Letter on Jesus' own claims to divinity

C----,

Thank you for clarifying your point. It is true that Jesus did not say "I am God" but he did nevertheless claim divinity. His claims were sometimes indirect, but they are there. I can think of at least three places where Jesus claims to be divine. The first is in John's Gospel where Jesus tells the Jews The Father and I are one (10:24-38). Like Matthew 28:18, this passage draws attention to the distinction between the divine persons within the Trinity as well as points to their unity. For Jesus says The Father and I, implying that Jesus himself is not the Father (for the Son is not the Father), but then he adds are one, implying that Jesus is equal to the Father. In order for Jesus to be equal to the Father, he must be divine; in order for Jesus not to be the Father, he must be a different person. Even the Jews to whom he was speaking understood that he was claiming to be God and they were therefore ready to stone him for blasphemy. When asked why they were going to stone him, the Jews replied because you, a mere man, claim to be God (10:33). Earlier in the same Gospel, in fact, the Jews had wanted to kill him for he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God (5:17-18). Apparently, this was something he did a lot. And if the cry of the crowd before the crucifixion is any indication - the cry that he called himself the "son of God" - Jesus must have frequently implied he was divine.

Another passage in which Jesus indirectly claims to be God is Mark 2: 5-11 (also, Luke 5:20-24). In this story of healing, when the paralytic is brought before Jesus, he says your sins are forgiven. Notice again that the Jews realize what he is doing, for they say to themselves Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone? The Jews realize that since only God can forgive sins, Jesus is acting as if he were God. Jesus knows the thoughts of their heart and says Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." His question of which is easier is important because, judging from externals (as the teachers of the law were doing), it is more difficult to say "Get up and walk" since that can be verified by the senses. The claim "Your sins are forgiven," however, is easier to say (though not easier to do) since it can not be verified by the senses. Therefore, according to the pragmatic view, if Jesus can restore the paralytic, he must also be able to forgive sins. And since he acted as God, he must have thought he was God. Since he thought he was God, he was either right or wrong. If he was wrong, he was a lunatic. If he was right, he really was and is God.

Jesus' clearest declaration of his own divinity, however, is in John 8:58. In this passage, after the Jews ask who Jesus is (v. 50), he first implies he is greater than Abraham and then says it directly: before Abraham was, I am. In saying this, he uses the same expression that Yahweh used at Mt. Sinai in answer to Moses' question about who God is: "I am" (Ex. 3:14). The Jews, who were thoroughly familiar with the book of Exodus, knew exactly what Jesus was saying - that he existed before Abraham because he was eternal and, therefore, God - and they tried to stone him because of it (v. 59).

There are other passages that confirm this reading (Jn 13:13; Jn 6:46), but the passages mentioned seem to be the clearest presentation of who, according to the records we have, Jesus himself said he was, for he not only claimed to be eternal and one with the Father but he also acted as if he was God by forgiving sins.

Peace, etc.

From Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

The ontological basis of the communication of idioms is the community and mutual communication of the Divine and human properties and activities in Christ. This derives from the unity of the Person in such fashion that the human properties are predicated of the Word and the Divine properties of the Man-Christ. The communicatio idiomatum in the logical sense (predication of idioms) obviously derives from the ontological reality.

Christ's Divine and Human characteristics and activities are to be predicated of the one Word Incarnate. (De fide)

And later, about the "Rules Concerning the Predication of Idioms":

The nature of the Hypostatic Union is such that while on the one hand things pertaining to both the Divine and the human nature can be attributed to the person of Christ, on the other hand things specifically belonging to one nature cannot be predicated of the other nature. Since concrete terms (God, Son of God, Man, Son of Man, Christ the Almighty) designate the Hypostasis and abstract terms (Godhead, humanity, omnipotence) the nature, the following rule may be laid down: communicatio idiomatum fit in concreto, non in abstracto. The communication of idioms is valid for concrete terms not for abstract ones. So, for example: The Son of Man died on the Cross; Jesus created the world. The rule is not valid if there be reduplication, [and if] by reduplication the concrete term is limited to one nature. Thus it is false to say "Christ has suffered as God," "Christ created the world as a human being." It must also be observed that the essential parts of the human nature, body and soul, are referred to the nature, whose parts they are. Thus it is false to say: "Christ's soul is omniscient," "Christ's body is ubiquitous."

Further, predication of idioms is valid in positive statements not in negative ones, as nothing may be denied to Christ which belongs to Him according to either nature. One, therefore, may not say: "The Son of God has not suffered," "Jesus is not Almighty." Assertions liable to be misunderstood should be protected by clarifying additions like "as God," "as man," for example, "Christ, as man, is a creature."

Interesting stuff, in my opinion.

complementary expressions

From Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine, p. 64:

The co-ordinating formula (filioque) and the subordinating formula (per filium) concur essentially, in so far as they both attest that both the Father and the Son are the Principle of the Holy Ghost and they also complement each other. While in the former the unicity and the indivisibility of the Principle are above all expressed, the latter effectively stresses that the Father is the Primitive Principle (cf. Augustine, De Trin. XV 17, 29: de quo procedit principlaliter), and that the Son as "God from God" is the Derived Principle, in so far as He, with His Essence, also receives the power of spiration from the Father. Cf. D 691.

Note to self: learn about the Filioque controversy.

the divinity of Christ

Taken from Adib Taherzadeh's "Revelation of Baha'u'llah," by way of explanation that Christ is not divine:

Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: 'I am God!' He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world... And were they to say: 'We are the servants of God,' this also is a manifest and indisputable fact. For they have been made manifest in the uttermost state of servitude, a servitude the like of which no man can possibly attain. (33)

So, to rephrase this, were a Prophet to say, "I am God," he speaks in the person of God; even Isaiah writes "I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats," telling not what he - Isaiah - has no pleasure in, but what God has no pleasure in. And were a Prophet to say, "I am a servant of God," he speaks in his own person.

(1) I agree that Prophets speak both in their own name and also in the name of God. But the situation with Christ is somewhat different, for here we have a man who says, "the Father and I are one." This sentence of Christ admits both distinction and unity. The compound subject admits the distinction between Christ and God the Father; therefore, since Christ admits the distinction between himself and the Father, he cannot be speaking in the person of God the Father. Yet he says that they "are one," that is, unity is predicated without qualification of God and Christ (but "one" has many senses, as many as "is" has). (2) However, when Christ appears after the Resurrection to the Apostles, he accepts without rebuke Thomas' worship: "My Lord and my God!" The statement is directed to Christ when Thomas finally sees and believes in His resurrection. To adore Christ as God, if he were not God, would be idolatry, yet Christ has no recorded condemnation or correction for Thomas' adoration (though he does for his sluggish faith). (3) To the question of whether or not he was greater than the Jewish patriarchs, Christ says "before Abraham was, I AM." If he had been speaking in the person of God the Father, his answer would have been irrelevant to the question at hand (since the Jews already knew God was greater than the patriarchs); and Christ's answer clearly claims divinity, naming himself with the name that God revealed as His own (cf. Ex 3:14). (4) Also, while Christ was on earth, he forgave sins -- not only of those who appeared to offend him, but who appeared not to have offended him (e.g. Mk 2:5, Lk 7:48). If Christ was not God, he would have been either mocking or fooling those to whom he said, "Your sins are forgiven." (5) And last, the Resurrection, which is unparalleled in history.

the two natures of Christ

The Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon, from the fifth session, held 22 October 451.

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before all the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from the earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

I love the precision of the council: "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation."

the real presence

He told his disciples "This is my body," and said to them, "This is my blood." Was he serious? He often spoke in parables. But a parable is a story that embodies a teaching, e.g., once a farmer went out to sow, etc., so this is not a parable. Is it a simile? He did not say "This is like my body." Is it a metaphor? Are we to take it literally?

From John 6:48-60 (RSV):

I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"

He insisted on the necessity of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He said "truly, truly," which indicates that what follows is of grave importance. But many departed that day, and they left because they realized he was not speaking in parables any more. His flesh is real food, and his blood is real drink. This is a hard teaching, who can accept it? The apostles accepted it; they did not leave, for Peter replied, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (68).

From 1 Cor 11:20-29 (RSV):

When you meet together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Paul rebukes the Church of Corinth. They gathered to celebrate and remember the Lord's Supper, but as though it were a common meal like any other. They were eating and drinking in an unworthy manner: they did not discern the Lord's body. Notice the words of Christ he choses to quote: hoc est meum corpus. As if it were enough to rebuke them, he reminds them what is happening. As often as we do this, we proclaim the Lord's death; the mass is a reverberation of the sacrifice of Calvary.