Does John 8:40 teach that Jesus is not God?

The article argues against the Iglesia Ni Cristo’s interpretation of John 8:40, which they use to claim that Jesus is not God. The author explains that INC’s reasoning misunderstands the doctrine of the Trinity, which teaches that Jesus is both fully man and fully God, and that the Father and Son are distinct persons within the Godhead. The essay highlights that John 8:40 does not contradict the deity of Christ, but instead aligns with Trinitarian beliefs. Additionally, the surrounding verses in John 8, such as John 8:24, 8:28, and 8:58, clearly affirm Jesus’ divine identity.

In John 8:40, Jesus explicitly identifies himself as a man who has heard the truth from God, a statement that clearly distinguishes Jesus from God. The article argues that this distinction is consistent with Trinitarian theology, but if Jesus was truly God, he would not need to hear truth from God, as God is all-knowing and self-sufficient. This verse, rather than supporting a Trinitarian understanding, affirms Jesus’ role as a human messenger of God’s truth.

The author asserts that in John 8:58 (“before Abraham was, I am”), Jesus is claiming to be God by invoking the divine name “I AM” from Exodus 3:14. This phrase could simply mean that Jesus existed in God’s foreknowledge or plan before Abraham, not that he is claiming eternal, divine pre-existence. Jesus’ use of “I am” could also be a statement of his Messianic role, not a claim to deity. The reaction of the Jews—picking up stones—might reflect a misunderstanding of Jesus’ words rather than proof of a blasphemous claim to be God.

Finally, John 8:28 (“I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me”) further emphasizes Jesus’ subordinate relationship to God. If Jesus were God, he would not need to be taught or act under authority, but this passage reinforces the belief that Jesus is a distinct and subordinate being, not equal to God. The article’s reliance on these verses to support the doctrine of the Trinity is based on theological assumptions that are not grounded in a straightforward reading of the text.