Did Jesus Claim to Be God?

Did Jesus ever claim to be God? Did He ever use the words "I am God"?

Though Jesus didn't use the exact words "I am God", that doesn't mean that He never said that He is God. One doesn't need to use the same framing of words to convey a message; the same message can be communicated in different compositions of sentences. For instance, note the following sentences which all convey the message, "I am employed."

1. I work for a Company.
2. My boss pays me well for my work.
3. I am very busy at office during the day.
4. The staff had a picnic last Saturday.
5. I would like to change my job.

So, the right kind of question to ask with reference to the doctrine of Christ's divinity would not be "Did Jesus ever use the words "I am God"?" Instead, one should ask something like, "Did Jesus ever convey the message that He was divine?" To that question, the answer is a definite "Yes." In fact, the "Yes" is too clear, because the claim to divine sonship (which the Jews understood as a claim to divinity) was one reason why the Jewish leadership condemned Jesus as a blasphemer and demanded His execution. Let's look at some of Christ's related claims:

1. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (Joh 3:16 NKJ). Jesus claimed to be God's "only begotten Son"; but, that is not all, He states that God gave this only begotten Son so that whoever believes in the Son should not perish but have everlasting life. Now, some may object that this claim was a later theological construct; not a claim by Jesus but an interpolation by the apostles. This interpolation-theory, however, is because of the prejudiced made-up mindset that Jesus was not God. It is not based on proof but on prejudice.

2. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven you." And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, "Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mar 2:5-7 NKJ). Evidently, here Jesus is doing something that the Jews were aware that only God can do. Not even a prophet or a priest could forgive a sin committed against others and against God. I can only forgive sins of those who sinned against me; but, I cannot forgive sins of those who have sinned against the Law of God; because if I do that I try to take the place of God. Jesus, obviously, knew this. But, He didn't stop just at that. He affirmed His authority to forgive sins by an act of divine power.

"When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven you." And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, "Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mar 2:5-7 NKJ)

3. Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." (Mat 19:16-17 NKJ) In this statement, Jesus not only conveys the message that no human can claim to be good or try to have eternal life by virtue of good works (for none is good), but He also forces the young rich man to reconsider his calling Jesus as the Good Teacher; for if he really believed Jesus was Good, it meant that he equated Him with God. Jesus foils the human quest for autonomy and desire to independently, by virtue of personal merit, inherit eternal life -- no one can be good apart from God. This He proves by asking the young man to sell all his possessions, distribute them to the poor, so that He will have treasures in heaven, and to follow Him,. But, the young man was not willing to part with his riches since he wished to have a life independent of God--that was impossible; it is not possible to be independent of God and have eternal life--for that would mean sin co-existing with life, which is contradictory to divine Justice:

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "-- therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. (Gen 3:22-23 NKJ)

But, by answering the question of the rich young man, Jesus has affirmed that He could authoritatively show how one could have eternal life; authoritatively, because He had eternal life. It meant both that He was Good (which no man but God was) and that He knew how one could have eternal life. He tells him to do something beyond the Old Testament command, He asks him to sell all he has, distribute it to the poor (so that he will have treasure in heaven), and to follow Him (Matt.19:21). Obviously, by asking the young man to follow Him in relation to eternal life, He is making a claim that no human can make (for "no one is good but One, that is, God.")

4."I and My Father are one."
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?"
The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law,`I said, "You are gods"'?
"If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
"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 '?
"If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;
"but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him."
Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand. (Joh 10:30-39 NKJ)

There are a number of clauses here that convey Christ's claim to divinity: (a) He calls Himself one with the Father (b) They understand His claim as blasphemous because, as they say, "You, being a Man, make Yourself God."). (c) Jesus replies by quoting Psalm 82:6, where God calls humans as "gods"; so if He called them gods, to whom the word of God came, then why should they consider it blasphemous if the one whom "the Father sanctified and sent into the world" said not "I am God" but "I am the Son of God". Obviously, Jesus was evoking their understanding of His statements as conveying the idea of His affirmation of His divinity. They obviously knew that there was a difference between God saying "You are gods" in Psalm 82:6 and Jesus saying "I and My Father are one." The statement of Jesus clearly meant that He was claiming to be God. Secondly, He refers to Himself as the one "whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world". In other words, He was claiming pre-existence (His birth of the world was not the beginning of His life but the event of His being sent into the world). It also implies His greatness above every other human; for if those to whom the word of God came could be called "gods", then what is wrong the One who was sanctified and sent into the world calling Himself "the Son of God"? (d) Jesus also says that "the Father is in Me, and I in Him", which again provokes them to try to seize Him.

5.Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. (Joh 8:57-59 NKJ) The message here is too clear to miss. Jesus claims in the present tense "I AM" to exist before Abraham (i.e. before Abraham was born). In other words, His existence predates the Father of the Jewish race, Abraham. Thus, though He was the son of Abraham, according to the flesh, His existence is (not was) before Abraham. The I AM (the Name of God as revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14) also affirms that His existence is trans-temporal, that is infinite and eternal. As such, He is not a creature but the Creator. No surprise, the Jews were infuriated again by this claim and wanted to stone Jesus. For them, no existing human could claim to be greater than Abraham, their father.

Several Scriptural proofs exist for the divinity of Christ. Following are some verses that corroborate the divinity of His Person:

1. Preincarnate
Pre-existence (Jn. 1:1; 1Jo. 1:1; Jn. 17:5).
Participation in creation (Gen. 1:26; Prov. 8:30; Col. 1:15; Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:16; 1Co. 8:6).
Christophanies (Gen.18,19; Hos.1:7; Gen.22,31; Exo. 3:2; Exo. 14:19; Num. 22:22; Judg.6).
2. Divine Nature
Divine Attributes (eternal- Jn. 1:1; Jn. 8:58; Jn. 17:5; omnipresent- Mt. 28:20; Eph. 1:23; omniscient- Jn.16:30;21:17; omnipotent- Jn.5:19; immutable- Heb. 1:12; Heb. 13:8)
Divine Offices (Creator- Joh 1:3; Col 1:16; Sustainer- Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3)
Divine Prerogatives (forgives sin – Mt. 9:2; Luk. 7:47; raises dead- Jn. 5:25; Jn. 11:25; executes judgement- Jn. 5:22)
Identified with OT YHWH - I AM (Jn. 8:58; Jn. 12:41; Jn. 8:24; Jn. 8:50-58)
Divine Names (Alpha & Omega-Rev. 22:13; I AM –Jn. 8:58; Immanuel- Mt. 1:22; Lord-Mt. 7:21; Son of God- Jn. 10:36; God- Jn. 1:1; 2Pe. 1:1; Tit. 2:13; 1Jo. 5:20)
Divine Relations (Image of God- Col. 1:15; Hb.1:3; One with Father- Jn. 10:30)
Accepts Divine Worship (Mt. 14:33; Mt. 28:9; Jn. 20:28-29). Claims to be God (Jn.8:58; Jn. 10:30; Jn. 17:5 – in such case, He is either liar, lunatic, or the Lord that He claims to be, but never can be regarded as merely a good moral teacher)

Any quick perusal of the Gospels will clearly demonstrate to the unbiased mind that Jesus did claim again and again to be divine.

Joy To The World The Lord Has Come!

The term "Christmas" is a compound of two words "Christ" and "Mass" (the celebration of Eucharist by the Catholic Church). Etymologically, the term refers to the celebration of mass on the anniversary of Christ's birth. Protestants usually refrain from looking at the Eucharist as another sacrifice and at the Bread and Wine as literally turning into Christ's body and blood. Therefore, they never use the word "mass" to refer to the Lord's Supper in their services. However, when they use the term "Christmas", this etymological meaning is not considered (usually unknown). But, the etymological connection of the Eucharist (which literally means "Thanksgiving", from the act of Christ giving thanks for the Bread and Wine) with the Birth of Christ can have a deeper significance--that His birth cannot be seen apart from His death, that He was born the first time in order to die as our Sacrifice. In fact, He couldn't have become our Sacrifice unless He had been made flesh in His body of sacrifice.

Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. (Heb 10:5 NKJ)

  • He came as God's Sacrifice for our Sins (Heb. 10:5-6)
  • His First Coming Establishes His Second Coming (In the OT Prophecy, Christ's coming was seen as a single event since they didn't see the Age of Grace in between the two peaks of His First and Second Coming. His First Coming tells us to look forward to His Second Coming). (Isa.61:1-3)
  • He came to take away the Old in order to bring in the New. He makes all things new. (Heb.10:9)
  • His First Coming as the Lamb of Sacrifice purges and sanctifies forever those who trust in Him. (Heb.10:10)

The Exclusivity of God - A Dialogue

“God is everywhere, God is in everything; therefore, everything is sacred, everything is God.”

“Is God also in dung?”



“Because dung is unclean.”

“But, then you said that God is in everything.”

“But, how can God be in what is unclean?”

“Why not?”

“Because God is holy. Don’t we keep our holy places clean?”

“Then, it means that there are certain things God is not present in.”


“It means that God is not in everything, or everywhere.”


“It also means that everything is not God.”


“What about man? Can we say that the human spirit is God, especially when it is evident that there are also evil men as well as good men?”

“In that sense, we cannot say that the human spirit that is prone to evil is divine. But, what if we say that the human spirit which is divine has fallen into disillusion and has missed to be what it was meant to be?”

“But, is that possible with God?”

“Why not?”

“Because God is perfect, and if God were not perfect then He would not be God, but be slave to circumstances and disillusioning powers greater than Him.”

“Yes. Then, it is not possible for God to err.”

“Which means that the human spirit cannot be divine.”


“It also means that if human spirits in general cannot be divine, no human spirit can claim to be divine in particular.”

“But, don’t we see that great souls exist? Those who have enormous powers and have deep spiritual knowledge.”

“Yet, all these ones are subject to experiences of suffering, aging, and death like any other humans.”


“And, there is a difference between having stronger power and being all-powerful, between having deeper understanding and being all-knowing.”


“So, these are neither omnipotent nor omniscient.”


“Which means they are not divine.”

“Seems so. Though they do claim to be divine and encourage their worship.”

“Either they are divine or their claims are false.”

“Yes, either.”

“So, if they are not divine, their claims are false.”



Death the Formidable Policeman

Death is a formidable policeman,
Whose grip no mortal can evade;
Whose grip has ripped apart the strongest
In the midst of their prideful parade.

Men who had steel-like bodies
Died earlier than their own comrades;
Death cares not for young or old,
On each, equally, its shadow pervades.

When Death brings God's summons
To take one to the Final Court;
Then it leaves one no options
But to submit and to report.

Then Death snatches a man from himself
And rushes him to God's Throne on high,
Where Justice is fair and Equity is precise;
Where the Justified live and the condemned die.

© Domenic Marbaniang, Dec 16, 2014.

Drivers of Theologies

Systematic theologies usually begin either with Theology Proper (the Doctrine of God) or Bibliology (the Doctrine of Revelation). The Classical method (chiefly of the rationalists) was to begin with the doctrine of God, first by establishing the existence of God through some rational argumentation. On the other hand, the Fideist method held that theology didn’t need to begin with reason at all; theology began from the Bible, God’s self-revelation to humanity. So, they usually began with establishing first the doctrine of divine revelation, i.e. with Bibliology.

But, the inescapable problem again emerges: to try to establish the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible based on its own self-testimony would mean engaging in the informal question-begging fallacy: “I believe that the Bible is true because it is God’s Word, and what it says about itself as being God’s Word is true.” A question-begging fallacy doesn’t establish anything; it is like a man who tries to get higher by climbing over his own parachute. The external-evidence issue seems crucial at such moments. However, people like Plantinga have argued that this needn’t be the case. Internal evidences and testimonies equally count as valid, especially when they qualify as basic beliefs. Blaise Pascal had gone further to state that rationalism itself was founded upon a faith on reason; or else, what credibility does reason possess than itself in order to avoid the circular argument? Thus, the reductionism of sources to themselves seems unavoidable.

Thus, the disagreement is more about being rational than about being dogmatic. In his Escape from Reason, Schaeffer tried to historically demonstrate that the focus on the superiority of reason could hijack theology and cut it off from true faith. The sequential departure of systematic theologies from Faith in the West, especially following the Enlightenment was quoted as illustrative of the lower storey eating up of the upper storey (natural theology eating up revelatory theology). This progress of estrangement was arrested by the anti-liberal neo-orthodox movement theologically super-headed by Barth and his group of theologians. The neo-orthodox theologians tried to snatch away theology from the hands of the liberals by re-affirming sola fide (faith alone) over both reason and historical experience.

On the other hand, historical evidentialism was another frame of reference that challenged both faith and reason to accommodate to it; thus, we find the emergence of responses like Bultmann’s demythologizationism and Chalmer’s gap theory. People like Whitehead attempted to take the rationalist line and wed reason to history; others like Pannenberg wove revelation into history. In recent times, narrative theologians have decided to do away with the rational dimension of theology altogether; another example of the rational-empirical conflict. But, certainly the solution to the conflict doesn’t lie in opting for one over the other. Zeno’s paradoxes are not solved by choosing empirical phenomena above rational analysis , or vice versa.

The nature of a theological enterprise usually determines the method of doing theology. For instance, an apologetic kind of theology would seek to construct theology in a way that Faith is heavily guarded and defended. However, the irony is that apologetic theology is not primary theology at all. It comes after Faith has been meticulously adumbrated by a previous theological enterprise. Dogmatic theology, on the other hand, proceeds from sole belief in the Scriptures and uses the exegetical method, though at times the pendulum swings to extremities in order to combat the prevalent concepts of theology that the dogmatist considers to be false; in this light, we can understand Calvin’s opposition of anything that the Catholic can use to accentuate the primacy of the Pope, including the doctrine of the continuity of the charismatic gifts (Calvin said that the healing gift didn’t continue; the papacy was only misleading the masses by claiming that the gift continued). Utilitarian theologies only try to use theological categories for the proclamation of philosophically constructed ideas. Such utilitarian theologies don’t derive theology from the Scriptures but read the Scriptures in light of secular philosophy (See Thieselton, Two Horizons). But, real theology is not eisogetic (reading into the text) but exogetic (reading out of the text). Systematic theologies have to choose between epistemic assumptions: whether to begin from reason, from experience, or from faith. To people like Aquinas, the rational becomes important and reasoning is the method; to those like Sadhu Sundar Singh, the empirical is prior and narrative is the method; to those like Calvin, faith is prior and exegesis is the method.

Yet, one cannot even regard the dogmatic to be foolproof. The dogmatist vision is also colored by certain prejudices that s/he uses to resolve conflict of statements in the Bible. For instance, in the Calvinist doctrine, the foundation is the doctrine of Sovereignty of God and of His grace. Thus, wherever scriptural statements are in conflict, the arbitrator is the dogmatic basic; but, where the conflict is with science, reason, or history, the dogmatist chooses dogma over science. But, what is the basis of this dogma? It is not always right to also go by the popularity appeal (for instance, that if there are more texts to support a particular doctrine, then the conflict of passages is resolved by majority consensus—this is fallacious, seeing that one evidence is enough to falsify a theory). Also, dogmatism might become the rationale for blind faith—people of conflicting faiths may have no common platform to discuss their claims. However, the neo-orthodox theologians have argued that dogmatism is not blind when it comes to the Scriptures, because Scriptures are self-authenticating to the one who encounters God in the Word. But, again, that only allows full room for other conflicting claims to assert themselves as subjectively self-authenticating. The empiricists, however, anticipate conflicts, not just among faiths but also in Scripture; to them the idea of uniformity of revelation is not axiomatic; thus, theological conflict and dialecticism is anticipated—absolute dogma is impossible. But, if absolute truth doesn’t exist with regard to doctrine, then pluralism will become inevitable, in face of which theology becomes non-sensical; therefore, the modern quest for the narrative.

Obviously, attempting to emphasize any one of the three sources of knowledge (reason, experience, or revelation) over the others makes theological construction off-balanced. Divine revelation comes in empirical language and submits to the laws of reason. A verbal testimony that doesn’t submit to the rules of logic becomes linguistically meaningless and, as such will not qualify as revelation at all. Therefore, our construction of theology must carefully use both the eyes of reason and experience in order to see the revelation of God.

The Problem of Evil As Evil

The Problem of Evil is not a problem at all unless “Good” and “Evil” are properly defined and meaningfully understood; or else, the problem cannot be raised.

Given that meaning is usage, let’s look at what we usually do not absolutely consider to be the meaning of Good.
  1. Good is not painlessness. For, in our daily usage, it is commonly accepted that Good usually involves pain (e.g. in exercise, study, work). 
  2. Good is not absence of grief or sorrow. For, if that was the case, the sense of a loss of Good would not exist; which would in turn imply that the sense of Good itself doesn’t exist. It is possible for Good to exist along with grief (for instance, when someone in a world X which is free of a particular Evil, say starvation, is sad about people in a world Y, where people are starving). In this sense, sympathy, grief, and compassion are virtues; i.e. they are good.
So if Good is not the absence of pain or sorrow, then what is Good? Before we answer that question, let’s submit that Evil and Good are perfect opposites of each other; thus, we can define Evil as anything that is opposite to Good (one definition looks at Evil as just the absence or privation of Good in the same manner that darkness is the absence of light).

1. The Relativity of Good in A Contingent World: Good is always recognized as relative to the instance of an essence (e.g. vision is a quality which is good in humans; however, one doesn’t say that it is evil for a pen to not have vision and to be blind). Thus, what is good in a particular world is to be understood in relation to it and not in comparison with other kinds of worlds, where the essential properties are different (for instance, we cannot compare what is good in an ant and say that the same should be with humans; for in that case, Good would become Infinite, if not contradictory (one could be as tiny as an ant and as large as a whale at the same time)). But, if Good could become Infinite in the instance of this universe, then the universe would become God (which is not the case at all). Consequently, one cannot call anything evil unless one is able to identify what is actually good with respect to that particular entity with respect to which evil is being predicated.

Further, in an economy or eco-arrangement of multiple contingent beings, dependence would become inter-related (implying that the profit of one would mean the loss of something or someone else; the profit of tigers would mean the loss of deer and the profit of deer would mean the loss of grass, for instance). A non-dependent world would be loss-free, or Infinite (which, in the case of our universe, is negated by experience of contingency – the core concern of the Problem of Evil).

Another possibility would be for a contingent world to become not inter-dependent but trans-dependent; that is to become absorbed into the Infinite in such a way that the contingent is supplied by the Infinite (as in the new creation of biblical eschatology). But, that possibility will require a non-free universe (which is super-governed by the Infinite) in a way that the Good also exists as freedom (i.e., is also recognized as good, thus being free). This is contradictory.

But, the contradiction is only conditional; given the non-free absorption of free-creatures into the Infinite. However, given that the free-creatures within a temporally and spatially finite and contingent world choose (by exercise of freedom- for freedom to exist for the recognition of Good) to be absorbed into the Infinite world (Kingdom of God) and there is a bridge (ontological and moral) between the Infinite and the finite, then such a world free of contingent evil, will become possible. In Christian doctrine, that bridge is the person of Christ, the Mediator.

2. Good as Absolute and Necessary. Good as absolute and necessary (i.e. devoid of any instance of or possibility of Evil) can only be predicated of a being that is Infinite and in which Good can be Infinitely instantiated (with no room for Evil). In contingent beings or entities, Good can be absolute only with respect to what can be defined as Good relatively to them. For instance, an apple tree that produces sweet apples is experiencing the Good (there is an ideal “absolute” image or standard of Good when one talks about good apples and bad apples); however, one cannot consider an apple tree not producing apples but producing mangoes to be a good apple tree in any sense (in fact, that image is contradictory). But, it is conceptually possible to imagine a perfect apple tree whose fruit is 100% perfect – i.e. the good apple tree conforms to the ideal of an absolutely good apple tree. But, contingency and inter-dependence would mean that such perfection itself is also contingent and therefore not necessary (if a card loses balance somewhere, all other cards are affected – contingency is necessary, but perfection is not).

But, such relativity doesn’t apply to the Infinite. An Infinite does not submit to gradation of degrees of Good, since the Infinite is trans-temporal (the Infinite cannot be a little good at times and better at other times). Also, there cannot be more than one instance of the Infinite (e.g. many Infinite oceans cannot co-exist). Therefore, the Infinitely good is absolutely and necessarily good.

3. The Problem of Evil as Evil. The very moral condemnation of the Infinite on grounds that Evil (physical and moral) exists is Evil, for it is an attempt of the contingent to deny its necessary contingency and assume equivalence with the Infinite without submission to the Infinite (which by virtue of the very rule it uses to raise the Problem of Evil condemns itself).

1. If God (as Necessary) is All-powerful, All-loving, and All-good, then Evil (as Contingent) cannot exist.
2. Evil (as Contingent) exists.
3. Therefore, God (as Necessary) is not All-powerful, All-loving, and All-good doesn’t exist.
4. That is to say, God is a Contingent Being.

The syllogism is invalid. The valid form should be
1. If God (as Necessary) exists, then Evil (as Necessary) cannot exist.
2. Evil exists as Contingent, not as Necessary.
3. Therefore, God (as Necessary) exists.


1. God (as Necessary) or Evil (as a Necessary).
2. Evil as Contingent, not-Necessary.
3. Therefore, God (as Necessary)

To assert that Evil exists as Necessary is to assert the absoluteness, inevitability, infinity, and immutability of Evil; which makes Evil co-Infinite with Good. But, this is both a contradiction and a denial of the Problem of Evil. It is a contradiction because Good and Evil cannot infinitely co-exist (Good would infinitely negate Evil as light negates darkness – and in Infinite Good, there are no degrees of goodness (dim light, brighter light) because of its infinitude). Also, to assert that Evil exists as Necessary is to deny the Problem of Evil, for then one can neither desire the annihilation of Evil nor would have need to argue for the non-existence of Necessary Good (since the concept of Good would become negative in face of Absolute Evil, with no contingent existent remaining). Therefore, to posit the Syllogism of Evil in order to negate the existence of Absolute Good is to engage in prejudiced judgment; that judgment is Evil since it doesn’t just concern the issue of validity or invalidity but also the choice (in freedom) to call evil good and good evil -- it features as Evil when it condemns Infinite Good as either non-existent or being the opposite of Good; thus, affirming Evil as Ultimate Reality. But, if Evil is Ultimate Reality, then the problem would no longer be the Problem of Evil, but the Problem of Good. Then, the cry would not be for the Christ, but for the Anti-Christ (See Nietszche, The Antichrist). Such approach is nothing but the approach of Evil against Good.

Also, to claim that Necessary Good be unconditionally attributed to Contingent Being is to claim unconditional right to Infinitude (which implies the overthrow of the Infinite; for, there cannot be more than one Infinite). But, the overthrow of Infinite Good (though logically impossible) is Evil. Therefore, also, the Syllogism of Evil is Evil.

Updated on December 11, 2014

Discussion extended at Philpapers.

The Name of Jesus (Prayer)


(Joh 14:13-14 NKJ) (Joh 16:24-28 NKJ)

"And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
"If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. (Joh 14:13-14 NKJ)
"Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.
25 "These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father.
26 "In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you;
27 "for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God.
28 "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father." (Joh 16:24-28 NKJ)

The New Testament introduces a very distinctive element into prayer: the Name of Jesus. Of course, when we pray, we usually end our prayers with the words, “In the Name of Jesus, we pray…” However, when Jesus told us to pray in His Name, He didn’t just mean to repeat those words. To pray in Jesus’ Name means much more than just the repetition of a clause. It means to pray by virtue of the Person of Jesus. It means to petition not out of just who we are, but out of who we are in Jesus. It means to extend our hand to receive from God what He gives to us because of Jesus.

When I approach God in the Name of Jesus, I assert that Jesus has priority over my life.
Like John said, “He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.'" (Joh 1:15 NKJ)

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. (Col 1:16-17 NKJ)


Christ Existed Before. He was with the Father..
Christ Went Before … He is the anchor of our hope.
This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil, where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
(Heb 6:19-20 NKJ)

Through Him are all things.

He Stands between Man and God and the Eternal Priest, the Lamb of Sacrifice, the Atonement of our Sins, and the Paraclete. Therefore, He declared “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (Jn.14:6). This understanding is important since the statement is trans-temporal, it applies to both Pre-Fall and Post-Fall situations alike. There was never that Christ was not the way. He did not become the way. He eternally exists as the way, the truth, and the life – the eternal “I am”, immutable and absolute.

He is the Eternal Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psa.110:4). Not created but eternal.

He not only stands in between me and God. He also stands between me and anyone or anything else. He holds all things together.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
"But the same Mediator who makes us individuals is also the founder of a new fellowship. He stands in the centre between my neighbour and myself. He divides, but He also unites. Thus although the direct way to our neighbour is barred, we now find the new and only real way to him—the way which passes through the Mediator." – Bonhoeffer
Christ stands between us, and we can only get into touch with our neighbours through Him. That is why intercession is the most promising way to reach our neighbours"

that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth-- in Him. (Eph 1:10 NKJ)

FOR HIM… All things were created through Him and for Him. (Col 1:16 NKJ)




But, the Name is again not just about repeating few words.

That alone will make the difference

Visionary Prayer (Nehemiah)

Is Passionate (Neh.1:4)
Is Proactive (Neh.2:4). He prayed first...(Priority of Prayer)
Is Practical (Neh.4:9)
Is Persistent (Neh. 6:9) - Strengthened, not weakened
- Matt.5:4 - Blessed are those who mourn

- Isaiah 59:14-16 - God wondered that there was no intercessor, no mourner...
- Ezekiel 9:1-6: God killed all who didn't mourn over evil

Nehemiah's Passion: Mourned, Fasted, Prayed...
- Confession of Sins; Confession of God's Promises
- Solution: Neh 1:11 (Passion must have a direction - When God gives you passion, He also shows the way)
(Posture - Not necessarily kneeling...)
- Not pretence (2:2; or else would not be afraid)
- Visionary prayer helps not only to identify what is wrong, but also helps to see the SOLUTION (Vision of what must be done)
- A Man of Visionary Prayer doesn't just pray.. He is willing to do something to change the situation. He doesn't just mourn the bad shape of things, He SEES the RIGHT FORM that they can be brought into.

- Visionary Prayer is Practically Wise. It is based on a faith that knows its own responsibility.
- Their setting a watch and arming themselves didn't show the weakness of their faith, but the wisdom of their faith. Not weakness but wisdom.
Foolish to not take precautions, when precautions are possible. God guards us, but they knew they had to keep locks and gates.
Hyper-spirituality is reckless and lazy spirituality. They want God to do everything and themselves do nothing.
- Visionary Prayer is not wavering.. It doesn't get fragmented in faith because of circumstances.
- Visionary Prayer is bold and persistent.
- Parable of the Widow and the Unjust Judge.

- Pray without ceasing. Be strong in prayer.


Pagan Constantine – 312 AD.. According to Lactantius, in dream advised to mark the heavenly sign on the shields of soldiers…
According to Eusebius, while marching at midday,”he saw with his own eyes in the heavens a trophy of the cross arising from the light of the sun, carrying the message, “With this sign, you will conquer”, then had a dream the following night in which Christ appeared with the same sign and told him to make a standard… (Chi. Ro.. XP).

पराजय- जय
लज्‍जा – महिमा
दण्‍ड – आनंद (Sadhu Sundar Singh -  “The Cross bears those who bear the cross”)
A. मृत्‍यु का स्‍थान
1. मसीहा की मृत्‍यु
Daniel 9:24-26 फिर बासठ सप्ताहों के बीतने पर चौक और खाई समेत वह नगर कष्ट के समय में फिर बसाया जाएगा। और उन बासठ सप्ताहों के बीतने पर अभिषिक्त पुरूष काटा जाएगा: और उसके हाथ कुछ न लगेगा (but not for Himself
Rom 5:6 - क्योंकि जब हम निर्बल ही थे, तो मसीह ठीक समय पर भक्तिहीनों के लिये मरा।
Rom 5:8 - परमेश्वर हम पर अपने प्रेम की भलाई इस रीति से प्रगट करता है, कि जब हम पापी ही थे तभी मसीह हमारे लिये मरा।

2. मसीही की मृत्‍यु
-- पुराने  मनुष्‍यत्‍व की
Rom.6:6 - हमारा पुराना मनुष्यत्व उसके साथ क्रूस पर चढ़ाया गया
पुराने विचार, सोच, चालचलन, छवी- यदी murderer, अब वह क्रूस पर, वैश्‍या मसीह में नई सृष्टि
-- शरीर की अभिलाषाओं की
Gal 5:24 - और जो मसीह यीशु के हैं, उन्हों ने शरीर को उस की लालसाओं और अभिलाषों समेत क्रूस पर चढ़ा दिया है
जो पहले पसंद था अब घृणित (alcohol, bad language…)
-- संसार के प्रति और संसार मसीही के प्रति
Gal 6:14 - प्रभु यीशु मसीह के क्रूस का जिस के द्वारा संसार मेरी दृष्टि में और मैं संसार की दृष्टि में क्रूस पर चढ़ाया गया हूं।
Not to please world

B. मेलमिलाप का स्‍थान
1- परमेश्‍वर के साथ शान्ति (Rom.5:1;
Col.1:20 और उसके क्रूस पर बहे हुए लोहू के द्वारा मेल मिलाप करके, सब वस्तुओं को उसी के द्वारा से अपने साथ मेल कर ले चाहे वे पृथ्वी पर की हों, चाहे स्वर्ग में की। ईश्‍वर ने इनसान को स्‍वीकार किया

2- ईश्‍वर ने इनसान और इनसान के बीच मेल और शान्ति किया
(Eph.2:14अलग करनेवाल दीवार को जो बीच में थी, ढा दिया।) Destroyed Enmity (v16)

C. मुक्ति का स्‍थान
- श्राप से मुक्ति (Gal.3:13)
- पापों से मुक्ति (Matt 26:28 – लोहू है, जो बहुतों के लिये पापों की क्षमा के निमित्त बहाया जाता है)
- पाप से मुक्ति (Rom. 6:7 क्योंकि जो मर गया, वह पाप से छूटकर धर्मी ठहरा)
- व्‍यर्थ चालचलन से मुक्ति (1Pet.1:18,19 निकम्मा चाल- चलन जो बापदादों से चला आता है)
- शैतान से मुक्ति (Heb.2:14,15 मृत्यु के द्वारा उसे जिसे मृत्यु पर शक्ति मिली थी, अर्थात् शैतान को निकम्मा कर दे। और जितने मृत्यु के भय के मारे जीवन भर दासत्व में फंसे थे, उन्हें छुड़ा ले।
- मृत्‍युसे मुक्ति(Rom.8:1,2)
Rom. 5:10 क्योंकि बैरी होने की दशा में तो उसके पुत्र की मृत्यु के द्वारा हमारा मेल परमेश्वर के साथ हुआ फिर मेल हो जाने पर उसके जीवन के कारण हम उद्धार क्यों न पाएंगे?(Saved by His Life)
मृत्‍यु का स्‍थान
मेलमिलाप का स्‍थान
मुक्ति का स्‍थान


परमेश्‍वर की इच्‍छा

Five Aspects (पहलु) of God's Will
1. God's Personal Will (Vyaktigat) - The will of God that He accomplishes and which is uneffected by what any volitional beings do (Ps.115:3; Heb.6:17,18).
Ps 115:3 हमारा परमेश्वर तो स्वर्ग में हैं; उस ने जो चाहा वही किया है।
Heb 6:17 इसलिये जब परमेश्वर ने प्रतिज्ञा के वारिसों पर और भी साफ रीति से प्रगट करना चाहा, कि उसकी मनसा बदल नहीं सकती तो शपथ को बीच में लाया।
Heb 6:18 ताकि दो बे- बदल बातों के द्वारा जिन के विषय में परमेश्वर का झूठा ठहरना अन्होना है, हमारा दृढ़ता से ढाढ़स बन्ध जाए, जो शरण लेने को इसलिये दौड़े है, कि उस आशा को जो साम्हने रखी हुई है प्राप्त करें।
His Pleasure. Rev.4:11 - तू ही ने सब वस्तुएं सृजीं और वे तेरी ही इच्छा से है, और सृजी गईं।
Open Forums: “Why did God create Man? Why create that tree?”
Rom 9:20 क्या गढ़ी हुई वस्तु गढ़नेवाले से कह सकती है कि तू ने मुझे ऐसा क्यों बनाया है?

2. God's Prescriptive Will (Aadeshit) - The will that God prescribes, commands for us to follow (1Jn.2:17; 1Thess.4:3). This includes both God's mandatory and prohibitory will (things that He commands us to do and things that He prohibits us to do).
Matt 7:21 जो मुझ से, हे प्रभु, हे प्रभु कहता है, उन में से हर एक स्वर्ग के राज्य में प्रवेश करेगा, परन्तु वही जो मेरे स्वर्गीय पिता की इच्छा पर चलता है।
1John 2:17 और संसार और उस की अभिलाषाएं दोनों मिटते जाते हैं, पर जो परमेश्वर की इच्छा पर चलता है, वह सर्वदा बना रहेगा।।
WORD TELLS WHAT IS GOD’S WILL – Can I sell Cigarette in my shop?
Obey God’s clear written commands.
Marriage. Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers?
1Thess 4:3 क्योंकि परमेश्वर की इच्छा यह है, कि तुम पवित्र बनो: अर्थात् व्यभिचार से बचे रहो।

3. God's Preferred Will (Bhane vali Iccha)- The will of God that prefers something over another (1Tim.2:1; Rom.12:2)
1Tim 2:1 अब मैं सब से पहिले यह उपदेश देता हूं, कि बिनती, और प्रार्थना, और निवेदन, और धन्यवाद, सब मनुष्यों के लिये किए जाएं।
1Tim 2:2 राजाओं और सब ऊंचे पदवालों के निमित्त इसलिये कि हम विश्राम और चैन के साथ सारी भक्ति और गम्भीरता से जीवन बिताएं। यह हमारे उद्धारकर्ता परमेश्वर को अच्छा लगता, और भाता भी है।
1Tim 2:3 यह हमारे उद्धारकर्ता परमेश्वर को अच्छा लगता, और भाता भी है।
1Tim 2:4 वह यह चाहता है, कि सब मनुष्यों का उद्धार हो; और वे सत्य को भली भांति पहिचान लें।
Rom 12:2 और इस संसार के सदृश न बनो; परन्तु तुम्हारी बुद्धि के नये हो जाने से तुम्हारा चाल- चलन भी बदलता जाए, जिस से तुम परमेश्वर की भली, और भावती, और सिद्ध इच्छा अनुभव से मालूम करते रहो।।

4. God's Permissive Will (Anumati) - The will of God that permits certain things, though they are not preferred by Him
JOB, Disciples on Boat… He rebuked the winds.
God permits diseases, but His perfect will is that we don’t be sick but be healed
He doesn’t stop people from sinning, but that doesn’t He wants them to sin.
Acts 14:16 उस ने बीते समयों में सब जातियों को अपने अपने मार्गों में चलने दिया।
You can pray, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”
You must watch and pray that you enter not into temptation. God allows temptation, but He also tells us in the Prescriptive Will to pray not to enter into it.

5. God's Pliable Will (Parivartaniya, Lachila)- Conditional Will. The will of God that can be changed through human responses (Gen.18:23ff – Abraham pleads for Sodom; Exo.32:11-13,14; Moses pleads for Israel Jonah 3:10)
Jonah 3:10 जब परमेश्वर ने उनके कामों को देखा, कि वे कुमार्ग से फिर रहे हैं, तब परमेश्वर ने अपनी इच्छा बदल दी, और उनकी जो हानि करने की ठानी थी, उसको न किया।।

1. Through Nature
Rom 1:19 इसलिये कि परमशॆवर के विषय में ज्ञान उन के मनों में प्रगट है, क्योंकि परमेश्वर ने उन पर प्रगट किया है।
Rom 1:20 क्योंकि उसके अनदेखे गुण, अर्थात् उस की सनातन सामर्थ, और परमेश्वरत्व जगत की सृष्टि के समय से उसके कामों के द्वारा देखने में आते है, यहां तक कि वे निरूत्तर हैं।
Rom 1:26 इसलिये परमशॆवर ने उन्हें नीच कामनाओं के वश में छोड़ दिया; यहां तक कि उन की स्त्रियों ने भी स्वाभाविक व्यवहार को, उस से जो स्वभाव के विरूद्ध है, बदल डाला।

2. Through His Word
Ps 119:104 तेरे उपदेशों के कारण मैं समझदार हो जाता हूं, इसलिये मैं सब मिथ्या मार्गों से बैर रखता हूं।।

Ps 119:105 तेरा वचन मेरे पांव के लिये दीपक, और मेरे मार्ग के लिये उजियाला है।

3. Through His Servants
Heb 13:17 अपने अगुवों की मानो; और उनके अधीन रहो, क्योंकि वे उन की नाई तुम्हारे प्राणों के लिये जागते रहते, जिन्हें लेखा देना पड़ेगा, कि वे यह काम आनन्द से करें, न कि ठंडी सांस ले लेकर, क्योंकि इस दशा में तुम्हें कुछ लाभ नहीं।

Must not contradict WORD OF GOD.. OT (Prophet slain by lion)

4. Through Circumstances
1Cor 16:8 परनतु मैं पेन्तिकुस्त तक इफिसुस में रहूंगा।
1Cor 16:9 क्योंकि मेरे लिये एक बड़ा और उपयोगी द्वार खुला है, और विरोधी बहुत से हैं।।

2Cor 2:12 और जब मैं मसीह का सुसमाचार, सुनाने को त्रोआस में आया, और प्रभु ने मेरे लिये एक द्वार खोल दिया।

Missionaries who wanted to go to China, but door opened to India…

5. Through Visions and Prophecies
Acts 16:9.
1Thess.5:20,21- Don’t despise prophecies by test all things
Must not contradict Word of God. Must not influence you to violate the Prescribed Will of God.

6. Promptings of the Spirit (Prabhav)
Acts 8:29 –तब आत्मा ने फिलिप्पुस से कहा, निकट जाकर इस रथ के साथ हो ले।
Acts 16:7 और उन्हों ने मूसिया के निकट पहुंचकर, बितूनिया में जाना चाहा; परन्तु यीशु के आत्मा ने उन्हें जाने न दिया।
Exm.. I was invited to preach in a National Youth Conference in another country. As I was praying, the Spirit strongly impressed upon me that I should not go… Later, I realized that not going saved me from issue.
Don’t just accept invitations, first pray.. Walk in the Spirit.
Must NOT Confuse feelings of soul with the impressions of the Spirit

7. Peace of God that rules in the heart
Phil 4:6 किसी भी बात की चिन्ता मत करो: परन्तु हर एक बात में तुम्हारे निवेदन, प्रार्थना और बिनती के द्वारा धन्यवाद के साथ परमेश्वर के सम्मुख अपस्थित किए जाएं।
Phil 4:7 तब परमेश्वर की शान्ति, जो समझ से बिलकुल परे है, तुम्हारे हृदय और तुम्हारे विचारों को मसीह यीशु में सुरक्षित रखेगी।।

Peace protects our thoughts..

How we can abide in God's will
1. Seeking God (Prov.28:5)
Prov 28:5 यहोवा को ढूंढनेवाले सब कुछ समझते हैं।

2. Seeking Discernment (Prov.2:3,4,5; Col.1:9; James 1:5)
Prov 2:3 और प्रवीणता और समझ के लिये अति यत्न से पुकारे,
Prov 2:4 ओर उसको चान्दी की नाईं ढूंढ़े, और गुप्त धन के समान उसी खोज में लगा रहे;
Prov 2:5 तो तू यहोवा के भय को समझेगा, और परमेश्वर का ज्ञान तुझे प्राप्त होगा।
Jas 1:5 पर यदि तुम में से किसी को बुद्धि की घटी हो, तो परमेश्वर से मांगे, जो बिना उलाहना दिए सब को उदारता से देता है; और उस को दी जाएगी।

3. Repenting from sin (2Cor.3:16; 1Jn.1:6-8)
2Cor 3:16 परन्तु जब कभी उन का हृदय प्रभु की ओर फिरेगा, तब वह परदा उठ जाएगा।

4. Obeying God's Word - His Written Will (1Jn.2:17)
Will abide forever…

5. Renewing the mind (Rom.12:2)
6. Being Spiritually minded (1Cor.2:14). Natural man cannot receive
7. Praying in the Spirit (Rom.8:27)


Popular Posts

Blog Archive

Contact Form


Email *

Message *