Why Jesus did not openly say this: "I AM GOD'

[TarkanAttila]

All of the quotes so far given come from the Gospel of John which is substantially different from the Synoptic gospels.
catholic-resources.org/John/Synoptic-Differences.htm
It has been argued that if someone says that I and Obama are one in supporting the Affordable Care Act it does not mean that we are one in essence.
Also, there is a quote in the synoptic gospels that only the Father knows the day or hour and the Son does not know. If Jesus is omniscient, wouldn’t He know the day or hour also?
Matthew/24:36.
Mark 13:32

This is a fair question. And a good one. I think it also falls in line with Mark’s Gospel, where Our Lord says, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” And would you say Mark’s Gospel is also the earliest?

Well, very early in Mark’s Gospel - the first twelve verses in the second chapter. A paralytic is lowered into a house where Jesus is preaching, desiring to be healed. How does Jesus respond? He forgives the man’s sins.

Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation cannot avoid tripping over itself in the climax:
Mark 2:6-7:

Now there were some of the scribes there, sitting and reasoning in their hearts: “Why is this man talking in this manner? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins except one, God?”

Fr. Robert Barron - when he was a priest - brought this to my attention.

The Synoptic Gospels may not explicitly call Him God by name. But even the “earliest” Gospel, Jesus’ life has many demonstrations He is greater than Elijah, greater than Moses, greater than Solomon.

Only God can cast out demons with such ease (Mark 1:21-28); other exorcisms, even to this day, are much more elaborate than a single command, and anyone foolhardy enough to try otherwise risks his life (Acts 19:13-16…!!). He decides how the Sabbath ought to be lived; Jesus is “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28). He is unshaken by nature, and quiets it without drama (4:39-40). What kind of man is it whom even by touching his clothes has the power to heal you? Not one of the prophets I’ve read (Mark 5:28-34).

To address your concern particularly: Mark 6:2-3. Carpenters are not exactly known for being educated. It may be so, that the Son does not know the day of the last judgement. But His intelligence and wisdom were clearly beyond His years. Where does that come from, lacking formal education?

And again, what man has charge over the spirits of the Earth but God (Mark 6:7)? And only one time did any prophet divide food as Jesus did. But only 20 loaves among 100 men (2 Kings 4:42-44). Hardly a miracle at all compared to feeding 5000 with five loaves (Mark 6:38, 41-44), or 4000 with seven loaves (8:5-9)!

My succinct point is this: the actions of Jesus, in all of the Gospels, are incomparable to those done by prophets, kings, and holy men in the Old Testament. The Jews would have never seen or heard of anything like this before in their lives. It would have been an act of almost sheer will to deny what He said of Himself:
Matthew 12:6:

I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.

Sorry if I came on a bit strong. But I do think the evidence speaks for itself readily.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

What do you think brothers and sisters?

“The Son of Man”, is how Jesus referred to himself most often. It’s in keeping with the riddles and parables He spoke in to gradually reveal Himself to those who wished to discover Him through discipleship.

 

[pianistclare]

It was because Jesus for them was uttering blasphemy, that He was making Himself equal with God. Jesus, however, was not directly saying that He is God as in: “I AM GOD”

Semantics. Everyone knew what He was saying, and His miracles and teaching proved it.

 

[e_c]

Search this Gospels looking for passages dealing with testimony. This will help clear the issue. Self-testimony is a big no-no… So there is always at least some kind of obfuscation. Using the Divine Name is close, but the high priest would use it too, in the Holy of Holies. It would be an interesting study to pull out all the instances of testimony and look for patterns, in comparison with the Gospel teaching on testimony.

A corollary to this is the hidden nature of the miracles of Jesus. Healing is inside the body, He walks on water but during a storm, He multiplies loaves but in the chaos of the crowd, He rises from the dead but inside the tomb, etc. He wants faith and He wants us to come looking for Him… He wants us to be curious about what else there might be, rather than doing tricks, like flying off the top of the Temple, or coming down from the Cross.

 

[porthos11]

It was because Jesus for them was uttering blasphemy, that He was making Himself equal with God. Jesus, however, was not directly saying that He is God as in: “I AM GOD”

Yes he is. What is blasphemy anyway?

Read it again.

Before Abraham was…__________________

 

[truetofaith]

As others here posted…He did say it, many times, but more importantly he proved it by his many miracles and finally Resurrection.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It was because Jesus for them was uttering blasphemy, that He was making Himself equal with God. Jesus, however, was not directly saying that He is God as in: “I AM GOD”

Actually, by making himself “equal to God” there is no other logical possibility than that such a claim must amount precisely to a claim to be God.

God is the sine qua non and necessary condition of all that exists. There is no other. It is not possible to have two equal Gods. Properly understood, it is impossible to be “equal to God” without actually being God because, according to Aristotle, Aquinas and theistic theology generally, God’s essence is TO BE or to exist. It would be impossible to be equal to God without being the necessary, eternal Ipsum Esse Subsistens underwriting all that does exist. God’s essence is “To Exist” and to exist necessarily by the nature of his essence is what it means to be God.

Where God is concerned, to be equal to God necessarily means to be God. To be equal to God means to correspond in all ways to what it means to be God and the principle feature is to have existence itself as the essential aspect of what it means to exist as God.

When Jesus states, “Before Abraham ever was I AM,” he was essentially declaring himself to be the one eternal God.

 

[carefullytread]

I was hoping I could get you guys to reinterpret the question to something like “Why didn’t Jesus clearly teach that He was one with God?”

I’ve read a lot of apologetics on the question of whether Jesus was God or whether Jesus taught He was God. It’s a well trodden path as you all have amply demonstrated. I think the more interesting way to read the OP question is why isn’t more clear? Why don’t all the Gospels include explicit statements from Jesus about the Trinity?

We can see that in Church history, it took the Fathers of the Church a few hundred years to nail out the specifics. You can find references the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit maybe as far back as 100AD, but it’s not clear exactly what they meant and certainly there wasn’t a consensus.

The great traditions of the Church say that this refinement of dogma was infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, but why didn’t Jesus just teach it clearly?

And I don’t mean to reinterpret OP’s question as an accusation, but as an attempt to understand why the synoptic Gospel’s are not crystal clear on this point. Does the Church instruct us on why the Revelation was not explicit?

That’s a question to which I haven’t seen the apologetic response.

 

[Gorgias]

All of the quotes so far given come from the Gospel of John which is substantially different from the Synoptic gospels.
catholic-resources.org/John/Synoptic-Differences.htm

Ok… so what? It’s still a Gospel; it’s still the Word of God; it’s still chock-full of Jesus saying that he’s God…

It has been argued that if someone says that I and Obama are one in supporting the Affordable Care Act it does not mean that we are one in essence.

Again… yeah, so what? Jesus doesn’t say “the Father and I are one in supporting XYZ” – he says simply “the Father and I are one”, without further qualification. In other words, the phrasing of his statement is precisely why we think Jesus is God (and why we don’t think that you’re Obama).

Also, there is a quote in the synoptic gospels that only the Father knows the day or hour and the Son does not know. If Jesus is omniscient, wouldn’t He know the day or hour also?
Matthew/24:36.
Mark 13:32

The normative response is that Jesus is speaking in terms of his humanity, not his divinity, in these passages.

 

[TimothyH]

I was hoping I could get you guys to reinterpret the question to something like “Why didn’t Jesus clearly teach that He was one with God?”

He did. Clearly. I explained it in post #19.

“The Son of Man”, is how Jesus referred to himself most often. It’s in keeping with the riddles and parables He spoke in to gradually reveal Himself to those who wished to discover Him through discipleship.

He said, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” Only God is Lord of the Sabbath.

-Tim-

 

[Sarcelle]

What are you driving at?

A bit of background on gods and identifying them. In Hebrew and Aramaic, you do not literally say “I am God” to mean what you think that phrase means.

Modern people understand “God” to mean the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Not so in Bible times.

There are many words for “God” or “Gods” or “gods” or “deities” in the Hebrew language. “El” (plural “Elohim”). “Ba’al”. “Elah.” (This last one is Aramaic.) These ones are general. They can apply to any god - from YHWH to Molech, to the Ba’al who had 400 prophets.

You call “God” by His name, or by an honorific, to distinguish Him from the other pompous spirits who are called “gods”.

The most proper name of God is “YHWH” - Yahweh. “Jah” is a short form. “I am who am” is what He calls HImself to Moses - “Ehyeh asher ehyeh” in Hebrew. In Greek it is “Ego eimi ho on”.

“Ego eimi” - I am - isn’t exclusively used for the name of God in the Septuagint.

However, in the context of the passage in John it appears in - literally, “Before Abraham was, I AM” - the tense would be strange if it were not a naming, or at least a hinting.

But Jesus would not say “Eímai énas theós” (modern Greek) or the Aramaic equivalent; that means “I am a god”. He would identify Himself not with “a god”, but with “I am who Am”, or YHWH. And that is what He did in saying “Ego eimi”.

Yes. The Pharisees were rightly outraged when Jesus said those words. It seems Jesus was proclaiming Himself as God.

 

[Todd977]

Just as Jesus did not openly go about saying that he was the Messiah because the general misunderstanding at the time was that the Messiah was to be just the earthly king of Israel, Jesus did not openly go about saying that he was God because the general misunderstanding at the time was that the one God was a Unity, just a solitary divine person, instead being a Trinity, three distinct but inseparable divine persons. Given those prevailing misunderstandings, openly declaring his messiahship and divinity would likely have had undesired consequences.

 

[EveningSkye111]

Yes. The Pharisees were rightly outraged when Jesus said those words. It seems Jesus was proclaiming Himself as God.

Of course. He IS God.

 

[pakengkeng]

He did not correct the Jews. Yes, He was making HImself equal with God.

Your affiliation says Catholic, fredms3. How can you be Catholic if you do not believe in the Trinity?

Its likely,hes been challenged by non trinitarian sect ,who claimed to be christians,but denied the divinity of christ,as there are some verses in the bible ,where jesus described himself as a human being ,not God.i have been challenged before ,by said sects!

 

[TarkanAttila]

Why don’t all the Gospels include explicit statements from Jesus about the Trinity?..The great traditions of the Church say that this refinement of dogma was infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, but why didn’t Jesus just teach it clearly?

Ah, OK. I think I understand your question. That’s a sensible question, considering the heresies - both modern and ancient.

Have you ever heard of the novel “Wise Blood”, by Flannery O’Connor? Ms. O’Connor was a Roman Catholic. The book is about a war veteran, Hazel Motes, who starts “The Church Without Christ”, and preaches evangelical atheism in a city in the American Deep South. It all goes horribly wrong - until he purposefully blinds himself with quicklime.

This book was made into a film by John Huston - a convicted atheist. Now, why would such a man take an interest in a novel about preachers and the Deep South, other than to ridicule it? It turns out the novel and the film were created under two completely different interpretations. Flannery wrote it as a novel about God’s grace, and how God can work on us, frightening us, even despite ourselves. Huston was making a film about an atheist who can’t cope with his atheism, goes mad, and blinds himself to the reality he already understood.

Human interpretation is a strange thing. Two very different people can see two very different things in the exact same book - even the exact same film, if it’s done right. I don’t know why words and ideas don’t seem clearer to us.

It’s a mystery. But I think the closest we’ll get to a solution - it has worked wonders thus far - is to look at everything as a whole. If anyone wishes to understand reality - never mind make any claims about it - it’s kinda difficult if you don’t look at all of reality. Am I right?

So, in short. I think the answer to your question is this: It’s a mistake to ask “why doesn’t just this one thing say it all explicitly?”. Yes, Nicaea 1 codified the divinity of Jesus. But it’s in the Bible. It’s in the Ante-Nicene Fathers. It’s built on a sure foundation, composed of many, differing, but according sources. The same with every other of our precious few dogmas - including the Immaculate Conception.

The only people who make conclusions based on a single, or a few proof-texts from a single source are people who do not understand that a single book can be read in a dozen different lights. But when many sources agree, something is certainly right.

 

[Vico]

What do you think brothers and sisters?

John 8
Before Abraham Was, I Am
48 The Jews therefore answered, and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? 49Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honour my Father, and you have dishonoured me. 50 But I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. 51 Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever. 52 The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest: If any man keep my word, he shall not taste death for ever. 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself? 54 Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God. 55 And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and do keep his word. 56 Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad. 57 The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. 59 They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

John 14
7 If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him.

8 Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us. 9 Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father? 10 Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works. 11 Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?

 

[TimothyH]

Its likely,hes been challenged by non trinitarian sect ,who claimed to be christians,but denied the divinity of christ,as there are some verses in the bible ,where jesus described himself as a human being ,not God.i have been challenged before ,by said sects!

Jesus describes himself as a human being because he is a human being.

-Tim-

 

[adamhovey1988]

What do you think brothers and sisters?

What about when Thomas called Jesus “My Lord and My God”? (John 20:28)

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

What do you think brothers and sisters?

“Before Abraham was, I AM.” Yeah, what does that mean?

 

[mikekle]

Well, who thinks the exact same thing would happen today?

If we heard about some man claiming to be God or the son of God, what would we immediately think? Even if we saw miracles with our own eyes, I bet most would still call him a fraud, hoaxer, etc.

If he did anything remotely against what the powers that be wanted, its pretty sure they would try to discredit him, arrest him, maybe even have him killed…seems like we have not changed much as a species.