|
|
|
Dedicated to Michael Servetus: 1511-53
APOSTOLIC, OR CHURCH FATHERS.
Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is "other than the God who made all things." He said that Jesus was inferior to God and "never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say."
Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the "One true and only God," who is "supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other."
Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence "a creature" but called God "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that the Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.
Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: "The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent." He also said: "There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone."
Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is "the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all," who "had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before," such as the created prehuman Jesus.
Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that "the Father and Son are two substances . . . two things as to their essence," and that "compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light."
Alvan Lamson says in The Church of the First Three Centuries: "The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and . . . holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact."
"There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead."-The Triune God
BOOK VIII
MODERN TRINITARIAN APOLOGETICS
VII. Modern Defences of the Trinity
A. The Trinity of three persons in one God
TRUINE FORMULAS.
Mathew 28.19 --- THE TRINITARIAN FORMULA
[[McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20: "This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity." (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552) Regarding other texts that also mention the three together, this Cyclopedia admits that, taken by themselves, they are "insufficient" to prove the Trinity. (Compare 1 Timothy 5:21, where God and Christ and the angels are mentioned together.)]]
2 Corinthians 13.14 --- PAUL’S TRIUNE FORMULA. This closing verse of Second Corinthians is generally included among certain triune formulas. The verse reads: ‘The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of The God and the communion of the holy spirit be with all of you.’ Is it fair to ask how many gods are in this verse? is there but one here? The God (tou theou) is distinguished from the grace of Jesus and the sharing in the holy spirit. Is there anything in the phrase "sharing (communion) of the holy spirit) which would necessarily mean it was a person? Persons may share water, food or a source of energy without such things being persons. This "formula" is far removed from what a Trinitarian would write, or rewrite, if he had the authority: "The Grace of God the Son and the love of God the Father and the communion of God the Holy Ghost be with you."
Ephesians 4.4 --- One God. A similar formula is constructed by some in this verse of Paul: ‘ ... one spirit ... one Lord ... one God.’ Though it appears tempting at first, does the verse identify more than "one God"? This is clearly the Father as the whole expression shows. Paul has already written that the "one Lord" has a God in 1.3, 17: ‘the God and Father of our Lord ... the God of our Lord.’ Paul does not seem to understand that these are the same God or Person. This "Lord" is one of the "many lords" over which Yahweh is both God and Lord as Moses taught. (De 10.17; 1 Co 8.5, 6)
Paul uses other abstractions in this same verse: body, hope, faith, and baptism which are not a person. Neither must the phrase "one spirit" be forced into such a third Person in the holy Trinity.
Irenaeus of the Second Century paraphrases this verse in Ephsians: "And thus one God the Father is declared, who is above all, and through all, and in all. The Father is indeed above all, and He is the Head of Christ."-Against Heresies, Book V, chapter 18.2.
B. The diety of Jesus and "proof texts"
Introduction. The late Anglican bishop John Robinson wrote in Honest to God: "In practice popular preaching and teaching presents a supranaturalistic view of Christ which cannot be substantiated from the New Testament. It says simply that Jesus was God, in such a way that the terms 'Christ' and 'God' are interchangeable. But nowhere in Biblical usage is this so. The New Testament says that Jesus was the Word of God, it says that God was in Christ, it says that Jesus is the Son of God; but it does not say that Jesus was God, simply like that."
Despite what learned scholars have said on this subject of the divinity of Christ -- both pro and con -- many Trinitarians insist there are as many as 600 "proof texts" regarding the deity of Jesus. We cannot consider all these supposed evidences but we will examine those used most often. If they fail to prove the matter then it may be assumed the remaining hundreds are less so.
JOHN 1.1 --- DOES THIS VERSE PROVE THE TRINITY? DOES IT PROVE JESUS IS GOD ALMIGHTY?
THE GREEK TEXT: [fonts omitted in email version]
εν αρχη746 ην ο λογος3056 και ο λογος ην προς4314 In beginning was the word and the word was toward
τον θεον2316 και θεος2316 ην ο λογος αυτος3778 ην the god and god was the word the same was
εν αρχη προς τον θεον in beginning toward the god
The 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures:
1.1-3a AS (A) GOD THE WORD WAS AN AGENCY OF CREATION
1.1 In the beginning the Word existed, and the Word existed with The God and the Word was (a) god.
1.2 This (god) existed in the beginning with The God.
1.3 Everything came into existence by means of (this god’s) agency and without (that god) nothing came into existence.
This prologue of the Beloved most be among the premier texts qouted to prove the Trinity. Not, of course, by scholars, even Trinitarian ones, for obviously the Third Person is absent. It is often, though, resorted to by new Christians who have been erroneously told somewhere it proves the Trinity. The volumes of dissertations on this verse alone would fill the oceans of the world. So, we wish to be as simple as possible so we do not increase the depths of the oceans of ink.
There is one word we are unable to find in any translation we have examined. There may be some which contain this missing word and n doubt we will locate it some day. The original First Century Greek copies would have read, using English, something like this:
INBEGINNINGTHEWORDWASANDTHEWORDWASWITHTHEGODANDGODWASTHEWORD.
Can you find the word missing in your own translation? Take a minute and read slowly. You will find it. It is the word "the" --- in Greek ton before the first occurrence of "god" --- that is, "the god." Now centuries of Christian monotheism, and later the Trinitarian filter, has rendered "the god" as "God." Now, this is fair enough if one clearly understands what is going in this verse. The 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures chooses to add the article "the" and make the phrase "The God" because there were so many "gods" (1 Co 8.4-8) in the ancient Greek and Roman world John wants to make clear he has The God in mind. So, "the Word was with The God." A particular, singular, and absolute "God."
Mohammed did something similar when faced with a world filled with pagan gods, and with the Trinity popular among the powerful Roman Christian world. He describes the Creator as Allah which literally means the same as ton theon --- The God. In the modern Western world with its Judaeo-Christian and Moslem backgrounds need only see the word captilozed, God, to know this is different from "god." One way to do this in Greek is use the only article the Greeks had in the alphabet, "the."
Some scholars believe ho theos is never used of Christ whereas theos is on rare occasions. These will be discussed later.
Do you think it fair for lany translation to omit an important word from the original Greek of the Christian Bible? Well, what does this mean? The Word was with someone, and this someone was The God. Now, at the same time "the Word was god." But, this "god" lacks the article "the" and so cannot be the same "The God" with whom the Word was. Now, modern trinitarian monotheists (something of a contradiciton) will howl "polytheism!" Because that is what results from reading lthe verse literally in Greek: there are two gods in verse one: The God and another "god." How can this be? We in the Twenieth Century, looking backward through centuries of trinitarian filters and straw-man definitions, do not share the same views that John’s readers did. So, we must first understand how Jews, Greeks and Romans would have viewed the word theos or "god." Few English-speaking persons can state the root meaning and sources for the word "god" let alone the Greek theos of the Hebrew elohim.
Regarding John 1.1, a professor Werner writes: "This problem was one which had not hitherto existed for Christianity. Now for the first time, owing to the new doctrine of Redemption, Christ becomes tantamount to ‘another God,’ (Justin) or, rather, the God ‘in the second place,’ ‘the second rank’ after the Creator-God (Justin), the ‘second God’ (Origen), the ‘second God after the Father.’ (Hippolytus)
"That there should be a second God with or after the first and only God the Father constituted, inevitably, for Chritian monotheism a great problem. ... This Prologue (John i, 1 ff.) became in increasing measure for the theology of the folowig eriod both the point of departure and the object of a discussion which grew evermore intense. The fact that discussed centred here, and not primarily on the Synoptic and Pauline statements, is significant. For it reveals the instinctive feeling that a problem was involved here which had not existed in the Apostolic Age and which the Post-Apostolic Church had itself created." (The Formation of Christian Dogma, Martin Werner, pp 216, 217)
On the matter of monotheism and polytheism, who is authorized to determine what the definitions of these words must mean. If they are arbitrarily defined as "worship of one God" as opposed to "belief in one God" interesting conflicts result. What was the truth of the Hebrew and Greek worlds? Anyone can study lexicons and discover for themselves that both Jews and Christians believed that though there was only one God, there were others who were called "gods" both in celestial patheons and terrestial emperors, heros, idols, and noteworthy persons, such as judges. (1 Co 8.5, 6; Ps 82.1-6)
That John has two gods in mind is shown by verse 18 of this same chapter, present in Greek with Strong’s numerical codes and a literally interlinear:
[Greek fonts omitted]
THEON(2316) OUDEIS(3762) EORAKEN(3708) POPOTE(4415)
god no one has seen ever
MONOGENES THEOS HO ON(5607) EIS(1519) TON KOLPON(3859) TOU
only-begotten god the one in the bosom of the
PATROS(3962) EKEINOS(1565) EXEGESATO(1834)
father that one explained (Him)
This reads: ‘No one has ever seen God. The only-begotten god, the one in the bosom of the Father, that one explained Him.’ Is it fair to say that in this verse there are two gods: the invisible one, and, the only-begotten one. The former is not only invisible and never begotten; the later, holds the favored position with the Father and is the mono+genes of the Father. This word monogenes is like saying this son is the only one who has the DNA of the Father or the only one genetically related to the Father.
John 1.18 also explains what the essential meaning of John’s word logos means by his use of exegesato, that is an Exegete, which is someone who explains complex religious matters. The Logos is the Exegete of the Creator and it is by means of His Word, the Logos, that God Almighty utters creative words as well as revelations of spiritual illumination.
There are some similarities between the relationship of The God and the Word which are illustrated with Moses and Aaron. Exodus 4.15, 16 records this God-arranged relationship: ‘And you (Moses) shall speak to (Aaron) and put words in his mouth. ... (Aaron) shall speak for you (Moses) to the people, and (Aaron) shall be a mouth for you,and you shall be to (Aaron) as God.’ (RSV) And, again, later: ‘And the LORD said to Moses, "See, I make you as God to Pharoah; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.’ (Ex 7.1 RSV) We leave the footnotes to explain details of what is going on in these verses.
However, we might paraphrase thes verses this way: "In the beginning Aaron was, and Aaron as with the God Moses, and Aaron was God." Yahweh himself describes Aaron as "mouth" and "prophet" in that the brother of Moses spoke for him who had God speaking directly to him. Some versions use "Spokesman" instead of "mouth." The Jewish Greek (LXX) version uses laon for "words" in which logos is rooted. But, there is something that pops off the page in the Septuagint.
It is the Greek pros ton theon which occurs in Exodus 4.16 (LXX) which is exactly the same phrase occuring in John 1.1 when it states "the Word was with The God." Would this not confirm the relationship of Aaron to Moses is compared to John’s Logos or Word? Moses was, in affect, The God, and Aaron was his "mouth" or "spokesman" or "prophet" and spoke for him.
Pros is regularly translated "toward" when it indicates someone facing another as if to receive instructions with the purpose of carrying them out; or, approaching and going toward another. In just chapter three of John’s Gospel alone, note these: 3.2, (Nicodemas) came toward (pros) Jesus by night’; 3.4, Nicodemas said (legei = logos) toward (pros) (Jesus; 3.20, he does not approach (pros) the light; 3.21, toward (pros) the light; 3.26, they came toward (pros) John ... and all are going (erchontai) toward him. If the Word is "toward" (pros) The God it is unlikely, if not unreasonable, that at the same time he is that God.
It is the Nazarene who makes it clear himself that what he speaks is not his own but what The God told him to speak. Jesus does this several times: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. ... I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge. ... My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me; if any man’s will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from [The] God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. ... I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me.’ (Jn 5.19, 30; 7.16-18; 8.28 RSV) These are words Aaron could have used if asked where his words came from.
Some renderings are: 1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text. 1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson. 1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel. 1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. 1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme. 1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. 1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek. 1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
The reason the New English Bible opted for a completely different rendering of John 1.1 ("When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was.") is explained: (Professor C. H. Dodd) "A possible translation . . . would be, 'The Word was a god'. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted. ...
The reason why ("the Word was God") is inacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole." (Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Volume 28, January 1977)Ernst Haenchen (Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar) (1984). "John 1:1: ‘In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and divine [of the category divinity] was the Logos. ... "In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that the·os' and ho the·os' ('god, divine' and 'the God') were not the same thing in this period. Philo has therefore written: the Logos means only theos ('divine') and not ho theos ('God') since the logos is not God in the strict sense. . . . In a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the logos is 'God,' but only that the logos is 'divine.' In fact, for the author of the hymn [in John 1:1], as for the Evangelist, only the Father was 'God' (ho theos) Joh17:3); 'the Son' was subordinate to him (cf. Joh 14.28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other. ... It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ. . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities."-Pages 109, 110.
"-John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6, pages 108-10, translated by Robert W. Funk.]
Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique: "The Holy Spirit is not mentioned in this prologue [John 1:1-18]."
Professor B. F. Westcott: "[the Word was God]" describes "the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person."
Journal of Biblical Literature (Volume 92, 1973), Philip P. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.'"
Encyclopædia Britannica (1974 edition, Micropædia, Vol. VI, p. 302): "The identification of Jesus with the logos, which is implicitly stated in various places in the New Testament but very specifically in the Fourth Gospel, was further developed in the early church but more on the basis of Greek philosophical ideas than on Old Testament motifs."
Westcott: "It is necessarily without the article [the·ós not ho the·ós] inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person." (Quoted from page 116 of An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by Professor C. F. D. Moule, 1963 reprint.)
WHO IS "THE GOD" (TON THEON) IN JOHN 1.1?
The word existed originally, before creation as described in Genesis 1.1, and the word was wth The God. Who is ton theon here? What will a trinitarian say? The Father? Or, does ton theos always mean the Godhead of the Trinity itself?
If ton theos is the Father then should it read: "the word was with the Father and the word was the Father"? We note the holy spirit is missing in the prologue.
If ton theos is the Trinity, then would it read: "the word was with the Trinity and the word was the Trinity"?
Theological Investigations, Karl Rahner: "In St. John's First Epistle [ho theos] ["the God"] so often certainly means the Father that it must be understood of the Father throughout the Epistle." (Compare Bible du Centenaire)
The Anchor Bible: "To preserve in English the different nuance of theos [god] with and without the article, some (Moffatt) would translate 'The Word was divine.'"
"Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst goettlichen Wesens," The New Testament, by Rudolf Boehmer, 1910.
"Das Wort war selbst goettlichen Wesens," The New Testament, by Curt Stage, 1907.
"Und Gott (=goettlichen Wesens) war das Wort," The Holy Scriptures, by D. Dr. Hermann Menge, twelfth edition, 1951.
"Und war von goettlicher Wucht," The New Testament, by Friedrich Pfaefflin, 1949.
"Und Gott von Art war das Wort," The New Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919.
WHAT WAS JOHN’S PURPOSE IN WRITING HIS GOSPEL?
"That you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God." (Jn 20.31). If John had another agenda, a Trinitarian one, would he have written the same? Would he, as many Trinitarians do, render this phrase, "God the Son"?
John 2.19 --- DID JESUS RESURRECT HIMSELF?
This text is sometimes used in an effort to prove Jesus is God Himself because they assert that here the Nazarene foretells he will resurrect himself. The text reads: ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ (RSV) The misunderstand his statement and this becomes a source of accusation years later. John himself explains in verse 21: ‘But he was speaking of the temple of his body.’ No where else is this parabolic phrase of the Nazarene used to indicate Jesus would raise or resurrect himself. Rather, each time this subject is discussed it is The God who resurrects Jesus from Hades.
There are more than two dozen texts which show The God (ho theos) raising the Son from the dead. There is not a single case where Jesus is described as raising himself. (Ac 3.15; 4.10; 5.30; 10.40; 13.30, 37; Ro 4.24, 25; 6.4, 9; 7.4; 8.11, 24; 10.9; 1 Co 6.14; 15.4, 15; 2 Co 4.14; Ga 1.1; Ep 1.20; 2.12; 1 Th 1.10; 1 Pe 1.21) These would seem to making it clear there is a distinct difference between The God the Father and Jesus his Son who did not resurrect himself, but was raised by The God. If Jesus had raised himself it would seem someone would have noted this and mentioned it.
Is it fair that the Nazarene’s phrase in John 2.19 is couched in parabolic or metaphorical language? He uses the Temple (naos) illustrative of his body. In what way could he mean metamorphically that "he would raise his body in three days"? The Beloved Apostle is to be unique in recording the answer to this in later verses. Compare John 10.15, 18: ‘And I lay down my life for the sheep. ... No one takes (my life) from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay (my life) down, and I have power to take (my life) up again. I have received this command from my Father.’ (RSV) Here the subject is the "life" of the Son. Though he can lay it down and take it up again, he can do this only as he is given authority from the Father. By his own course of integrity and self-sacrifice, the Nazarene may of his own free will give up his body or life for the sake of the sheep. By this obedient course, he, in affect, takes up his own life again, just as the Father promised. (Is ch 53; Ph 2.5-9)
Jesus says something similar to his own disciples. Luke 21.19 has the Nazarene teaching, ‘In your own endurance you will gain your souls.’ Our life as a soul or living being is to some extent within our own power, for we may choose of ourselves whether to lose our soul or gain it. (Mt 10.39) Do this degree our own future existence is in our own hands. We understand Jesus’ words to the Jews at John 2.19 to reflect a similar idea.
John 2.19 may be viewed as typical of a representative's authority granted by the higher one he represents. We have a similar sense in Biblical Hebrew at Deuteronomy 30.19, 20.
Robert Young's Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation comes to mind which not only answers to this statement, but also numerous others that are supposed to support the Trinity: "# 8. What a SERVANT says or does is ascribed to the master. " He then quotes Matthew 19.4, 5 showing how the "he" (ho = the [one]) says, though sounding as if YHWH literaly said it, the context in Genesis 2 shows it to be an interpretaion by the writer of Genisis. Compare also Genesis 31.11-13 where the messenger (angel) of the LORD becomes YHWH himself.
Also Young’s Hint # 68 (PHROPHET) applies : "one who [ professedly ] announces the will or celebrates the works of God. ... Jesus being The Prophet, could be considered to be in a constant Prophetic mode - the things I speak are not of my own originality as I hear The Father speak I speak (Jn 14.10) - this is typical of a representative's authority to speak as if he / she were the Authority themselves; it is a Oriental Grammatical device as can be noted in Dt 30.19, 20.
JOHN 8.58 -- DID THE NAZARENE APPLY EXODUS 3.14 TO HIMSELF?
We have before us a text, John 8.58, which a sincere Christian friend with strong faith in the Trinity sugests proves the divinity of Christ. In Greek the later part of this verse reads: PRIN ABRAAM GENESTHAI EGO EIMI. This text reads in English in the Greek-English Interlinear New Testament as: ‘Before Abraham came into being, I AM.’ We note the "I AM" is capitalized. When we check other translations we note they tend to also capitalize this "I AM." We note first that these same translations do not do this in 8.28 where Jesus also said, "I am." This has us puzzled at first.
Our good friend has suggested that the "I AM" in verse 58 is a quote from Exodus 3.14 and so he believes with great fervor Jesus is making himself the Yahweh of the Burning Bush account where the Almighty God declares His Name. We turn to some translations and they do, indeed, have Exodus 3.14 as ‘I am that I AM.’ (KJV) Since some capitalize both "I AM" in John and Exodus it would seem our friend’s idea has some validity on cursurary examination. How are we to know whether the Nazarene is lifting the "I AM" of Exodus 3.14 and applying this title to himself in John 8.58? What can this mean?
First, our rule is to ceck the context. One could go all the way back to 8.1 (or, 8.12 in some versions) and check this dialogue between the Nazarene and the Jewish scribes and Pharisees, but we note the immediate question at hand. Verse 58 begins, ‘Jesus said to them,’ so he must be responding to a question. Sure enough, we note in the previous verse (57) these godly Jews asked, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?’ To which Jesus answers in verse 58, ‘Before Abraham existed, I am.’
We discover that the English "am" is similar to the Greek eimi which, according to Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 222, means "as a predicate to be -- 1. be, exist." As in Shakespeare, "to be or not to be, that is the question." It would seem to a fair mind that the subject is, "How could you possibly have known Abraham?" To which the Nazarene simply answers, ‘Before Abraham existed, I existed,’ or, ‘I existed before Abraham existed.’ The pre-existence of Christ is something stressed only in the Gospel of John and it seems that thisis what is being done here. It seems a strange way to go about claiming one is the Yahweh, or El’Shad-dai’ of Exodus 3.14.
We remember that the Nazarene has already used the whole Greek expression ego eimi in 8.18, 23, 28 and the Jews did not seem to think Jesus was laying claim to being Yahweh there. We note first 8.17, 18 where Jesus does quote from Moses (De 19.15) using the rule of ‘the testimony of twn men is true.’ When checking out this verse in Moses we note it actually says, ‘two or three’! If Jesus believed in a truine view, or any other concept of "three," this would have provided an outstanding Trinitarian opportunity. However, instead of applying "three men" and their testimony, he only makes application of "two" when he goes on to say: ‘I am (ego eimi) the one testifying about myself.’ Now, that makes "one person." Then Jesus adds, and the One having sent me, the Father, testifies about me.’ That makes, by Jesus’ own addition, "two." He either misses this opportunity to make some statement about "three," as Deuteronomy 19.15 would allow, or he has no such thought about "three."
Here, in 8.17, 18, when the Nazarene used "I am" (ego eimi) there was no confusion among the Jews: Jesus was some one other than the Father, who was another. That the Jews understood the Father to be God is shown in 8.41 and 8.54. So could not 8.17, 18 read: "I am the one testifying about myself and God who sent me testifies about me"? Jesus equals "one" and God equals "one" which adds up to "two witnesses" with no mention of a third.
The other occurrence of ego eimi is at 8.28 where Jesus says, ‘When you lift up the Son of Man then you will know that I am.’ This comes in answer to the question in verse 25, ‘Who are you?’ Is it fair to say the Nazarene’s answer is, "the Son of Man"? This is an expression from Daniel 7.13 and had always been applied by the Jews to the Messiah or Christ. Here in verses 26-29 Jesus make a cler distinction between himself and the God who sent him, the Father. This designation from Daniel 7.13 is a true quote or allusion where the Messiah is ascending to the one called "the Ancent of Days."
Now, it seems to usthat Jesus had clear opportunity to identify himself with "three persons" using Deuteronomy 19.15, but he does not. He has another opportunity when he is directly asked about his identity, but here his answer is, "the Son of Man."
IS JOHN 8.58 A QUOTE? We are now wondering whether 8.58 and its ego eimi is a quote or allusion at all. First, we check Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece which faithfully identfies source words or quotes and to our surprise this excellent work does not list Exodus 3.14. We also check the New Jerusalem Bible which we have found to be reliable in its cross references to quotes and allusions. Even this work does not show Exodus 3.14 as a source of Jesus’ "I am."
How can we know if the ego eimi in John 8.58 is a quote or strong allusion to Exodus 3.14? We turn to Exodus 3.14, 15 in the Jewish Greek Septuagint. There, in answer to Moses’ question of God at the burning bush, El’Shad-dai’ reveals to Moses His sacred name. Rendering this in English at the point of our interest, it reads: ‘And the God spoke to Moses, saying, ( = ego eimi ho on; I AM THE BEING, LXX); and He said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, ho On (= The Being) has sent me to you. ... This is my name for ever.’ Which part of the whole phrase ego eimi ho On does God take to be His name? Is it not ho On and not ego eimi. Here in Exodus 3.14 ego eimi is emphatic, meaning "I am . . . somebody."
Now, we rememberthat there is something interesting here in the account about the burning bush. The Nazarene alludes to it at matthew 22.32 (see also Mark 12.18-27 and Luke 20.20-26) where Jesus seems to be referring to someone other than himself when he mentions, He is the God (not "I am God"), not of the dead, but of the living.’ Additionally, Peter alludes to Exodus 3.14 at Acts 3.13 and he seems to draw a clear distinction between ‘The God of Abraham ( = Yahweh) . . . and His Servant-boy, Jesus.’
We also remember that the dear apostle John himself in the Apocalypse uses ho On and applies it to someone other than the Lamb. Note Revelation 4.8 and ho On is the "Lord God Almighty" (the El’Shad-dai’ of Ex 3.14) who sits upon the Throne and to whom the Lamb approaches to receive the Little Bible.
We also note in the process of checking the ego eimi of Exodus 3.14 (LXX) that the Greek is slightly different from the ego eimi of John 8.58. In Exodus it is emphatic and in John it is not. Our good Christian friend has stressed the emphatic "I am" and we note that ego eimi is often used in such cases as "I am the Vine." Note the emphatic ego eimi Iesous ("I am Jesus") at Acts 26.15. Or, in the case of the blind man who uses the emphatic "I am ... " at John 9.9. That is, "I am . . . someone (a blind man)." The Greek ego eimi is not emphatic in John 8.58, though it is in Exodus 3.14.
HOW DO TRANSLATORS RENDER JOHN 8.58?
In John 8.58 there is no suggestion of "I am . . . someone." It is simply, "I am." Though this is difficult torender in English, judging from what has been noted above, if Jesus were quoting Exodus 3.14 (in Greek) he would not have said ego eimi but rather ho On. If Jesus had respond to the question of the Jews, ‘Before Abraham existed ho On’ a plausible argument might be presented that this is the Nazarene’s quote of Exodus 3.14.
Since it is not, the suggested way to translate this unique case of ego eimi is admitted by A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John (printed by the United Bible Societies): "In many languages it is impossible to preserve the expression I am in this type of context, for the present tense of the verb ‘to be’ would be meaningless. To make sense, one must say, ‘Befor Abraham existed, I existed.’" This being the case we checked other translations: Lamsa: I was; Moffatt: I have existed before Abraham; Beck: I was before Abraham; Williams: I existed before Abraham was born; New World: before Abraham came into existence, I have been. So, it seems many translators do not render ego eimi as I AM but in harmony with the context show Jesus’ reply had to do with his confession of pre-existece, not his divinity.
How do some scholars render the I AM of John 8.58? Compare more than a dozen.
1869: "From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes. 1935: "I existed before Abraham was born!" The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. 1965: "Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am." Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink. 1981: "I was alive before Abraham was born!" The Simple English Bible. Moffatt: "I have existed before Abraham was born." Schonfield and An American Translation: "I existed before Abraham was born." Stage (German): "Before Abraham came to be, I was." Pfaefflin (German): "Before there was an Abraham, I was already there!" George M. Lamsa, translating from the Syriac Peshitta, says: "Before Abraham was born, I was." Dr. James Murdock, also translating from the Syriac Peshitto Version, says: "Before Abraham existed, I was." The Brazilian Sacred Bible published by the Catholic Bible Center of São Paulo says: "Before Abraham existed, I was existing."-2nd edition, of 1960, Bíblia Sagrada, Editora "AVE MARIA" Ltda.
Remember, also, that when Jesus spoke to those Jews, he spoke to them in the Hebrew of his day, not in Greek. How Jesus said John 8:58 to the Jews is therefore presented to us in the modern translations by Hebrew scholars who translated the Greek into the Bible Hebrew, as follows: Dr. Franz Delitzsch: "Before Abraham was, I have been." Isaac Salkinson and David Ginsburg: "I have been when there had as yet been no Abraham." In both of these Hebrew translations the translators use for the expression "I have been" two Hebrew words, both a pronoun and a verb, namely, aní hayíthi; they do not use the one Hebrew word: Ehyéh.
BUT, WHAT ABOUT THE STONING?
Now, our friend has made much of verse 59, ‘Therefore, they picked up stones to hurl them at him, but Jesus hid.’ Our friend feels that this stoning was in response to Jesus laying claim to the title "I AM." But, we have seen this ego eimi has already been used three times (8.18, 24, 28) without any objection on the part of the Jews. We note the Jews have been seeking to kill Jesus as early as John 5.18 (note also 7.1, 19, 20, 25, 32, 44, 45) where they were already stirred to stoning. So, it is not the Nazarene’s remark in verse 58 which aoruses their hatred. They were of this mind much earlier. Jesus has alrady given their reason in verse 40: ‘But now you are seeking to kill me, a man (!!) that has told you the truth that I heard from The God.’ In this verse there is "a man" and The God (tou theou) consistent with the "two persons" of verse 17.
Finally, we check a Greek grammar, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research by A. T. Robertson: "The verb (ei-mi) . . . Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb,as in (e-go’ ei-mi’) Jo 8.58."
Our friend is extremely sincere and not for a moment do we doubt his undying faith in our Lord. We are quite willing to accept whatever identity the Bible places on Jesus the Nazarene. On the other hand, we cannot see John 8.58 anything other than Jesus stating his pre-existence before Abraham, something an angel could do also. We hope our friend does not judge (Jn 8.15; 12.47) us for believing Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah sent from The God above. We both rejoice at the indwelling Christ in the lives of all the Nazarene Saints!
Abbé Drioux edition of the Holy Bible: "Before Abraham was, I am, in fact God eternal, before Abraham was born."
Moffatt: "I have existed before Abraham was born." Schonfield and An American Translation: "I existed before Abraham was born." Stage (German): "Before Abraham came to be, I was." Pfaefflin (German): "Before there was an Abraham, I was already there!" George M. Lamsa, translating from the Syriac Peshitta, says: "Before Abraham was born, I was." Dr. James Murdock, also translating from the Syriac Peshitto Version, says: "Before Abraham existed, I was." The Brazilian Sacred Bible published by the Catholic Bible Center of São Paulo says: "Before Abraham existed, I was existing."-2nd edition, of 1960, Bíblia Sagrada, Editora "AVE MARIA" Ltda.
JN 8.58 --- We must remember, also, that when Jesus spoke to those Jews, he spoke to them in the Hebrew of his day, not in Greek. How Jesus said John 8:58 to the Jews is therefore presented to us in the modern translations by Hebrew scholars who translated the Greek into the Bible Hebrew, as follows: Dr. Franz Delitzsch: "Before Abraham was, I have been." Isaac Salkinson and David Ginsburg: "I have been when there had as yet been no Abraham." In both of these Hebrew translations the translators use for the expression "I have been" two Hebrew words, both a pronoun and a verb, namely, aní hayíthi; they do not use the one Hebrew word: Ehyéh. So they do not make out that in John 8:58 Jesus was trying to imitate Jehovah God and give us the impression that he himself was Jehovah, the I AM.
John 10.30 --- IS JESUS EQUAL TO GOD?
We have this text before us, John 10.33, which a good Christian friend tell us proves that Jesus the Nazarene was equal to God when he walked the roads of Judea durng "the days of his flesh." (He 5.7) This text reads: ‘Because you (Jesus) being a man make yourself God.’ We note right away that it is the Jews who drew this conclusion and make the charge. It is not a statement which comes from Jesus. Now, this is about as trustworthy as your average Pharisee when it came to attitudes toward the Nazarene. However, we are more interested in Jesus’ own response to this accusation from his religious oppossers. There is a fine opportunity for Jesus to clear up matters. If Jes believed himself to be God, equal to God, or part of a triune Godhead, how we to suppose he might answer their question. Surely, he must be honest, and say, "Yes," or, "I am he," or something of the sort? How did Jesus answer the Jews?
John 10.24, 35 has the Nazarene’s answer: ‘Is it not written in your law (at Psalm 82.6), "I said, ‘You are gods.’ If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ -- and the scripture cannot be annulled -- can you say that the one whom the Father sent in to the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?" Is it strange that the Nazarene seeks the authority of Psalm 82.6 where Yahweh refers to the Israelite judges as "gods"? Does not Jesus’ own use of the Bible show there are other "gods" or degrees of being "god"? How can one argue that Jesus thought himself The God when he only claims to the "the Son of God"?
We note there is no article before the theon in 10.33 so this could be translated "a god." The Jews said, "because you being a man make yourself a god." Compare the New English Bible: "You, a mere man, claim to be a god." This translation is more consistent with Jesus’ own response and use of Psalm 82.6.
Jesus has already confronted the Jews on the question of equality with God in chapter five of John. John 5.18 records the charge: ‘Because (Jesus) was not only breaking the sabbath, but was calling God hiswn Father, thereby making himself equal to The God.’ We note this is a conlcusion the Jews draw which is explained by John, and not the Nazarene himself. But, we are interested in Jesus’ answer to this. Here he has an opportunity to clear up the matter of his identity. If Jesus were indeed God or even equal to God, how would he answer this charge by the Jews? His answer is recorded beginning with 5.19, ‘The Son can do nothing of his own.’ The United Bible Societies Interlinear edition puts this literally: "The Son is unable to do antyhing from himself." Now, if we replace "the Son" with "God" we would have, "God is unable to do antyhing from Himself." This is shocking for the nGod could not create or do anything on his own initiative. It would be ludicrous to state that God is unable to do anything of his own self!
We note in the words which follow the Nazarene backs up this original proposition for other statements regarding either his limitations or the source of his authorit or appointments. 1) The Father shows the Son what He is doing. The Son does not know this naturally, but the father must reveal it to him. (5.20) 2) The Father has granted the Son also to have life in himself. (5.26) The Son does not naturally possess this life within himself, it is "granted" him by the Father. 3)The Father has given the Son authority to execute judgment. (5.27) The Son receives this authority from the Father. What does this mean but the Son does not have this authority on his ow. He must receive it from the source of all power and authority. 4) The Son can do nothing on his own. (5.30) Imagine saying, "God can do nothing on His own"? The idea boggles the mind. If that were true nothing would now exist for God would be incapable of making it happen as the First Cause of the Prime Mover. 5)The Son seeks not his own will but that of the Father. (5.30) The Son seeks the will of the Father. In this regard, the Son has no will of his own otherthan what the Father directs. 6) The father sent the Son. (5.37) The Son does not come of his own accord, but he is sent forth by the Father. We note in all of this the Nazarene makes no mention of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus concludes his response to the carge of making himself equal to God with, ‘You have never heard (the Father’s) voice or seen His form.’ (5.38) If Jesus were God would they not be hearing His voice and seeing His form right there in the Son?
What else would Jesus have to show that he was not equal with God and made no such claim? Try as we may we cannot seen anything here but the Christ’s denial he was equal to God.
Novatian (c. 200-258 C.E.) writes regarding this oneness: "Since He said 'one' thing, let the heretics understand that He did not say 'one' person. For one placed in the neuter, intimates the social concord, not the personal unity. . . . Moreover, that He says one, has reference to the agreement, and to the identity of judgment, and to the loving association itself, as reasonably the Father and Son are one in agreement, in love, and in affection." (Treatise Concerning the Trinity, chapter 27)
Though our dear friend asserts Jesus was God on earth, we do not fault him for his faith in Christ. Like Christ, "(We) judge no man at all." We believe we will rise inthe resurrection with our friend and stand before the Judgment-seat of hrist. It isthen the Lord will judge us. We believe the Judge will be looking for two primary things: faith and love. (1 Jn 3.23) These are friend has in abudnance. We only ask that our friend reserve judgment until "the Lord arrives." (1 Co 4.1-5)
