Refutation: Where Did Jesus Say, “I Am God, Worship Me”? #2


Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

After responding to David Wood’s article, located here, I came across Samuel Green’s addendum. In his presentation, he appealed to the Gospel narrative of Christ before the Sanhedrin located in Matthew 26:62-66, which reads:

“Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” “He is worthy of death,” they answered.”

Samuel’s point being that Jesus calls himself the son of God and therefore by admission, claims to be God:

“In a recent debate I was told that Jesus never said, “I am God worship me”. At that time I did not answer with the above verses but now I think I should have. The reason is that in these verses Jesus proclaims his divinity and that all people will worship him. First Jesus says he is the Christ/Messiah, the Son of God.”

The problem with this assertion, is that the title, “Son of God” is not a claim of divinity. It’s simple to prove, if we return to the Old Testament, specifically to Bereishit (Genesis), we have the exact phrase being used for the children of Adam:

” When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. ” – Genesis 6:1-2 [NIV, same as Samuel’s version].

If therefore, the claim that anyone who is a son of God, is a God, then Moses, under inspiration from YHWH, when authoring the Book of Genesis claimed all the sons of Adam to be Gods. However, we know that this cannot be the case. Either it is that Samuel Green accepts the phrase, “Son of God” is not a title of divinity, or if he does assert that it is a title of divinity, then he must also bear witness that he worships Adam’s children. The case can even be furthered, if it is that the title, “son of God” is equivalent to being a God, then Samuel’s YHWH, has proclaimed to have many sons and therefore Samuel would have to accept he has many Gods:

“Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son” – Exodus (Shemot) 4:22.

“They will come with weeping;  they will pray as I bring them back. I will lead them beside streams of water  on a level path where they will not stumble, because I am Israel’s father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son.” – Jeremiah (Yirmiyahu) 31:9.

Mr. Green however, has seen it fit to distinguish Jesus’ claim to the son of Godship as something unique and prophesied to mean a divine Son of God. He does this by appealing to a version of Psalms 2:12, which reads:

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.”

The problem with this however is that the phrase, “kiss the son”, is an interpolation, found in the Syriac MSS, however absent from the Septuagint, Masoretic Text, Vulgate, Ethiopic MSS and the Chaldee codices:

It is remarkable that the word son ( bar, a Chaldee word) is not found in any of the versions except the Syriac, nor indeed any thing equivalent to it.

The Chaldee, Vulgate, Septuagint, Arabic, and Ethiopic, have a term which signifies doctrine or discipline: “Embrace discipline, lest the Lord be angry with you,” and especially that in so pure a piece of Hebrew as this poem is, a Chaldeeword should have been found; bar, instead of ben, which adds nothing to the strength of the expression or the elegance of the poetry. I know it is supposed that bar is also pure Hebrew, as well as Chaldee; but as it is taken in the former language in the sense of purifying, the versions probably understood it so here. Embrace that which is pure; namely, the doctrine of God.” – Adam Clarke Biblical Exegesis, Psalms 2:12.

Seeing as that line of evidence for asserting Jesus’ divinity through sonship is faulty, if not wholly fraudulent, and with possibly knowing this, Samuel Green then attempts to qualify his eisegesis by appealing to Daniel 7:13-14, which reads:

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” – Daniel 7:13-14.

Samuel interprets this passage as meaning the son of man (son of God) would be worshipped:

“Then Jesus says he is “the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” This language is again from the earlier prophets, the prophet Daniel, and is referring to the divine man who will receive the worship of God.”

The problem is, the word used in Daniel 7:14, doesn’t refer to worship, when we return to the Hebrew we find that the word used is פּלח, which means to revere, serve or minister. That is not to say that it can’t mean worship, but there is a contextual basis for this particular definition. It refers to authority, as persons have to revere, serve or minister to this person. Therefore to present it in a historical context, it is equivalent to the modern use of, “His worship the mayor”. A common term, referring to the respect and authority of a dignitary:

“often Worship Chiefly British Used as a form of address for magistrates, mayors, and certain other dignitaries: Your Worship.” – Dictionary Definition.

There is a distinction between the term used in Daniel, referring to power, authority, reverence and service/ ministering, and with this word שׁחה, which is used when referring to worship of a deity, as demonstrated below:

“Then the man bowed down and worshiped (שׁחה) the Lord” – Genesis 24:26.

 and I bowed down and worshiped (שׁחה) the Lord. I praised the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who had led me on the right road to get the granddaughter of my master’s brother for his son.” – Genesis 24:48.

With these evidences having been presented, the texts and Hebrew examined, there is no doubt that Samuel Green has grossly misrepresented the Old Testament’s texts, as well as misinterpreting verses to project the view that Jesus is a God. Simple examination of his evidences, have rendered his argument void of any intellectual foundation, solely based on conjecture and most likely can be labelled as an act of gross desperation.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best].

5 comments

  • This reply does not engage with what I said nor does it engage with the scriptures. You make a straw man rather than deal with what I said.

    I never said the title Son of God automatically means divine. I wrote,

    “First Jesus says he is the Christ/Messiah, the Son of God. The prophets before Jesus make it very clear that this Son sits at God’s right hand (Psalm 110:1) and how you are to treat this Son.”

    You do not even deal with what I wrote.

    Your quotes about Psalm 2:12 are just wrong. The word “kiss” is in the Hebrew and so is the word “son”. Just seach for these words in a search program and you can easily see. http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.cfm#strongs Words 1247, 1248, 1249

    The word means “son” or “chosen/pure” Even if you take it to mean “chosen” it is referring to the chosen son of v. 7.

    Regarding Daniel 7, you say it the word is serve not worship. Here are the references to the word in Daniel. 3:12, 14, 17, 18, 3:28, 6:16, 20, 7:14, 27. The context for all of these is serving God or gods.

    But you miss the point. Who is the only one that all nations will serve for ever? It is God alone. Surely you believe that? Jesus is saying that all nations will serve him forever.

    Playing with words the way you do has stopped you from seeing the main point of what is being said.

  • This reply does not engage with what I said nor does it engage with the scriptures. You make a straw man rather than deal with what I said.

    Actually sir, what you’re doing here is openly denying my response to you. A denial is not a refutation or a rebuttal, let’s first understand that. Secondly, if it is, that what I wrote was not relevant to your statements, then the rest of your comment would be based on what? If it’s based on my statements, then you’ve conceded that you’re being dishonest and they were relevant, for if there weren’t, you’d have no reason to respond to them. Simple logic.

    I never said the title Son of God automatically means divine. I wrote,
    “First Jesus says he is the Christ/Messiah, the Son of God. The prophets before Jesus make it very clear that this Son sits at God’s right hand (Psalm 110:1) and how you are to treat this Son.” You do not even deal with what I wrote.

    I dealt with the crux of your position. That being that because he claims to be a son of God, that him saying this, automatically makes him the son of God in Tehellim 110:1, however this is not the case. I refuted your position by using a method from PMI, where we establish a base case and demonstrate how to proceed from thereon. I did so by establishing that the title ‘son of God’ was not unique to Jesus and therefore it does not imply, i.e. it is non-sequitur to assert that the verse from Tehellim refers to him.

    Your quotes about Psalm 2:12 are just wrong. The word “kiss” is in the Hebrew and so is the word “son”. Just seach for these words in a search program and you can easily see. http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.cfm#strongs Words 1247, 1248, 1249

    Please learn to read properly Samuel, my article focused on the word ‘son’, which as demonstrated in the Hebraic rendition is not present in any of the major codices save for the Syriac. We see this as demonstrated by Exegete, Adam Clarke and for the sake of argument, let’s examine the Hebraic rendition from the Masoretic Text and the Greek Septuagint:-

    Septuagint:
    LXX

    Masoretic text:
    Masoretic Text

    The word son is present in neither text. It’s only present in your current edition because Christian textual critics have included the Syriac rendition of the verse in their canonical codices. However as seen above, neither the Septuagint nor the Masoretic text contain the words: υιου [Greek] or בְּנוֹ [Hebrew]. In fact by breaking down the Hebrew, your position is clearly rendered void:

    Hebrew Psalms 2:12

    The word means “son” or “chosen/pure” Even if you take it to mean “chosen” it is referring to the chosen son of v. 7.

    The ‘son’ referred to in verse 7 is David, see 2 Samuel 3:18, which reads:

    “Now do it! For the Lord promised David, ‘By my servant David I will rescue my people Israel from the hand of the Philistines and from the hand of all their enemies. ’”

    Something of which the Jewish exegete Rabbi Rashi also concurs with:

    You are My son: The head over Israel, who are called “My firstborn son.” And they will endure through you, as is stated concerning Abner (II Sam. 3:18): “for God said, etc., ‘By the hand of My bondsman David shall I deliver… Israel.’” And for their sake, you are before Me as a son because they are all dependent upon you.

  • Regarding Daniel 7, you say it the word is serve not worship. Here are the references to the word in Daniel. 3:12, 14, 17, 18, 3:28, 6:16, 20, 7:14, 27. The context for all of these is serving God or gods.

    To correct you, the word used in Daniel 7 is פּלח, whereas in 3:12 the word סגד is used for worship, what is funny is that the verse also uses the word serve (פּלח) right before it does worship, therefore presenting a clear cut dichotomy between worship and serving.

    But you miss the point. Who is the only one that all nations will serve for ever? It is God alone. Surely you believe that? Jesus is saying that all nations will serve him forever.

    The problem is, you’re confusing yourself, no where does Jesus make the claim that persons will serve him forever, that’s not the case presented in Matthew 26:62-66.

    Playing with words the way you do has stopped you from seeing the main point of what is being said.

    It’s actually called the science of hermeneutics and not playing with words, and I do hope you can study it. Perhaps you should dabble a bit in understanding Hebrew, I can give you the information for either Rabbi Ben Abrahamson or Rabbi Michael Skobac, the latter of which who is helping me with understanding the Hebrew Tanakh in explicit detail.

  • Awesome work Brother Ijaz. May Allah reward you.

  • Allah سبحانه وتعالى says in his book in Surah al-Ma’idah:

    لقد كفر الذين قالوا إن الله هو المسيح ابن مريم قل فمن يملك من الله شيئا إن أراد أن يهلك المسيح ابن مريم وأمه ومن في الأرض جميعا ولله ملك السماوات والأرض وما بينهما يخلق ما يشاء والله على كل شيء قدير

    They have indeed disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, “Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?” And to Allah belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is over all things competent. (5:17)

    Imam al-Sa’di in his tafsir writes the following:

    [ ص: 409 ] (17) لما ذكر تعالى أخذ الميثاق على أهل الكتابين، وأنهم لم يقوموا به بل نقضوه، ذكر أقوالهم الشنيعة.

    The Ever-Exalted mentioned when he took the covenant from the People of the two books, that is the Yahood and the Nasara, and that they didn’t carry out their part of it, in fact, they violated it. He mentioned their hideous statements.

    فذكر قول النصارى، القول الذي ما قاله أحد غيرهم، بأن الله هو المسيح ابن مريم، ووجه شبهتهم أنه ولد من غير أب، فاعتقدوا فيه هذا الاعتقاد الباطل مع أن حواء نظيره، خلقت بلا أم، وآدم أولى منه، خلق بلا أب ولا أم، فهلا ادعوا فيهما الإلهية كما ادعوها في المسيح؟

    So he mentioned the statement of the Christians, the statement which no one said other than them, that Allah is the Christ the son of Mary, and their dubious understanding that he was born without a father, so this is the reason why they believe in these false beliefs. Notwithstanding, Eve would be his counterpart, she was created without a mother, and Adam was the first [i.e., the first one that was created], created without a father and without a mother, so would they claim divinity for them both as they claim it for the Christ?

    فدل على أن قولهم اتباع هوى من غير برهان ولا شبهة. فرد الله عليهم بأدلة عقلية واضحة فقال: قل فمن يملك من الله شيئا إن أراد أن يهلك المسيح ابن مريم وأمه ومن في الأرض جميعا .

    This indicates that their statement is based on their desires, with no proof and no doubts. So Allah answers them with clear rational evidence when he said: “Say, ‘Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?’

    Source: http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=343&idto=343&bk_no=209&ID=349#docu