) Jesus claims a unique relationship to God. The parent-child picture says that His relationship to God is something like that. ‘Sons of/children of’ is a common Hebrew idiom. It conveys the idea of shared nature or characteristics. ‘So when the New Testament says that Jesus is ‘the Son of God’ it is stating that Jesus shared the characteristics and nature of God Himself. He was claiming to be really and truly divine’ (John Drane),” (p. 561, Zondervan’s Handbook to the Bible, 1999).
IV.
Please note (regarding reference to ‘later development’), before reading the following, that no one knew who Constantine was when the New Testament books were being written…
‘God with us’—the incarnation
Dick France
Matthew 14:33 “And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, ‘You are certainly God’s Son!’”
If you remember, the Gospels’ account of Jesus’ life does not end at the cross. It ends in his miraculous ascension to Heaven, after he was reanimated in a fashion only a divine being could accomplish.
He “died” on the cross, came back to life, walked out of the tomb, and ascended into heaven. So then… I guess he didn’t really die right? I’m confused…
You have written at length to explain how the Bible teaches that Jesus was God. If the message of the Bible is that Jesus is God, then why is the long exposition necessary? Why are the writers so cryptic about it? Why don’t they just come out and say “Jesus is God?”
If I may step in –
The first chapter of John is pretty explicit on this topic.
The last gospel written, it is less subtle and fills in some of the doctrine the synoptic gospels aren’t as explicit on.
If you don’t mind –
The first chapter of the gospel of John does not say Jesus is God. It says “In the beginning was the word” (John 1:1). Compare that with the first chapter of the gospel of Mark: “The beginning of the gospel…”(Mark 1:1)
Interesting, but the issue I am raising is not with “in the beginning.” No doubt exposition of those words deserves a book. Rather, I am concerned about the phrase “Jesus is God.” I just glanced at the first chapter of John in the King James Version and I can’t find the statement “Jesus is God,” anywhere. If that’s what the passage means then why doesn’t it say so? After all, all three words, God, is , and Jesus were certainly available to the author. I don’t understand how my real name can say that “The first chapter of John is pretty explicit on this topic.”
I don’t know what you mean by Thomistic. Jesus is also called the Lamb of God. Would it be Thomistic to say the lamb is the same in nature as the father? Do you think Jesus was a literal lamb? Is God a literal father? If “Lamb of God” is a metaphor, then could “Son of God” be a metaphor? If not, why not?
Jesus was human, not a lamb. That is clearly a metaphor.
As to sonship being a metaphor, I’m saying John 1 tells us in what way Jesus is the Son of God.
As for what sonship is, sonship is being created by a father in the same nature.
And by Thomistic, I mean I’m referring to that theologian’s work – which is orthodox for Catholicism. There is much information about him online if you’d like to know more about him.
Yes John 1 tells us something about Jesus and God using metaphors or perhaps symbolism is a better word. It uses the term Logos appropriated from Heraclitus. But for some reason, John 1 never says Jesus is God, as Ichthus did above. So I ask you, does it ever say Jesus is God anywhere in the Bible? And, if not, can you explain why not?
Logos is a Greek term with many meanings; John’s Gospel is said to be the only one written in Greek. But anyway, I don’t find it surprising if philosophical knowledge is similar to theological knowledge – you’d expect it to be so if there is something to both.
Why have you not asked in what way Jesus is God? Instead you seem to look only for the individual terms you expect to find. How is a human (rational animal) said to be God (force behind the universe) anyway? It may not be a easily said as it seems.
I am interested in understanding why the Bible says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say. If the Bible is a divinely inspired book, then shouldn’t we expect the choice of words to be meaningful and not arbitrary? Why should I ask in what way Jesus is God if the Bible never states that he is? We can read church history, the councils, the creeds, post-biblical Christology and Trinitarian theology to find out how “orthodox” interpretation developed. But that doesn’t explain why the Biblical writers wrote exactly what they wrote no more no less. For reasons we don’t yet understand the Bible never states the words so casually printed here that “Jesus is God.” Would you agree then that by definition, the assertion that Jesus is God is an extra-biblical interpretation?
The Racovian Catechism was written in 1609. It was a treatise of the Polish Unitarians who flourished for a time in Poland before being forced out due to religious persecution. Their writings influenced the British Enlightenment. John Locke had the Racovian Catechism in his personal library, for example. It was also ordered to be burnt by the British Parliament, order issued on April 2, 1652. It was considered “blasphemous” because it was Unitarian, meaning against the Trinity.
I quoted it to comply with forum posting rules, as well as to provide reference for anyone who might be interested in the history of the Unitarian vs. Trinitarian debate. The probability that John 1:1 should be compared to Mark 1:1 and not Genesis 1:1 can be discovered through personal bible study. But as the Racovian Catechism illustrates, I am not the first one to reach this conclusion.
For more information on the Polish Unitarians see the link below which I also posted on “Philosophical Texts Archive”.
