The Gospel of John is by far the easiest Gospel to mine divinity quotes from, and I do have a theory as to why this specific gospel, as opposed to others, is littered with them.
Late, High Christology?
I think the development of the “I am” sayings can also be chalked up to Jewish precedent. We’ve demonstrated that they have some precedent in Mark, but with Jewish persecution and Christianity being persecuted during the 60s, and heavily in the late 60’s with the Neronian flavour (when the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke) are argued to have been written by many scholars) by the 80/90s, post the destruction of the Jewish temple, its plausible that Christians may have had more theological “freedom” to more clearly expound Jesus’ claims to divinity.
Only in the Gospel of John?
Another point I want to highlight and that is semi-related to the above is what I’ve discovered is a rather interesting position. It goes like this:
“John has a lot of ‘divine’ statements, therefore John is not historically reliable”.
You won’t often hear it phrased like this, but you do hear people start to doubt John’s credibility simply because he has a higher concentration of divine statements in his gospel. However, this sort of scepticism is contradictory, simply because it’s an arbitrary standard that doesn’t entail historical reliability or unreliability. All the Gospels are unique in some way, but why does a higher concentration of divine statements somehow necessarily reduce John’s credibility?
The ’Contradictions’ Argument
In a debate that Bart Ehrman had with Peter Williams, he pushed his ‘contradictions argument’ (which he usually does to discredit the historicity of the Gospels). The issue with this sort of argument is that Bart can’t claim that there are contradictions (which is at a logical level) and then later claim that implausible explanations should be dismissed. If one proposes a contradiction, it doesn’t matter how implausible my explanation is (at least, when we’re dealing with a possibly supernatural text. and there are many plausible ones), the interlocutor just needs to offer an explanation that is not logically contradictory to refute one’s claim. The explanation may reduce the posterior probability of the event at hand, but that’s not an issue if one is pushing an argument as strong as claiming logical contradictions.
Without further adieu, I’ll highlight what I think are the most impactful passages in this Gospel regarding Jesus’ self image.
- John 5:17-18, 22-23
‘ So he told them, “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” For this reason the Jewish leaders were trying even harder to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God.’
17-18
‘ Furthermore, the Father does not judge anyone, but has assigned all judgment to the Son, so that all people will honor the Son just as they honor the Father. The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.’
22-23
I feel like John’s making my own points for me. He highlights that Jesus’ idea that he had the authority to break the Sabbath without consequence and familial language used with reference to the Father designate that he clearly is putting himself on the same stool as God the Father.
Secondly, although we do see some individuals in the Old Testament referring to God as the ‘Father’, such as Isaiah 63:16 and Isaiah 64:8 – both of these passages use the term ‘our Father’. John seems to note that Jesus’ use of the term ‘My Father’ in the presence of those around him is especially significant. The following verses support this reasoning, because in verse 23 above we see that this ‘Son’ that Jesus refers to is to be honoured in the same way as the Father. If he meant ‘Son’ in an adoptive sense (like the spiritual sense we are all ‘sons’ and ‘daughters’ of God) then it doesn’t make sense to say that all of us as ‘Sons’ would be honoured in the same way as the Father. What makes much more sense is that Jesus’ sonship is distinct and divine.
- John 8:57-9
‘ Then the Judeans replied, “You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!” Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area.’
You’re strapped to a wooden chair with a blindfold on and you don’t know where you are. You’re being interrogated, and the interrogator says:
“This is your last chance. One verse. What one verse definitively proves that Jesus claimed to be God in the gospel of John – get it wrong, and I’ll blast your head off.”
The interrogator flips the safety on his gun and presses it to your temple, but you’re unfazed. Cooly and calmly, you respond.
“John 8:58.”
The interrogator lowers his handgun and begins to clap slowly.
Anyway.
If you read the verse above, you’d see why this verse was virtually a slam dunk with respect to Jesus’ divine self-image – not only does Jesus claim a form of pre-existence (which is something that Jewish theology about that time did not ascribe to mortal beings) but he seems to quite literally use the exact same phrase that God used to name himself to Moses in Exodus 3:14:
‘ Moses said to God, “If I go to the Israelites and tell them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ – what should I say to them?” God said to Moses, “ I am that I am .” And he said, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘ I am has sent me to you.’” ‘
And, to be sure, they intended to stone him to death – but why would they do that if what he said didn’t count as blasphemy?
- John 10:18 (the greatest passage in the Bible (unbiased take))
‘ No one takes [my life] away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”’
Here we have the greatest verse in the Bible. There aren’t many (if any) individuals that have the authority or power to ‘lay down’ their life and ‘take it back again’. Understandably, the Jewish people surrounding him were confused – thinking that he was ‘possessed by a demon’. It’s not like they would understand how it would be possible for someone to die and somehow ‘raise himself’ back to life. However, the sort of being that can ‘lay down’ his own human life and ‘take it back again’ is surely something supernatural, and it’s not clear how Angels would have this sort of ability.
- John 10:30
“’ The Father and I are one.”’
Another verse that frequently appears in these sorts of debates is the one above. Often, the counter is that claiming to be ‘one’ with someone does not entail (in this case) that Jesus is also God, they could just share the same purpose. Generally, I think this is actually a valid response, until you keep reading the text and see the reaction of the crowd in verse 33:
‘ The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy, because you, a man, are claiming to be God.”’
The verses following this show a little bit more squabble between the two parties, but the end of verse 38 along with the above verse really do seem to confirm that Jesus was making a divine claim.
‘ But if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe the deeds, so that you may come to know and understand that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” ‘
I’ll leave you to guess how they reacted.
- John 17:1-5
‘ When Jesus had finished saying these things, he looked upward to heaven and said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you – just as you have given him authority over all humanity, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. Now this is eternal life – that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent. I glorified you on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory I had with you before the world was created.’
This is another verse that tends to get a lot of attention in these debates. Oftentimes, counterarguments press on verse 3, where Jesus refers to the Father as ‘the only true God’. In a context where God is necessarily one person, this more or less would seal the deal, however, such an interpretation would struggle with verse 5, specifically where Jesus asks that the Father ‘glorify him at [his] side with the glory [he] had with [him] before the world was created’. To my knowledge, pre-existence was reserved for God and God alone, so a theology that only accepts one person in God can’t make sense of this verse. A theology that accepts more than one, however…
A brief note from Jewish sources
You might be surprised to hear that it wasn’t just Christian sources that (may) corroborate Jesus’ status as a miracle worker. The Toledot Yeshu (ספר תולדות ישו), is a medieval text that presents an alternative and moderately anti-Christian view of Jesus’ life. There are quite a few versions, but it’s not considered canonical/normative within Rabbinic literature. Strangely, it does acknowledge Jesus’ status as a miracle worker, but attributes these miracles to sorcery:
“After that, the people of the Galilee made birds of clay in their presence; [Yeshu] pronounced the Shemhameforas over them and those birds instantly flew away”[1]
That’s part 4 done! The next part will start to get into the actual meat of this topic. So far, all we’ve done is lay groundwork. We’ve established that the Gospels are historically reliable, that Jesus died by Crucifixion, that there is good reason to believe that traditional authorship is correct, and that Jesus claimed to be God. If you make it this far, I salute you, and thanks for reading,
Rookie
1 – Meerson. M, Schäfer. P, Toledot Yeshu: The Life Story of Jesus, p. 22, available at: https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9783161587276_A40600688/preview-9783161587276_A40600688.pdf (accessed 02.02.2025)
RookieApologises 