Did Jesus Claim to be God?

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." John 10:33, NET

To many readers, John 10:33 seems to show that the Jews understood Jesus to be claiming he was God. But a closer reading, especially in context and in light of the biblical concept of agency, points in another direction. The issue is not that Jesus claimed to be Yahweh Himself, but that he, “being a man,” claimed a status and authority his fellow Jews believed he had no right to claim.

Context is King

Throughout John’s Gospel, the conflict is not about Jesus claiming deity in the later Trinitarian sense. The real issue is whether Jesus was truly God’s agent or just another religious upstart, a messianic pretender seeking honor for himself. From their point of view, such a man was a false prophet and worthy of death under the Law (Deut. 13). The controversy, then, was not about later metaphysical speculation, but about legitimacy: Was Jesus truly the Messiah and Son sent by God, or was he exalting himself?

That distinction matters because the Jews already knew from Scripture that God could appoint human beings as His representatives and invest them with His authority. Moses, for example, is called “god” in Exodus 4:16 and 7:1. Israel’s judges are also called “gods” in Exodus 22:8 and Psalm 82:6. Yet no one imagined that Moses or the judges were literally Yahweh. They were called “god” in a subordinate, functional sense because they represented God, spoke for Him, and acted on His behalf. Indeed, Moses and several of the prophets sometimes even spoke as God in the first person, which was accepted language of divine representation (Deut. 11:14; 29:6; Isa. 3:4; 34:5; 53:11-12; Hos. 5:10-12, 14-15; 6:4-6, 11-7:2; Hab. 1:5-6; Zech. 14:2).

That background is essential for understanding John 10.

Jesus’ opponents say, “you, being a man...” Their objection was not that Jesus was making himself God alongside the one God of Israel. Rather, it was that this man was claiming a divine authority and commission they believed he neither possessed nor could possess. In their eyes, Jesus was making himself out to be a legitimate agent of God when he was no such thing.

For that reason, the sense of John 10:33 may be better captured by translating theos as “a god” rather than simply as “God.” That fits the context more naturally, and Jesus’ own reply supports it.

In John 10:34, Jesus answers:

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?”

That appeal to Psalm 82:6 is decisive. Jesus reaches back to a passage in which certain human beings, recipients of God’s word, are called “gods.” He is not appealing to a text about Yahweh becoming a man. He is appealing to a recognized biblical category in which human agents of God can bear divine titles in a subordinate sense.

He continues:

“If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came...” (John 10:35)

Son of God not "God the Son"

Then comes the heart of his defense:

“Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:36)

This is crucial. Jesus does not answer by saying, “I am God.” Instead, he clarifies his claim in biblical language: “I am the Son of God.”

That is the actual claim under dispute.

Jesus presents himself as the one sanctified, sent, and authorized by the Father. This is the language of mission and agency, not a claim to be the one God Himself.

He then appeals to his works:

“If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me” (John 10:37).

And then:

“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 10:38).

Again, the emphasis is not on metaphysical essence or ontology, but on unity of purpose, action, and commission. Jesus points to the evidence that the Father is working through him. This fits the biblical principle of agency: the one sent represents the sender so fully that his words and actions carry the sender’s authority. In that sense, such an agent may bear divine designations without being God in the absolute sense.

That is how Jesus presents himself throughout John’s Gospel. He is the one whom the Father has sent. He speaks the Father’s words, does the Father’s works, and seeks the Father’s glory, not his own.

Trinitarian Concessions

What makes this reading even more significant is that some Trinitarian sources acknowledge its legitimacy. The New English Bible notes:

“Thus, purely on the basis of the Greek text, it is possible to translate John 10:33 as ‘a god,’ rather than to translate it ‘God.’”

Similarly, the ESV Study Bible says:

“Jesus’ point in quoting Ps. 82:6 is that if human judges (Ps. 82:2–4) can in some sense be called gods (in light of their role as representatives of God), this designation is even more appropriate for the one who truly is the Son of God (John 10:33, 35–36).”

This matters because it shows that the representative reading is not a non-Trinitarian invention. It arises naturally from the biblical context and from Jesus’ own defense.

The Jews, then, charged Jesus with being “a mere man” who was illegitimately exalting himself into a position of divine authority. In their eyes, he was a false claimant to divine agency. The irony is that Jesus was exactly who he said he was all along: the unique human Son of God, the one sanctified and sent by the Father, the promised Messiah.

This same accusation appears again in John 19:7, which helps interpret John 10:33:

“We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself Son of God.”

Conclusion

That was the point his enemies found intolerable. Modern readers often miss this by reading later Trinitarian categories back into the text. Jesus’ opponents accused him of making himself more than “a mere man,” but that does not mean he was claiming to be the one God Himself. Their objection was that he claimed to be God’s uniquely authorized Son, the expected Jewish Messiah.

That is the real force of John 10:33. Far from teaching that Jesus claimed to be God Himself, the passage shows him defending his God-given mission in categories his Jewish audience should have recognized from their own Scriptures.

Saturday study 4/4/26 Kingdom-Christian Living

 READ: Acts 8:14-40

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he was heralding the Gospel about the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus the Messiah, they were being baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:35-38 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the gospel of Jesus…The eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”

AB footnote, Acts 8:35.

In the NT [the gospel of Jesus] always means both the Gospel of the Kingdom as Jesus preached it and the facts about the death and resurrection of Jesus. 

Talking Points

• To get baptized you must have heard, understood the gospel of (not just about) Jesus;
• This all starts with the parable of the sower in order to be “born again,” from above.
• Then ask yourself at least these 2 key questions:

1. What does the NT mean by the Gospel?
2. What does the Bible as a whole mean by the Kingdom of God? 

• Anything else = "another Jesus,” I.e., “God-man”; “another gospel," e.g., Past (preterist), 
• Present (Millennial Kingdom Now), “Already Not Yet" (most Postmill)! 
• Readings: Dan 2;7; Ps 2; Isa 11;

Introduction

• Jesus Purpose Driven Life (Luke 4:43) was not sent/commissioned to preach: “the kingdom is under construction”; “the kingdom is spiritual,” in your heart; “the kingdom is your country,” “one nation under God”; or “the kingdom of God is” here or spreading.
• Jesus did not change the fundamental definition of the kingdom as envisioned, proclaimed, warned about and promised by the OT prophets: i.e., the restoration of Israel, the throne of David, and the people of God ruling the nations, ultimate peace on earth. 

READ: Dan 2:37-45; 7; Ps 2; Isa. 11.

• The prophecies define the kingdom as the worldwide government of God, ruled by a glorified human person, the son of man = His unique, anointed Son.
• The kingdom comes suddenly, abruptly not in stages let alone human effort, USA or UN.
• Jesus in Luke 17:22-36 and Paul in 1 Thess. 5:1-10, stress that the kingdom arrives like lightning, flood, fire, or a stone crushing the kingdoms of this world—not like some long, drawn out building project.

Christian/Kingdom Living Now

• Christian or Kingdom Living now, must not be confused with the future Kingdom on earth;
• Jesus and the apostles consistently, primarily talk about the Kingdom as yet future to us, e.g., we enter, inherit, that is possess the kingdom at the parousia.

Matthew 25:34 

“Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, and inherit the Kingdom which has been prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 

1 Corinthians 15:50 

Now I say this to you, brothers and sisters: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God; the perishable does not inherit the imperishable. 

• Jesus taught us to pray, “May Your Kingdom come,” not, “May Your Kingdom keep growing in our hearts” or in this present evil age, Matthew 6:10;
• Galatians 1:3 Grace and peace to you from God who is the Father and from our lord Jesus Messiah, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.

(Matt. 19:28; Mark 9:47; Luke 22:18; Luke 22:29-30; Acts 1:6-7; Acts 3:21; Acts 14:22; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:21; 2 Tim. 4:1; Jas. 2:5; 2 Pet. 1:11; Rev. 5:10; Rev. 20:4-6).

What About?

• The few texts that speak of the Kingdom in a present sense, such as Col. 1:13 and Rom. 14:17, must be understood in their wider prophetic context. 
• Paul’s point is that Christians have already been rescued from this present evil age so they live now as kingdom people now.
• Romans 14:17 likewise describes the same Christian living for those who expect to inherit that coming Kingdom.
• The Kingdom itself remains future, to be established at Jesus’ return, when judgment, peace, and the reign of the saints over the nations will become reality. Until then, believers endure trials as they await entry into that Kingdom.
• The NT also sometimes uses what is called a futuristic or prophetic present, speaking of an event so certain that it is regarded as already in the process of coming to pass. This is similar to the more familiar prophetic past, where future events are spoken of in the past tense because they are certain to occur.
• For example, in his communion service (Matt. 26:28, Jesus says, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins”;
• The future judgment (Matt. 3:10, where John the Baptist says, “The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire”); 
• And in Matt. 23:13 Jesus rebukes the scribes and Pharisees for shutting the Kingdom of heaven in people’s faces, not allowing “those entering to go in,” cp. Luke 16:16; Heb. 6:5.
• For more 2022 kogmissions conference:  https://youtu.be/A6Oa2M53Ffo?si=elbX80o6FGWcX6w_
• Right now we have the foretaste, firstfruits, and spirit as down payment but we do not yet possess the Kingdom itself in its concrete, prophetic form.

Ephesians 1:13 In him, when you heard the word of the truth — the Gospel of your salvation — you believed it and were sealed in him with the holy spirit of the promise, 14 which is a down-payment on our inheritance, until we acquire possession of that inheritance, to the praise of His glory.

Hebrews 2:7 You made him for a little while lower than the angels. You have crowned him with glory and honor, 8 and You have put all things in subjection under his feet.” For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But at present we do not yet see all things subjected to him. (Rom. 8:23; 2 Cor. 1:22; 2 Cor. 5:5; Col. 1:13). 

• Therefore, we are waiting to inherit the Kingdom and rule with Jesus at the parousia and resurrection, when all things will finally be subjected under God’s appointed Messiah.

1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all.

2 Timothy 2:12 If we endure, we will reign as kings with him. If we renounce him, he will renounce us. 

(Dan. 7:27; Matt. 24:30-31; Luke 19:11-12, 15; Heb. 2:5; Rev. 2:26-27; Rev. 11:15; Rev. 20:4-6).

Acts 14:22: “through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.” 

• Recommended Readings

The word “until” – Kingdom Gospel

Historicism vs. Futurism (Daniel 9:24-27) – Kingdom Gospel

The Presence of the Kingdom

The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Theology by  Robert Saucy · 2010

Along with the primary teaching of the epistles that the kingdom is future, there are a few statements that relate it to the present experience of believers. Some passages speak of spiritual characteristics of the kingdom that are already in operation through the Spirit. Paul’s teaching that “the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Ro 14:17) is plainly attempting to encourage these traits in the present church. But applying kingdom characteristics is not necessarily the same as declaring that the kingdom has come and is presently established. According to William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, the “kingdom” here, in accord with Paul’s normal use, is the messianic kingdom, which is “the reward and goal of the Christian life.” The principles of that kingdom mentioned in this passage are, however, already exhibited in this world through the indwelling Spirit.(83) Viewing the kingdom Christologically, Cranfield, following Käsemann, says that “it is in the presence and activity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and only so, that the kingdom of God is experienced in the present.”(84)

Paul’s statement to the Corinthians that “the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power” (1Co 4:20) is another application of the kingdom to the present. Instead of arrogant human “talking,” the apostle sought the power of the kingdom—a reference, according to the context, to the power of God in the gospel that was manifest by the Spirit (cf. 1Co 1:18, 24; 2:4–5). While this teaches a present relation to the kingdom and the experience of its power, it hardly demonstrates a present established kingdom in distinction to the apostle’s general teaching of a future kingdom. As C. K. Barrett says, “It is always an eschatological concept (though sometimes brought forward into the present), and the power with which it works is the power of the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom. xiv. 17), by which God’s purpose is put into effect and the future anticipated in the present.”(85)

The apostle has just chided the Corinthians for their boasting as if they had already attained the kingdom and were reigning as kings (cf. 4:8). He would hardly talk of a present kingdom just a few verses later.

The verse that most clearly expresses some kind of present position in the kingdom is Paul’s statement that the Father “has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Col 1:13). Many scholars view this “kingdom of the Son” as a present spiritual kingdom of salvation that believers enter into at the moment of conversion.(86) For example, Peter T. O’Brien, concurring with C. F. D. Moule that the kingdom is “entirely moral and spiritual … for the disciples of Christ,” declares, “It is here an existing reality, a present possession.”(87) Curtis Vaughn pointedly states, “The ‘kingdom’ (rule) is not to be interpreted eschatologically. It was for the Colossians a present reality (cf. John 3:3–5).”(88)

The context, however, favors an eschatological meaning for the kingdom in this verse.(89) Immediately preceding this statement, the apostle wrote that the Father “has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light” (Col 1:12). Several terms in this statement point to the future. Werner Foerster says that the term inheritance (klēros) “is used to denote the eschatological portion assigned to man.”(90) In addition, according to O’Brien, to describe the inheritance as belonging to “the saints in the kingdom of light” means that it is “in the realm of the light of the age to come” and is the equivalent of the “hope laid up in heaven (v. 5; cf. 3:1–4).”(91) Therefore the saints are presently qualified (the Greek aorist tense) to share in the inheritance, but the reference is to a future blessing.

That this “inheritance … in the kingdom of light” (Col 1:12) is related to being “brought into the kingdom of the Son” (v. 13) is seen in the connection of “light” and “darkness” in these two verses. T. K. Abbott notes that the apostle spoke here of an inheritance in “light” rather than “in the heavenlies” because he wanted to represent the condition of natural mankind as “darkness” in verse 13.(92) To be qualified for “the kingdom of light” (v. 12) is therefore the equivalent of being “rescued … from the dominion of darkness and brought … into the kingdom of the Son” (v. 13).

If such is the case, then this reference to the kingdom, like many others in Paul’s writings, belongs to the eschatological category of an inheritance that is already assured. It is the equivalent of the saints’ having their “citizenship in heaven” (Php 3:20). This is the view of Charles A. Briggs, who acknowledges that he came to it after for many years holding the position that believers were already in a present kingdom.

Elsewhere in the Pauline epistles the kingdom has always had an eschatological reference and has been an inheritance, a kingdom of glory….My final study of it [Col. 1:13],in its connection with the Messianic conception of the Epistles of the Imprisonment, leads me to the opinion that the kingdom is eschatological here also. It is parallel with the inheritance in light. As the kingdom is elsewhere an inheritance, its parallelism with inheritance and its substitution for it in a common antithesis to authority of darkness favors that reference here. The only difficulty is in explaining how Christians may be said to be transferred into a kingdom which in its nature is eschatological. The solution of this difficulty is found in the parallelism with citizenship in heaven of the Epistle to the Philippians; and with the life hid with Christ of our Epistle [Col. 3:3].(93)

This relationship to the future kingdom, however, does carry with it a present blessing. Believers whose citizenship has been transferred into Christ’s kingdom are now free from “the dominion of darkness,” by which the apostle means the “satanic or demonic powers,”(94) whose slaves they had formerly been and over whom Christ had triumphed. But this deliverance is not yet all-encompassing. It relates to the believer’s inner personal or spiritual freedom from the domination of the evil powers, but not yet deliverance from outward evil.(95) The present effect of belonging to Christ’s kingdom is elaborated in the following verse: “… we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col 1:14). According to Thomas Sappington, Paul in this verse, which by construction is intimately related to verse 13, “reminds his readers what they possess because of redemption ‘in Christ.’”(96)

Being presently “brought into the kingdom of the Son,” therefore, signifies not a kingdom reign, but spiritual salvation through a relationship with the coming King (cf. “in whom,” Col 1:14), even as we saw previously concerning the present relationship to the kingdom in the teaching of Jesus. The same essential truth is expressed by Paul in relation to his commission. Christ had sent him to the Gentiles “to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Ac 26:18). According to the Colossians passage, that place among the sanctified means heirship in “the kingdom of light” and citizenship in “the kingdom of the Son”—which is presently in heaven but will come to earth with Christ.

The teaching of the early church, therefore, yields the same picture of the kingdom as that found in the Gospels. The establishment of the kingdom on earth is still future. The believer is related to this kingdom through faith in the King and is therefore an heir and already a citizen of the coming kingdom. The King has already bestowed some of the blessings of the kingdom on its citizens, so it is possible to speak of the presence of the kingdom now. This presence is described in terms of righteousness, peace, and joy (Rom 14:17), the forgiveness of sins (Col 1:13–14), and power (1Co 4:20), but never in terms of a present “reign.”

Footnotes

⸻

83 William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902), 391–92. Charles A. Briggs says of this verse, “It is not clear whether the kingdom of God here is the kingdom of glory, or the kingdom of the Church in this world. Paul thus far has always used it of the kingdom of glory. The presumption is that it has the same reference here. Eating and drinking are not the characteristics of that kingdom of glory. Eating and drinking are not the preparation for it. But its characteristics are righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. These things are to be sought for. Only those who have them will inherit the kingdom” (The Messiah of the Apostles [Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1895], 172–73).

84 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979), 2:718.

85 C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 118. Compare also H. A. W. Meyer’s comment on this verse: “The βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, again, is not here, as it never is elsewhere . . ., and in particular never in Paul’s writings (neither in this passage nor in Rom. xiv. 7; Col. 1:13, iv. 11 . . .), the church, or the kingdom of God in the ethical sense . . ., but the Messianic kingdom” (Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians, 2 vols. [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1877–79], 104).

86 Some scholars distinguish “the kingdom of Christ” from the “kingdom of God,” seeing the former as the present reign of Christ and the latter as a future event occurring after Christ hands over the kingdom to the Father (1Co 15:24; cf. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 45 [Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1982], 37; Eduard Lohse, A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971], 37–38; Gerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953], 259). Vos does acknowledge, however, that this distinction is not uniform in Paul.

Such a radical distinction does not appear to be valid. In various passages there is reference to “the kingdom of God and of Christ” (cf. Eph 5:5). Particularly telling against this distinction is the statement associated with the coming of Christ: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” (Rev 11:15). Even in the eternal state the throne is “of God and of the Lamb” (Rev 22:1). Bertold Klappert first shows that the “kingdom of God” is bound up with the person and work of Jesus both in the Gospels and the epistles; then he rightly concludes that “the kingdom of Jesus Christ is in the NT view the same as the kingdom of God” (“King, Kingdom,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 2:386–89); cf. also Schmidt, “βασιλεία,” in TDNT, 1:581, 588–89.

87 Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 44 (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1982), 28. C. F. D. Moule further adds the very questionable negative statement that “there is no trace of a nationalistic Messianism in the N. T. conception” (The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Cambridge Greek Testament [Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1962], 58).

88 Curtis Vaughn, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 11, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 180.

89 According to Per Beskow, all of the New Testament references to the kingdom of “the Son of Man or of Christ” are “distinctly eschatological in character” (Rex Gloriae, 44).

90 Werner Foerster, “κλῆρος,” in TDNT, 3:763.

91 O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 27; similarly, T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, n.d.), 207.

92 Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, 207.

93 Charles A. Briggs, The Messiah of the Apostles (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1895), 211–12.

94 Ralph Martin, “Reconciliation and Forgiveness in Colossians,” in Reconciliation and Hope, ed. Robert Banks (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 107.

95 The present limitation of freedom from the “dominion of darkness” is evident in that the apostle’s language has an Old Testament—Qumranic background. Ralph P. Martin points to one Qumran reference to this evil “dominion” as that “which inflicts persecution on the children of righteousness (1 QS iii.22f.).” The continuing persecution of the New Testament church thus made it evident that complete deliverance was not yet the believer’s experience (Martin, Reconciliation and Hope).

96 Thomas J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, Journal for the Study of the New