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

[Randy_Carson]

II. Did Jesus act as God might act?

1. Jesus forgave sins – which only God can do.
   Luke 5:20
2. Jesus accepted worship.
   Matthew 2:2, 11
   Matthew 14:33
   Matthew 28:9, 17
   Luke 24:52
   John 9:35-38
3. Jesus did not reject worship.
   Revelation 19:10 – the angel tells John to worship God only; Jesus never tells anyone not to worship Him.

III. Did Jesus’ disciples believe He was God?

1. Thomas worshipped Jesus
   John 20:28-29
2. John declared that Jesus is God.
   John 1:1, John 1:14
3. Paul taught that Jesus was God.

Romans 10:9-13
because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord (kurios) and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord (kurios) will be saved.”

In verse 13, Paul quotes an Old Testament prophet who was speaking about God when he wrote:

Joel 2:32
“And it shall come to pass that all who call upon the name of the LORD (kurios) shall be delivered”

Thus, in one brief passage, Paul uses the word kurios, or Lord, to speak about both the Father and the Son proving that Paul believes that Jesus is God.

1. The author of Hebrews clearly shows that the Son of God is God.

Hebrews 1:1-9
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?
Or again,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”?
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”
7 In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.”
8 But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

IV. Did Jesus’ enemies believe He claimed to be God?

1. The Jews tried to stone him for blasphemy.
   John 8:58 – “I AM’
   John 10:30-33 – second attempted stoning
2. The Sanhedrin asked Jesus if He was the Messiah and the Son of God
   Mark 14:61-62 (cf. Daniel 7:13-14, Psalm 110)

V. Did the demons recognize Him as God?

Mark 1:23-24
23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, 24 “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”

 

[Peter_Plato]

… as I mentioned in an earlier post, the Son of Man is not a title for God; it’s a powerful figure distinctly not God in the Jewish theology, and two that the scribes are amazed and glorify God, not Jesus. If they interpreted it as Jesus saying He is God, you might expect them to glorify Him directly. After all, they would be in presence of God!

These aren’t slam dunk arguments, but they do raise the question of the OP of why it isn’t more clear. To be honest, if I didn’t know the Church’s teachings on this matter, I would not read this passage as proof that Jesus was God, but rather that He had been given the ability to forgive sins and what the scribes learn how incredible He is, but not that He is God.

You are going to have to explain the behaviour of the high priest in this passage from Matthew:

Matt 26:63- 26:68 NRSVCE

But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your verdict?" “He deserves death.”

The only possible interpretation of the high priest’s behaviour is that Jesus blasphemed BECAUSE he was implying that he was God when he said “and you will see the Son of Man …coming on the clouds of heaven.” This was an explicit reference to the book of Daniel and an implicit assertion that the Son of Man is God. There were numerous passages in the OT referring to God as having his domain “in the heavens” or walking “in the clouds of heaven.”

Obviously, the high priest recognized what you have such a problem admitting. Jesus claimed to be God. AND in the Gospel of Matthew, no less.

 

[Tomdstone]

…and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever. (Romans 9:5)

…awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, … (Titus 2:13)

He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities–all things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:15-17)

For in Him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, (Colossians 2:9)

“…he [Christ], for whom and by whom all things exist…” (Heb 2:10)

Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen." (Romans 9:5)

“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” (Philippians 2:6-7)

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have a slightly different translation of these passages in their New World Translation of the Bible.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

When I read Mark 2:1-12, I can do so with the benefit of all the teachings on Christ’s divinity that have come afterwards. But if you don’t know that just look at the passage (I’ll use KJV)

you could pretty easily take that to mean “It’s not just God that can forgive sins, but Jesus too.” Two reasons for this are that one, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the Son of Man is not a title for God; it’s a powerful figure distinctly not God in the Jewish theology, and two that the scribes are amazed and glorify God, not Jesus. If they interpreted it as Jesus saying He is God, you might expect them to glorify Him directly. After all, they would be in presence of God!

These aren’t slam dunk arguments, but they do raise the question of the OP of why it isn’t more clear. To be honest, if I didn’t know the Church’s teachings on this matter, I would not read this passage as proof that Jesus was God, but rather that He had been given the ability to forgive sins and what the scribes learn how incredible He is, but not that He is God.

But in the Jewish culture only God to forgive sins. So since Jesus forgives sins and only God can forgive sins, Jesus is God!

 

[carefullytread]

But in the Jewish culture only God to forgive sins. So since Jesus forgives sins and only God can forgive sins, Jesus is God!

Hi JB, I don’t think the OP is, and I’m not, trying to argue that Jesus isn’t God. The question is why isn’t it more explicit in the synoptic Gospels.

Your are right that this is a good argument for Jesus being God. But the passage could have been gone several different ways. Jesus might have responded to the scribes, “And so you know I’m God”, but He never says words like that.

He might have still cured the paralytic and then the scribes might have responded “Now we see that you are God!”

Instead, what we get is the scribes being properly scolded and then praising God, but the word used here for God is Θεὸν, which is used in reference to God the Father throughout the Gospels. As far as I know, Jesus is never referred to as Θεὸν by the synoptic Gospel writers.

So it seems to me that there the arguments based on this passage can be used as evidence that Jesus is God, but they aren’t a response to the question “Why don’t we get Jesus called God directly here?”

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Hi JB, I don’t think the OP is, and I’m not, trying to argue that Jesus isn’t God. The question is why isn’t it more explicit in the synoptic Gospels.

Your are right that this is a good argument for Jesus being God. But the passage could have been gone several different ways. Jesus might have responded to the scribes, “And so you know I’m God”, but He never says words like that.

He might have still cured the paralytic and then the scribes might have responded “Now we see that you are God!”

Instead, what we get is the scribes being properly scolded and then praising God, but the word used here for God is Θεὸν, which is used in reference to God the Father throughout the Gospels. As far as I know, Jesus is never referred to as Θεὸν by the synoptic Gospel writers.

So it seems to me that there the arguments based on this passage can be used as evidence that Jesus is God, but they aren’t a response to the question “Why don’t we get Jesus called God directly here?”

Well it was pretty direct for the Pharisees to mutter “Blashphemy!”

“Before Abraham was I am,” was direct enough for people who had been hanging on Jesus’ words earlier to pick up rocks to stone Him.

 

[carefullytread]

Well it was pretty direct for the Pharisees to mutter “Blashphemy!”

“Before Abraham was I am,” was direct enough for people who had been hanging on Jesus’ words earlier to pick up rocks to stone Him.

Hi JB, I’m not completely certain on what the blasphemy would mean to the Pharisees. I found here a rabbi commenting on blasphemy in Judaism and he says

According to the Gospels of Matthew (26: 63-6) and Mark (14: 53-64) Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin on a charge of blasphemy, but New Testament scholars have puzzled over both the question of the historicity of the event and the precise nature of the offence.

so I’m not alone in not understanding what it means.

Could it mean “He says that God has given Him the ability to forgive sins and that’s an insult against God” rather than “He says He can forgive sin which means He is God and that’s an insult against God”? The same with Luke 5:21. I don’t see in the synoptic Gospels a clear statement that the first interpretation isn’t correct.

Again, I’m not arguing that this is the right interpretation, but it seems to me that a ‘viceroy’ claim by Jesus isn’t ruled out explicitly by any of the synoptic passages. It took the Church several hundred years to stamp out all the heresies that arose from this misunderstanding and I don’t think the heretics were interpreting in bad faith. It’s very possible to read the synoptic Gospels and come to the conclusion that Jesus doesn’t claim to be God.

The Church gives us lots of arguments for why those conclusions are wrong, but the Gospels themselves don’t teach it explicitly They imply it, sure, but again, I think the question of why that is circumspect to be interesting and I genuinely wonder if the Church teaches us why the synoptics are treat the topic this way.

If you want to deny that it is even a valid question, that’s fine, but I think you miss the opportunity to look into a fascinating theological point.

The “I AM” quotes are much more definitive, but these all occur in John which I don’t believe is the focus of the thread.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Hi JB, I’m not completely certain on what the blasphemy would mean to the Pharisees. I found here a rabbi commenting on blasphemy in Judaism and he says

so I’m not alone in not understanding what it means.

Could it mean “He says that God has given Him the ability to forgive sins and that’s an insult against God” rather than “He says He can forgive sin which means He is God and that’s an insult against God”? The same with Luke 5:21. I don’t see in the synoptic Gospels a clear statement that the first interpretation isn’t correct.

Again, I’m not arguing that this is the right interpretation, but it seems to me that a ‘viceroy’ claim by Jesus isn’t ruled out explicitly by any of the synoptic passages. It took the Church several hundred years to stamp out all the heresies that arose from this misunderstanding and I don’t think the heretics were interpreting in bad faith. It’s very possible to read the synoptic Gospels and come to the conclusion that Jesus doesn’t claim to be God.

The Church gives us lots of arguments for why those conclusions are wrong, but the Gospels themselves don’t teach it explicitly They imply it, sure, but again, I think the question of why that is circumspect to be interesting and I genuinely wonder if the Church teaches us why the synoptics are treat the topic this way.

If you want to deny that it is even a valid question, that’s fine, but I think you miss the opportunity to look into a fascinating theological point.

The “I AM” quotes are much more definitive, but these all occur in John which I don’t believe is the focus of the thread.

“I AM and you will see the Son of Man…” Yeah He did claim to be God in the Synoptics.

 

[carefullytread]

“I AM and you will see the Son of Man…” Yeah He did claim to be God in the Synoptics.

In Mark 14:62, Jesus is responding to the question in 14:61 “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” when he says “I am”. It isn’t one of the “I AM” statements like we see in John.

And I don’t think anyone here is denying that He claimed to be the Messiah, just that this claim isn’t necessarily the same as the claim to be God. It’s only in our later understanding to we understand that the Messiah is God. I don’t think Jews then or now thought that the Messiah would be God, just as they used sometimes “Son of God” to refer to their kings.

But, fair enough, if you disagree with the premise of the question, we don’t need to continue.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Hi JB, I don’t think the OP is, and I’m not, trying to argue that Jesus isn’t God. The question is why isn’t it more explicit in the synoptic Gospels.

So why did Jesus mostly speak in parables and figurative language? Why wasn’t he more explicit with EVERYTHING he said?

In other words, his NOT being explicit with regard to being God aligns completely and consistently with his not being explicit with regard to everything else he said and taught.

If you want to make the issue an issue, then make it with regard to the complete corpus of his teachings.

In fact, the closest he came to being “explicit” in the sense you mean was when he stated categorically, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life within you.”

What happened as a result?

Many left and no longer followed him. Did he call them back? Did he say, “Hey fellas I wasn’t being literal or explicit?”

Perhaps he wouldn’t have lasted the three years that he needed to form the Apostles and disciples if he spoke without couching his teachings in figurative language. Clearly, from their writings and teachings after Jesus died, those who followed him knew precisely what he was getting at.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In Mark 14:62, Jesus is responding to the question in 14:61 “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” when he says “I am”. It isn’t one of the “I AM” statements like we see in John.

Huh?

You know that, how?

Why did the high priest tear his clothes and declare that Jesus deserved to die?

Many came before and after Jesus claiming to be the Messiah but they were never treated this way by the high priest nor by the leaders of Judaism. These claimants were never accused of blasphemy.

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12416-pseudo-messiahs

Therefore, Jesus "I am” statement must have been understood by the Sanhedrin and the high priest as inherently blasphemous. Why would that have been, unless he claimed to be more than merely the Messiah, but also God?

 

[Peter_Plato]

General misunderstanding??

The Jews had a specific word they used for centuries to describe their kings of Isreal, and they called him “the anointed one”–aka, the “messiah”.
I think they understood what they wanted and hoped for.

What “undesired consequences” could have happened to Jesus had he been more clear about who he was?

.

The Jews didn’t invent the word, therefore they didn’t have a full understanding of what it entailed.

The Messiah was promised to the Jews BY God, therefore they were waiting for someone they didn’t fully comprehend, nor invent from whole cloth.

Ergo, what the Jews as a people thought the Messiah would be, as opposed to what God promised who or what the Messiah would actually be, is a crucial distinction.

Clearly, the Jews didn’t fully understand what they hoped for or were promised by God, and what they “wanted” was really irrelevant, in any case.

They wanted a king to rule over them “like the other nations,“ even after God was completely forthright that what they wanted wasn’t for their ultimate good. He capitulated and gave them Saul, David and Solomon – things went sour from get-go.

The whole OT is a litany of Israel wanting stuff that wasn’t good for them and God sorting out the messes they created as a result.

The Prophets continually spoke against what the people “wanted” by frequently characterizing those “wants" as the desires of an adulterous wife.

 

[e_c]

So why did Jesus mostly speak in parables and figurative language? Why wasn’t he more explicit with EVERYTHING he said?

In other words, his NOT being explicit with regard to being God aligns completely and consistently with his not being explicit with regard to everything else he said and taught.

If you want to make the issue an issue, then make it with regard to the complete corpus of his teachings.

In fact, the closest he came to being “explicit” in the sense you mean was when he stated categorically, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life within you.”

What happened as a result?

Many left and no longer followed him. Did he call them back? Did he say, “Hey fellas I wasn’t being literal or explicit?”

Perhaps he wouldn’t have lasted the three years that he needed to form the Apostles and disciples if he spoke without couching his teachings in figurative language. Clearly, from their writings and teachings after Jesus died, those who followed him knew precisely what he was getting at.

We have a winner!

This would also go right along with the refusal to jump off the Temple and fly around.

 

[Darryl_B]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have a slightly different translation of these passages in their New World Translation of the Bible.

There is probably a good reason for that, my friend, as it is equally important you don’t learn Greek.

 

[Darryl_B]

So why did Jesus mostly speak in parables and figurative language? Why wasn’t he more explicit with EVERYTHING he said?

In other words, his NOT being explicit with regard to being God aligns completely and consistently with his not being explicit with regard to everything else he said and taught.

If you want to make the issue an issue, then make it with regard to the complete corpus of his teachings.

In fact, the closest he came to being “explicit” in the sense you mean was when he stated categorically, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life within you.”

What happened as a result?

Many left and no longer followed him. Did he call them back? Did he say, “Hey fellas I wasn’t being literal or explicit?”

Perhaps he wouldn’t have lasted the three years that he needed to form the Apostles and disciples if he spoke without couching his teachings in figurative language. Clearly, from their writings and teachings after Jesus died, those who followed him knew precisely what he was getting at.

Maybe Jesus Christ was primarily teaching his disciples, he even said so. Everyone else would only understand when the Apostles expounded. Maybe there is a perfectly good and sound reason for this. I believe there is. There are many ways Jesus could have “presented” himself to the people, he chose this approach for a reason, and it obviously wasn’t defeatist.

 

[Peter_Plato]

We have a winner!

This would also go right along with the refusal to jump off the Temple and fly around.

An excellent discussion of where the strongest evidence for the deity of Christ is to be found is here…

youtu.be/tNdLWwVKddg

Craig Evans and Gary Habermas make the case that the very early credal formulas found in Paul and the other letters arose just months after the crucifixion of Jesus. This means it was part of the Christian tradition from the very beginning that Jesus claimed to be God.

Start at the about the 45 minute mark for the discussion on the topic of the deity of Christ based upon Jesus’ use of Daniel and Psalms and at about the 58 minute mark to hear what Gary Habermas has to say about Paul and the credal statements.

The entire 2+ hour discussion relative to the recently published books questioning who Jesus was is well worth listening to.

 

[PJM]

What do you think brothers and sisters?

Actually He DID

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.

 

[Tomdstone]

Actually He DID

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.

Non-Trinitarians claim that this refers figuratively in the sense of the Father and the Son being “united in will and purpose," but not in essence.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Non-Trinitarians claim that this refers figuratively in the sense of the Father and the Son being “united in will and purpose," but not in essence.

“I AM.” John 18. As a result of that the soldiers fell to the ground.

 

[Tomdstone]

“I AM.” John 18. As a result of that the soldiers fell to the ground.

Non-Trinitarians such as JW claim that Jesus was created before Abraham. Further, there have been questions raised about why the gospel of John is so much different from the Synoptic gospels.