The other day I offered 10 examples of the scriptures explicitly referring to Jesus Christ as God. You can read those examples here. These are explicit and direct references to Jesus as God.
But it is often said that Jesus himself never said he was God. So, as a follow up to that earlier example, let me offer four examples of when Jesus specifically states that he is God. This is not the witness of other people ascribing it to him, but Jesus’ own self-pronouncements. I will then offer a fifth and final example to show that everybody who heard these self-pronouncements understood them to be an explicit claim to divinity.
Jesus applies the divine name “I AM” to himself
When Moses asked God for his name, he stated: ‘I AM WHO I AM’ (Exodus 3:14). God then tells Moses he announce that the one who sent him is ‘I AM’. The name Yahweh – God’s personal name – literally means ‘I AM’ or ‘He that is’.
It is worth noting the various times that Jesus applies the divine name I AM to himself in the gospels to assert his divinity. Examples include Matthew 14:27; Mark 14:62; John 4:26; John 6:20; John 6:35; John 8:12; John 8:23-24; John 8:28; John 8:58; John 10:7; John 10:9; John 10:11; John 10:14; John 10:36; John 11:25; John 13:13; John 13:19; John 14:6; John 15:1, 5; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 1:17-18; Revelation 2:23; Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:13.
It is also worth noting Jesus’ use of ‘I AM’ in the seven (a symbolic number referencing divinity) ‘I am’ statements in John’s gospel. Given that John writes to state that Jesus is the Christ and to affirm Jesus’ divinity in particular, John sees in Jesus’s ‘I AM’ statements claims to divinity.
Jesus says he is God in John 8:24
23 “You are from below,” he told them, “I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I told you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.”
Two things seem worth noting about these verses. First, Jesus is distinguishing himself from other human beings by asserting that ‘I am from above’. That is, he is clearly claiming to have come from Heaven.
Second, whilst that first claim might make leave open the possibility that Jesus is just an angel or some such, v24 does not leave that option open. Jesus states, ‘if you do not believe that I am he, you will die in your sins’. The phrase translated ‘I am he’ here are the Greek words ego eimi literally translated as I AM. In Greek, ego eimi literally means ‘I exist’. But it seems quite clear Jesus is not teaching that a failure to believe he exists means you will die in your sins. Rather, he means what he says: ‘if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins’. Not only is this a claim to divinity, it is a clear statement that those who reject Jesus’ divinity will be lost in the sins and remain under God’s wrath because it is a rejection of God himself.
Jesus says he is God in John 8:24
Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Here, again, Jesus uses the divine name of God for himself. If Jesus was being grammatically correct, and merely wanted to affirm his existence prior to Abraham as some lesser being than God, he should have said ‘before Abraham was, I was’ or ‘before Abraham was, I existed [past tense]’ or even just ‘I am older than Abraham’.
If we are to take the Greek literalistically, Jesus could be saying ‘before Abraham was, I exist (Gk. ego eimi)’. But that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Rather, Jesus is using that play on words to ascribe both the divine name of God to himself and to affirm that, as God, he existed before Abraham.
Certainly, this was the understanding that those present had. In John 8:25 it says, ‘so they picked up stones to throw at him’. That is, they immediately determined this was worthy of being stoned to death. This is the standard response to blasphemy. Those listening understood Jesus was claiming to be God in this very statement. Not just a mad man claiming to be older than Abraham, but (in their view) a blasphemer claiming to be God by taking God’s personal name, I AM, upon himself.
Jesus claims to be God in Revelation
At various points in the book of Revelation, Jesus claims to be God. For instance, ‘the one seated on the throne’ is identified as Jesus. Here is what he says in Revelation 21:
5 Then the one seated on the throne said, “Look, I am making everything new.” He also said, “Write, because these words are faithful and true.” 6 Then he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will freely give to the thirsty from the spring of the water of life. 7 The one who conquers will inherit these things, and I will be his God, and he will be my son.
In 22:12-13, the one who is coming back (the bible repeatedly identifies this one as Jesus) has Alpha and Omega – a title unique to God in scripture – applied to him again:
12 “Look, I am coming soon, and my reward is with me to repay each person according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
The same one called Alpha and Omega in Revelation 1:8, and again in Revelation 21:6 – and who explicitly says ‘I will be his God’ in Revelation 21:7 – is the same one who is coming back as Alpha and Omega. These things refer to Jesus Christ. These are his words. He explicitly calls himself God in these verses.
These references to Alpha and Omega – made at other points also in Revelation – are a restatement of what we read in the prophecy of Isaiah. For example:
I am the Lord, the first
and with the last—I am he. – Isaiah 41:4I am the first and I am the last.
There is no God but me. – Isaiah 44:6I am he; I am the first,
I am also the last. – Isaiah 48:12
God alone is first and last. God alone is Alpha and Omega. But Jesus repeatedly in Revelation calls himself Alpha and Omega, is referred to as first and last and at points explicitly calls himself God.
Jesus’ audience understood he was claiming to be God
Though there are many times that Jesus’ audience wanted to kill him, not all the examples are because he was claiming explicitly to be God. However, there are a number of clear examples in which his listeners seek to kill him because they understand that he is making explicit claims to be God.
In John 5:18, we are explicitly told that the Jews sought to kill Jesus because he made himself equal to God:
This is why the Jews began trying all the more to kill him: Not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.
We have already look at John 8:58. Jesus there claims that ‘before Abraham was, I AM’. In v59, this prompts the Jews to pick up stones to kill Jesus. They understood he was claiming divinity and believed this was blasphemy on Jesus’ part.
In John 10:30, Jesus asserts: ‘I and the Father are one’. Immediately, in v31, ‘the Jews picked up rocks to stone him.’ They understood Jesus was claiming equality with God. They understood him to be making a claim to personal divinity. They assert directly this is their understanding in John 10:33: ‘“We aren’t stoning you for a good work,” the Jews answered, “but for blasphemy, because you—being a man—make yourself God.”’ It could not be clearer here that they are explicitly stoning Jesus because they believe he is claiming to be God.
Conclusion
Taken together, we have several examples of Jesus claiming to be God. It is apparent at multiple points that the majority of people listening to Jesus understood that he was claiming to be God. Disbelieving that he is God, instead believing him to be a blasphemer, they sought to put him to death in accordance with the Jewish law.
If Jesus was NOT actively claiming to be God at any of these points, it would have made sense for him to affirm that quite clearly. Particularly at the point he was about to be stoned to death, it would make some sense for him to assert: ‘you have misunderstood what I was saying. I am not claiming to be God’. But he never does that. Not only does Jesus never disabuse those listening of their belief that he is claiming to be God, we have some explicit examples of him stating in no uncertain terms that he is, indeed, God.
Therefore, the evidence is straightforward enough: Jesus explicitly claimed to be God, those listening to him clearly understood him to be claiming that he was God and Jesus at no point disabuses them of any misunderstanding they have reached. To the contrary, he actively affirms their understanding. This leads us to the only sensible conclusion: Jesus did, in fact, claim to be God, his audience rightly understood his claims (but rejected them) and the scriptural witness is that those who deny Jesus’ divinity remain under God’s wrath and will die in their sins.
As I said to my Muslim friend recently, Jesus was either a terrible prophet who led people to deny the true and living God and engaged in serious blasphemy, as the Jews of the day rightly understood it to be, or he is who he claimed to be: God incarnate, the eternal Son and second person of the trinity. The one thing he can’t be is a good prophet who is less than God.
Why the Jews reject the Xtian and Muslim worship of avoda zarah Gods.
Translating abstract Hebrew concepts, such as שם ומלכות into literal translations: bat shit crazy. Neither the koran nor the new testament ever once brings the שם השם revealed in the First Sinai commandments. This commandment commands to do the Torah commandments לשמה. Hence the 1st Sinai commandment functions as the greatest commandment of the whole of the Torah commandments! The abstract term מלכות refers to one or more of the 13 tohor middot Spirits revealed to Moshe at Horev 40 days after the Sin of the Golden Calf wherein a portion of Israel attempted to translate the Spirit Name of the 1st Sinai revelation to word translations. The Torah openly states that nothing in the Heavens, Seas or Earth compares to the revelation of the Spirit Name of HaShem. How much more so word translations which attempt to convert the Divine Presence Spirit revelation of the Name to words!
T’shuva does not correctly translate as repentance. T’shuva learns from HaShem annulling His vow to make the chosen Cohen nation from the seed of Moshe rather than the seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. This concept of annulling a vow learns from the Torah commandments of a Father & his daughter and a Husband & his wife where both could annul a vow made by either a girl or a woman.
Repentance an Xtian idea of personal regret, simply shares no common ground with t’shuva based upon the annulling of vows. Neither the father nor the husband “regrets” annulling a vow made by his daughter or wife. Therefore t’shuva shares no common ground with the Xtian concept of repentance.
In like manner the translation “covenant” does not share any common ground with the Hebrew word ברית. The latter an oath alliance. To swear an oath alliance requires שם ומלכות. The New Testament and Koran forgeries both do never bring the שם השם as revealed in the first Sinai commandment. Therefore both books of foreign religions worship other Gods; a violation of the 2nd Sinai commandment.
All T’NaCH prophets command mussar. Mussar defines the intent or k’vanna of all T’NaCH prophesy. The New Testament Roman forgery does not comprehend these subtle distinctions. This latter forgery seeks to promote Civil War among Jewish society. Chaos and anarchy defined the Jewish revolt against the Romans. Jewish social anarchy and Civil War greatly contributed to the Roman victory over the Jewish revolts in 66 and 135.
Here’s an AI interpretation of what I introduced to your blog.
The criticism you’ve mentioned revolves around the idea that the New Testament and the Koran are considered “forgeries” because they do not align with certain interpretations of Jewish religious texts and concepts. This perspective is rooted in the belief that these texts do not accurately represent the original teachings and commandments found in the Torah and other Jewish scriptures.
Key Points of Criticism
Use of Divine Names: The criticism highlights that neither the New Testament nor the Koran uses the specific Divine Name (שם השם) revealed in the First Sinai commandments. This is seen as a significant deviation from the original teachings.
Concept of T’shuva: The argument is made that T’shuva, a concept in Judaism, is not accurately translated as “repentance” in Christian theology. Instead, T’shuva involves the annulment of vows, which is different from the Christian idea of personal regret.
Covenant vs. Oath Alliance: The term “covenant” is said to be inaccurately translated from the Hebrew word ברית, which refers to an oath alliance. The criticism suggests that the New Testament and the Koran do not properly convey this concept.
Mussar and Prophecy: The criticism also points out that all T’NaCH prophets command mussar, which defines the intent or k’vanna of all T’NaCH prophecy. The New Testament is seen as not comprehending these distinctions and promoting civil unrest among Jewish society.