As evidence for the divinity of Jesus, many interpreters point to texts that seem to ascribe God’s unique divine name to Jesus, indicating Jesus’ participation in the unique divine nature. Some of these are claims made about Jesus, other are claims put on the lips of Jesus himself. Some attempts to make this case are less successful than others.

One God, One Lord

An example of a frequently used proof-text that is not so successful can be found in 1 Cor 8:6: “Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

Traditionalist scholars such as N.T. Wright attempt to argue that what we see here is a reconfiguration of the traditional Shema in order to include Jesus within it. The Shema says, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.” So for Wright and others, the fact that Paul uses the keywords “God,” “Lord,” and “One” is a clue that he is including Jesus within the Shema.

At its absolute best, this reading is tenuous. Frankly, it strikes me as ridiculous. Apart from the use of the keywords, there is nothing at all about the structure of Paul’s formulation to suggest that he is imitating the Shema. Paul’s language of creation is entirely foreign to the Shema. At best, “for us there is one God,” alludes to the Shema, and the statement about one Lord is attached as a secondary statement. A parallel to this configuration is found in another text within the Pauline tradition: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5). Here it is clear that Jesus is a human being. The point is to emphasize that Jesus is now the only being through whom there is access to God, i.e., not Moses, not the angels who mediated the old covenant, etc.

Indeed, this is similar to what Paul is saying here in 1 Corinthians 8. Let’s look at the text again, starting a few verses prior:

Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “no idol in the world really exists,” and that “there is no God but one.” Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor 8:4-6)

Note the parallels here, set in contrast:

While it is true that the Greek word kyrios (“lord”) was used as a stand-in for the divine name Yahweh, kyrios has a wide range of meaning, from “sir” to “Kyrios Caesar” to “Yahweh.” Paul is saying that in heaven, although there are many so-called gods, there is only one: God, and that on earth, although there are many so-called lords, there is only one: Jesus the Messiah. There is no claim here for anything like divinity for Jesus, and any attempt to find it in this passage I’m afraid is merely projection. It is true that Paul does say that “all things” are “through” Christ, which many take to be a claim about Christ’s status as Creator God. But this is not so. The language of agency is crystal clear here. All things come from God, but Christ is the agent through whom God has brought all things about. Moreover, although Christians are said to exist through Christ, it is only for God that this is so. Paul here is presenting Jesus as God’s agent through whom God has accomplished the redemption of the world and humankind. This is precisely the same claim made in 1 Tim 2:5, in which there is one God, and one mediator between God and men—the man Jesus. (It is not clear precisely what Paul means by claiming that “all things” are through Christ. He may mean that Christ was the agent at the beginning when the world was made, or he may mean that all things have been recreated in the eschaton through the work of Christ. The latter is more probable, although the former is not problematic for my position as I will show in a later post.)

The Name of the Father, Son and Spirit

Another less than successful attempt to include Jesus within the unique identity of Yahweh is with reference to Matt 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Much is made of the fact that the word “name” here is in the singular. This is supposed to indicate, so it is argued, that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all share one single name. As James McGrath comments, “For those who insist that the use of ‘name’ in the singular proves that the three who are mentioned have a single name (which is in itself difficult, since three names are used!), I will simply draw an analogy: If a bank opens an account in the name of a child and of his parent or guardian, would any English speaker assume that there is only one name in mind?”¹

Alpha and Omega

Now, having said all that, there are some fairly unambiguous examples of Jesus identifying himself with the divine name. This occurs to a certain extent in Revelation, at the end of the book: “See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Rev 22:12-13). This is significant because at the beginning of the book, this language is ascribed to God: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Ruler over all.’” However, the title “Ruler over all” is ascribed to God nine times in Revelation, and not once to Jesus. Nevertheless, it is clear that Jesus and God are both said to share the title, “Alpha and Omega,” the beginning and the end. It is not certain how we ought to understand this. This is apocalyptic literature, which is highly metaphorical. Saying that Jesus is the beginning and the end is likely a way of expressing that he fulfills God’s plan. In the beginning, man was created to bear God’s image. In the end, man has been restored to his original dignity, because of the work of Jesus. Therefore, in a metaphorical sense, Christ is the beginning, because the beginning and the end are the same. This could be understood as an Adam typology. That the name is also ascribed to God means that God has accomplished this. Whatever it means, we may reasonably take this as evidence that in some sense Jesus is said to bear one of God’s “names.” (The dude has thousands.)

The Name I Am

A much less ambiguous example is found in John 8:58. “Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” This is significant for two reasons. (1) Jesus seems to be claiming to be older than Abraham. (We’ll talk about preexistence a couple posts from now.) (2) Jesus, it appears, has used the divine name (“Yahweh”) for himself. “So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple” (John 8:59). It would seem that Jesus is here claiming to be none other than Yahweh himself, and that this provoked the mob to kill him, presumably, for blasphemy. So Jesus, Yahweh himself, took off running and hid behind some pillars for a couple hours until the coast was clear.

Well, I’m going to argue that Jesus wasn’t claiming to be Yahweh, and that they would not have understood him to be claiming such a thing. The blasphemy Jesus committed was that he claimed to be Yahweh’s preeminent royal emissary. In the ancient world, when a king sent an emissary to speak on his behalf, that emissary was to be treated just as the king himself. Whatever the emissary said was to be taken as the word of the king. Whatever the emissary did was to be understood as the actions of the king. The emissary came in the name of the king, bearing the king’s emblem. In the same way, Jesus is here claiming to come in the name of Yahweh. The authority of Jesus equals that of the one who sent him. Jesus’ eminence is greater even than Abraham’s.

Other Bearers of the Name

The idea of a messenger of God bearing God’s unique name is not unique to the Jesus of John’s gospel. It is found in the Old Testament, and in multiple texts from roughly the same period as the Gospel of John, and some from later. We will consider one example from each of these three periods.

I am going to send an angel in front of you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Be attentive to him and listen to his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him. (Exod 23:20-21)

Note the language: “my name is in him.” Yahweh has sent a messenger who has been given full authority to act on Yahweh’s behalf because he comes bearing Yahweh’s own name. Rebellion against this angel is tantamount to rebellion against God, and the angel has the authority to withhold pardon, executing God’s judgment, because the angel bears the name.² Another example of this idea of bearing the divine name can be seen in the Apocalypse of Abraham:

And it came to pass, when I heard the voice of Him who spake such words to me, and I looked hither and thither and lo! there was no breath of a man, and my spirit was affrighted, and my soul fled from me, and I became like a stone, and fell down upon the earth, for I had no more strength to stand on the earth. And while I was still lying with my face upon the earth, I heard the voice of the Holy One speaking: “Go, Yahoel, and by means of my ineffable Name raise me yonder man, and strengthen him so that he recover from his trembling.”

And the angel came, whom He had sent to me, in the likeness of a man, and grasped me by my right hand, and set me up upon my feet, and said to me: “Stand up, Abraham, Friend of God who loveth thee; let not the trembling of man seize thee! For, lo! I have been sent to thee to strengthen thee and bless thee in the name of God—who loveth thee—the Creator of the celestial and terrestrial. Be fearless and hasten to Him. I am called Yahoel by Him who moveth that which existeth with me on the seventh expanse upon the firmament, a power in virtue of the ineffable Name that is dwelling in me. I am the one who hath been given to restrain, according to His commandment, the threatening attack of the living creatures of the Cherubim against one another, and teach those who carry Him the song of the seventh hour of the night of man. I am ordained to restrain the Leviathan, for unto me are subject the attack and menace of every single reptile. I am he who hath been commissioned to loosen Hades, to destroy him who stareth at the dead. I am the one who was commissioned to set on fire thy father’s house together with him, because he displayed reverence for dead idols. I have been sent to bless thee now, and the land which the Eternal One, whom thou hast invoked, hath prepared for thee, and for thy sake have I wended my way upon the earth. Stand up, Abraham! Go without fear; be right glad and rejoice; and I am with thee! For eternal honor hath been prepared for thee by the Eternal One. Go, fulfill the sacrifices commanded. For lo! I have been appointed to be with thee and with the generation prepared to spring from thee.” (Apocalypse of Abraham, 10)

The name Yahoel is a combination of the two primary names of God: Yahweh, and El. Obviously the angel is not understood to be God, but he is given the names of God as his own name. Yahoel has “power in virtue of the ineffable Name that is dwelling in me.” Yahoel has been given authority over all the hostile powers upon the earth, and has been commissioned to oversee and accomplish the blessing conferred by God upon Abraham and all Israel. Another example, admittedly from much later, involves the exaltation of a human being, namely Enoch, to the status of divine agent. He is given the name Enoch-Metatron, but is also called by another name, and refers explicitly to the aforementioned passage in Exod 23:21:

Metatron, the Prince of the Presence, said to me: By reason of the love with which the Holy One, blessed be He, loved me more than all the children of heaven, He made a garment of glory on which were fixed all kinds of lights, and He clad me in it. And He made me a robe of honor on which were fixed all kinds of beauty, splendor, brilliance and majesty. And He made me a royal crown in which were fixed forty-nine costly stones like unto the light of the globe of the sun. For its splendor went forth in the four quarters of the Araboth Raqia, and in the seven heavens, and in the four quarters of the world. And He put it on my head. And He called me THE LESSER YHWH in the presence of all His heavenly household; as it is written: “For my name is in him.” (3 Enoch 12)

Here an exalted human figure is expressly called by the name Yahweh, while the distinction between the true Yahweh and the agent Enoch-Metatron is maintained by the qualifier: “the lesser.” Although this text is later than both John and the Apocalypse of Abraham, it provides evidence that even in later times, the idea of an agent bearing the divine name, while still being distinguished from the one true God, was perfectly intelligible, and that such intelligibility was derived from scripture itself, with the reference to Exod 23:21.

Less dramatically, but no less significantly, in a Samaritan holy book called the Memar Marqah, it is said that Moses was given the name of Yahweh and that the name gave him power. Here, knowing the name Yahweh was not just a bit of information, so that he could satisfy Pharaoh’s curiosity. It is understood here as an investment of divine authority and power into Moses. “ה is the Name with which Moses was vested” (Memar Marqah 4:1).³ Again:

All your enemies will fall before you. Do not fear them, for they are in your power. With the rod I gave you, you will be able to subdue them. Who will be able to stand before you, when My Great Name is with you? Verily, every foe will fall before you as suddenly as evening falls. (2:13)

During the time these traditions were developing, there were also disputes between two factions claiming to be led by Moses’ eschatological successor. It was believed the disputes could be settled by which prophet could perform the greater wonders. Since Moses was considered to be the greatest ever wonder-worker, the prophet like Moses would have to be also. (This is good background to Jesus’ disputes with the Jews in John, in which he offered his miracles as evidence to verify his right to bear the divine name.)

Also interestingly, one of the two rival Samaritan prophets (whose name was Simon) was often referred to as “the Great Power,” a common name for God in the Memar Marqah.

John 5

Now, with this in mind, let’s return to the Gospel of John and examine Jesus’ three exchanges with the ruling class Jews over his identity. The first occurs in chapter 5:

The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. Therefore the Jews started persecuting Jesus, because he was doing such things on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father is still working, and I also am working.” For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God. Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. The Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing; and he will show him greater works than these, so that you will be astonished. Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomsoever he wishes. The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life.

“Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself; and he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.” (John 5:15-27)

What is the issue here? The issue is not that Jesus healed a man, but that Jesus healed on the sabbath. To work on the sabbath is considered an infringement of the law of Moses, which is the law of God. Jesus responds that God never stops working, therefore, as God’s agent, Jesus never stops working. He claims a unique relationship to God only enjoyed by royalty (father/son). The Jews then are said to have sought to kill Jesus, because Jesus was “making himself equal to God.” Now what exactly is in this charge? What is controversial is not the idea of an agent being equal to God. The idea of God sending an agent on his authority was not controversial. That is what many of them were hoping for. What was controversial for them was that Jesus was claiming to be that agent. There are a number of possible reasons why these ruling elites would not have thought it possible for Jesus to be that agent, but the text only gives us one: because Jesus was breaking the sabbath law. How could Jesus be from God if Jesus is breaking God’s law? Jesus’ answer is that he is only doing what his father is doing. God works through the sabbath, and as God’s ambassador, as the appointed executor of God’s will, Jesus is doing what God would do.

They do not like this, so they accuse Jesus of making himself equal to God. That is the charge. It is not a denial that such an agent could exist, but a denial that Jesus is that agent. They are saying that his claim to such agency is illegitimate. And what does Jesus say in response? He denies the accusation. He is not making himself equal to God. Rather, it is God who has granted Jesus his authority. “The Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing.” “The Father . . . shows him all the he himself is doing.” “The Father has given all judgment to the Son.” “Just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” “He has given him authority to execute judgment.” “Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” Recall the words of Yahweh regarding the angel who bears his name: “Be attentive to him and listen to his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him.” As God’s emissary, Jesus represents God completely. What Jesus says, God says. What Jesus does, God does. Rebellion against Jesus is rebellion against God. On the other hand, Jesus is still in a sense restricted in what he can do. He “can do nothing on his own.” He can only do what God has shown him to do. This is not the language of ontological equality. This is clearly and emphatically the language of functional equality.

To reiterate: the accusation is that Jesus has claimed equality with God for himself. The rebuttal is a denial, circumscribing Jesus’ authority by showing that it is in submission to the one who granted it to him.

John 8

They said to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “Why do I speak to you at all? I have much to say about you and much to condemn; but the one who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.” They did not understand that he was speaking to them about the Father. So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me. And the one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him.” As he was saying these things, many believed in him.
. . .
“Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets also died. Who do you claim to be?” Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, ‘He is our God,’ though you do not know him. But I know him; if I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him and I keep his word. Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day; he saw it and was glad.” Then the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (John 8:25-30, 53-59)

It is now quite easy to see what is being said here. Although the saying, “before Abraham was, I am,” is probably meant to remind the reader of John’s prologue, in which preexistence is ascribed to the one who would become (or come upon) Jesus (a claim about which we will have much more to say in a later post), we can now see how this claim to the divine name would have been understood—not as a claim to ontological equality with God, but as a claim to be the unique bearer of the divine name, sent on God’s authority. Again, Jesus impresses upon them that he does not come on his own authority, as a usurper of God’s authority (which they believed was fully invested in their temple regime), but on God’s authority alone, as an agent and executor of God’s very will, which Jesus has not made up according to his own fancies, but is derived solely from “what I have heard from him.” Jesus is “sent.” He says, “I do nothing on my own.” He only says what God has instructed him to say. As a rebuttal to their accusations that Jesus is an usurper who is going against God’s will, Jesus replies, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me.” They have accused him of not truly being from God, of not truly knowing God. Jesus turns the accusation back in their face. “You do not know him, but I know him.” They want him to admit that he is a false prophet. Jesus says the only thing that someone backed into such a rhetorical corner can say: “If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar.” The argument escalates, until Jesus’ claims culminate with the assertion that his authority is greater than Abraham’s since Jesus is the bearer of the divine name. This was the last straw. Not only has he falsely claimed to be the preeminent prophet, he has now uttered the unutterable name.

John 10

The same basic dispute occurs again later, after Jesus has healed a blind man on the sabbath (chapter 9), which the elite Jews interpreted as another affront on God’s law, and therefore on the authority of the “divinely” established regime. This particular exchange occurs at the temple, which is the center of conflict between Jesus and the regime. His presence in the temple is seen as a threat to the regime. Moreover, this exchange takes place during the festival of Dedication, which was the festival commemorating the rededication of the temple by the Maccabean regime after it had been defiled by Antiochus Epiphanes, who claimed divinity for himself and usurped Yahweh’s authority in Jerusalem. This whole narrative of Antiochus’s blasphemy against the temple and his exalted claims about himself is at the forefront of the minds of the Jews at this time. Into this fray comes Jesus, who is flouting the authority of the ruling elites, claiming the prerogative to perform on the sabbath, even to forgive sins.

At that time the festival of the Dedication took place in Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the portico of Solomon. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered, “I have told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name testify to me; but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand. The Father and I are one.”

The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, a man, are making yourself God.” Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled—can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (John 10:22-38)

What did Jesus say to cause this reaction from the temple Jews? “The Father and I are one.” He has done works “in the name” of the Father, and those works should testify to the fact that Jesus is truly sent from God. They ask for proof that he is the Messiah (i.e., God’s Son, i.e., sent from God), and his response is that he has already shown them ample proof, yet they do not believe. This is a condemnation of them. If Jesus is telling the truth about the source of his authority, then he has just condemned the temple regime and their obedient retainers to exclusion from God’s will, of which he is the executor. He has said that they will be excluded from the eternal life that God has granted Jesus the authority to give to those who believe in him. No one can snatch his sheep from his hand, precisely because they are given to him by God. God is backing Jesus. What Jesus does, God does. “I and the Father are one.”

Now, this was (rightly) interpreted by the ruling class Jews as a threat to the temple regime. Recall the context of this exchange. It is a celebration of the rededication of the temple after it had been defiled by someone falsely claiming divine authority. Jesus’ words are interpreted in this same way. Jesus is seen as a type of Antiochus. He is threatening the temple. Although Jesus claims to represent the true God, he is in (their) reality setting himself up as a God unto himself. As McGrath writes,

The objectionable character of what the Johannine Jesus says may possibly have been enhanced by a misunderstanding: “the Jews” may have understood Jesus’ assertion, “I and the Father are one,” in the sense of “I am the Father” or “I and the Father are one and the same person,” rather than as a reference to the unity of the Father and Son. Nonetheless, the claim of the Son to carry out divine prerogatives is the key issue, and thus it is the idea that the Son and Father are one in action that is in focus in the controversy described in this passage. As in John 5, the issue is the claim that Jesus does what God does, and, more specifically, whether it is justified and legitimate to make such a claim for Jesus.⁴

What is Jesus’ response to this accusation that he is making himself God? Is it a defense of his rightful claim to divinity? No! It is a correction of their pedantic misconstrual of his language. Jesus quotes a line from Psalm 82:6. Now originally, this Psalm would have been referring to (supposedly) actual gods in the Canaanite pantheon, over whom Yahweh was now taking his place. But at the time of Jesus, well after Judaism had shifted from a polytheistic to a monotheistic worldview, this text was interpreted differently. The “gods” here were sometimes interpreted as angels, but that cannot be what John has in mind here. According to McGrath,

In the most common form of rabbinic interpretation of Psalm 82.6, the Israelites are addressed as ‘gods’ at Sinai because, when Torah was given, they became deathless, the Angel of Death being restrained from affecting them any longer. But when they sinned, they lost this privilege, with the result that they shall “die like men” [82:7]. This was sometimes connected with the similar imagery applied to Adam in Genesis 3: Adam could have had access to immortality, but through his disobedience to the commandment, death gained power over him.⁵

The “Israel at Sinai” interpretation is clearly the interpretation the Johannine Jesus has in mind, because he explicitly identifies the “gods” as “those to whom the word of God came.” This is a clear indication that the Johannine Jesus saw Israel at Sinai in the background here. So what does that tell us about Jesus’ response to the accusation that he was “making himself God”? Jesus is saying that according to scripture “gods” can be an appropriate term to speak of those who have received the word of God. Again, I concur with McGrath:

The designation of the agent or viceroy of God as “god,” and the special relationship of sonship, go hand in hand. In Jewish tradition, both Israel and (less frequently) Adam are referred to as God’s son [on Adam, cf. Luke 3:38]. This further elucidates the argument John is putting forward: sonship and agency are inextricably interconnected. To claim to be God’s son—and at the same time to rule on his behalf, in complete unity with him, as his viceroy and agent, doing his work and wielding his authority, perhaps even being called by God’s own name—is to be regarded as legitimate on the basis of the fact that the very same imagery is applied to Adam and Israel in Jewish tradition. There is thus nothing blasphemous about making similar claims for Jesus.⁶

But there is another element involved here as well. Let’s look at the text Jesus cites in fuller context:

“How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked?
Give justice to the weak and the orphan;
maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

They have neither knowledge nor understanding,
they walk around in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

I say, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
and fall like any prince.” (Psa 82:2-7)

Here, on John’s reading of the psalm, Yahweh is critiquing Israel for its systemic injustice, for the fact that it has given favor to the powerful while abandoning the weak and the vulnerable. Because Israel refuses to do justice, they will lose their exalted status as “gods,” i.e., as “special agents.” Rather than live forever, they will die. Now we can see how the logic of Jesus’ reading of this psalm parallels the counter-accusation Jesus is making against the elite Jews. God has spoken to them in Jesus, but they have rejected his word and have persisted in their injustice. Therefore, eternal life (John 10:28) will not be given to them, but to others. In sum, Jesus is denying his opponents claim to “godhood” and claiming it for himself, and for those who hear his voice and obey. This is not a claim to divinity in any sense other than the sense in which “god” is an appropriate word to refer to God’s chosen agent. (More on this in the next post.)

God’s Prerogative in Mark 2 and Matthew 9

We’ll look now at one final example of Jesus exercising the “divine prerogative” before concluding this post. A frequently cited text that is presumably evidence that Jesus was making claims for himself about his divine status is found in Mark 2:5-12, and its significant parallel in Matt 9:2-8.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” At once Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, “Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven,” or to say, “Stand up and take your mat and walk”? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he said to the paralytic—“I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home.” And he stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!” (Mark 2:5-12)

Now, the significant difference between this version in Mark and the version in Matthew is in the response of the on-looking crowd after Jesus healed the paralytic. In Mark, their response is, “We have never seen anything like this.” In Matthew, however, this is said:

When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men. (Matt 9:8)

It is argued by apologists that by healing the paralytic, Jesus thereby verified his divinity, proving that, as God, he had the authority to forgive sins. Obviously this is not at all what the text proves. In Mark, after the miracle, the crowd’s response is to “glorify God,” not Jesus. And in Matthew, the conclusion to the matter is not that Jesus proved himself to be God, but that he proved that God had in fact given the authority to forgive sins to a human being. In the same way, as we noted in an earlier post, the authority God gave Jesus to forgive sins, Jesus further confers upon his disciples (John 20:23). Once again, the issue at stake was whether or not Jesus’ authority really came from God, not whether or not he really was God. Once again, Jesus points to his deeds in order to legitimate his claims to being God’s emissary, the executor of his will, the bearer of the signet ring, the one in whom God’s ineffable name dwells.

1. James F. McGrath, The Only True God, 115, n.15. [BACK]
2. I can already hear some of you saying, “But isn’t this just an Old Testament appearance of Jesus before he assumed his human form?” If that were the case (which it is not), then this would be evidence that Jesus’s preexistent status was that of an angel, not of the second person of the Trinity. [BACK]
3. “ה” was a common abbreviation for YHWH. [BACK]
4. James F. McGrath, John’s Apologetic Christology, 119. [BACK]
5. Ibid., 123. [BACK]
6. Ibid., 126-27. [BACK]