In a recent article on the Answers in Genesis website, Simon Turpin, executive director of the UK branch of Answers in Genesis, attempts to answer the question\u00a0Where Did Jesus Say, \u201cI Am God; Worship Me\u201d?<\/a>\u00a0Normally, my interest is not terribly piqued by such topics. I spent my evangelical childhood and adolescence studying apologetics; as a young adult, I read enough Bart Ehrman to know that reality is more complicated. But as I skimmed the article, I came upon a claim I\u2019ve never seen before:<\/p>\n It is clear that the gospel writers and the authors of the epistles believed Jesus was God \u2026. The question that we need to ask, however, is this: Did Jesus claim to be divine? By this, we do not mean that Jesus went around Israel saying: \u201cHi, I am Jesus, and I am God.\u201d The reason Jesus did not do this is that he came to reveal the Father \u2026\u00a0and, in a monotheistic culture \u2026\u00a0he would not want people to think that he was saying he was the Father<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Turpin appears to be arguing\u00a0that Jesus did not tell people he was God (even though he was) because the Jews were monotheists and would have gotten distracted by that. I genuinely don\u2019t recall hearing this argument growing up, but I am fascinated by it. A god came down to earth and assumed a human body (an avatar, if you will), but declined to state that he was a god<\/em>\u00a0specifically because the people he lived among were monotheists and would reject the idea the pseudo-polytheism his divinity would create.<\/p>\n What even is this? All I can say for sure is that this would make an awesome science fiction and\/or fantasy plot, and that now I kind of want N. K. Jemisin to write it. There\u2019s intrigue, there\u2019s subterfuge, there\u2019s danger<\/em>. On a storytelling level, I like this a lot<\/em>. But on a theological level? On a theological level, I have questions.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve personally watched the Trinity get in the way of Muslims\u2019 willingness to listen to gospel presentations. If Jesus strategically decided not to state that he was God because the Trinity is confusing to monotheists, maybe Christians should let the idea go too? After all, wouldn\u2019t that be following Jesus\u2019 lead, here? Maybe believing in the Trinity isn\u2019t actually all that important, in the big picture, If Jesus specifically omitted it<\/i>? <\/em><\/p>\n Early Christians argued over who Jesus was precisely because<\/em> he never directly claimed to be God. He was vague<\/em>. Seeking to understand the relationship between Jesus and God the Father, early Christians came up with varying ideas\u2014some argued that he was an ordinary person whom God raised up and elevated to some semi-divine level, effectively adopting as his son; others argued that Jesus was<\/em> God\u2019s son, preceding from him and subject to him. These early Christians, remember, did not have a settled canon of the Bible, and relied instead on a broad array of writings, some of which are now lost.<\/p>\n The doctrine of the Trinity took hundreds of years and multiple church councils to create. You would think that if it were all that important, Jesus would have been clear about it\u2014what better time for a deity to speak directly to complicated doctrinal issues than when they\u2019re literally here,<\/em> in person!<\/p>\n Turpin argues that Jesus followed a show, don\u2019t tell, approach.<\/p>\n A clear example of Jesus choosing to show who he is rather than proclaiming who he is comes after John the Baptist was put into prison and his disciples came to Jesus asking, \u201cAre you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?\u201d \u2026\u00a0How did Jesus answer John\u2019s disciples\u2019 question? Did he just come out and say who he was? No, Jesus didn\u2019t come out and give a simple answer to who he was, but he does it in an implicit way by telling John\u2019s disciples that they would know who he is by the things that he was doing:<\/p>\n And Jesus answered them, \u201cGo and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me\u201d (Matthew 11:4\u20136<\/a>).<\/em><\/p>\n The things that Jesus mentioned should have been evident to the disciples of John that the Messianic era was underway \u2026. Jesus answered this way to show who he was rather than explicitly state it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n None of this makes any sense<\/em> at all. Even Turpin ought to realize this. After all, he notes this:<\/p>\n The reason John\u2019s disciples ask this question is that they, like many of their contemporary Jews, were expecting a royal, conquering Messiah and not someone who, in their eyes, had come to preach and work miracles.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here\u2019s the thing: the messiah\u00a0was not supposed to be a deity.\u00a0<\/em>When Turpin claims that the things Jesus said he was doing (healing the blind, raising the dead, preaching the good news to the poor) should have made it \u201cevident to the disciples of John that the Messianic era was underway,\u201d I am left confused. The messiah was not supposed to be God.\u00a0<\/em>So even if this was Jesus \u201cshowing\u201d that he was the messiah rather than explicitly stating that he was the messiah, this was not Jesus showing that he was God<\/em>.<\/p>\n Besides, I know my Bible well enough to know that Elijah raised people from the dead. Oh, and he cured lepers too. The Old Testament is packed full of prophets who worked all sorts of miracles. Jesus stating that he\u00a0cures lepers and raises the dead\u00a0<\/em>did not in any way signal\u00a0divinity.<\/em><\/p>\n