The Forgotten Trinity (14 page)

John's literary artistry was not limited to the prologue of his Gospel, nor was it confined to the direct assertion of the deity of Christ
through calling Him "God" (1:1; 20:28). He found subtle ways of
teaching this truth as well. One method that John presented, that the
other Gospel writers did not use, is found in Jesus' use of the phrase
I am.

Look at these passages from the gospel of John:

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins" (John 8:24).

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham
was born, I am" (John 8:58).

"From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that
when it does occur, you may believe that I am He" (John 13:19).

They answered Him, "Jesus the Nazarene." He said to them, "I
am He." And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing
with them. So when He said to them, "I am He," they drew back
and fell to the ground. (John 18:5-6)

In each of these verses a particular Greek phrase appears: Eyw Eiµi
(ego eimi). The New American Standard Bible renders this Greek phrase
as "I am He." The fact that the word "He" is italicized is very important, for this means the word itself is not found in the Greek' and is
being supplied by the translators in an effort to smooth out an awkward English phrase. John makes sure, through the use of context, that
we do not miss the point he is making by recording these words of
Jesus. One might wonder, "Why don't the other gospel writers pick up
on this?" Mark does record an example of the phrase (Mark 14:62),
but he does not emphasize it the way John does. There might well be
a simple answer to the question. When Mark wrote his gospel, it was
not his purpose to emphasize the same truths about Christ's nature as
John would decades later. It seems quite probable that John, with more
time to reflect upon the events of the Lord's ministry, found in these
words an insight that later events and developments in the church
proved useful and necessary.

The first question that we have to tackle is straightforward: how do
you translate the phrase properly? This is not a controversy in most of
the instances above. The vast majority of scholarly translations render
it the same way: "I am He," with the "He" in italics. But when we come
to the clearest and most obvious of the passages, John 8:58, a few translations give a different rendering, emphasizing the idea that Jesus is
merely claiming preexistence. How then should the phrase be translated
at John 8:58? Once we consider this, we need to establish some Old
Testament background, and then we can take all the appearances of the
phrase in John as a group and determine what John is communicating
to us.

HOW SHOULD WE TRANSLATE IT?

There are a very small number of translations that avoid a direct
translation of the phrase at John 8:58 (in particular). Moffat renders it, "I have existed before Abraham was born!" The Twentieth Century
New Testament has "before Abraham existed I was." The Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation renders ego eimi as "I have been."

Allegedly many of these translations are viewing the phrase as what
Dr. A. T. Robertson called a "progressive present. "2 There are many
instances in historical narrative or conversation where the Greek will
use a present tense verb that is best rendered in English by the perfect
tense. John 15:27 would be a good example: "because you have been
with me from the beginning." The verb is in the present tense, but the
context makes it clear that it is in reference to both the past and the
present. Robertson notes that this is a common idiom in the New Testament, though he also adds the fact that, in his opinion, John 8:58 is
"absolute" and should be rendered as such (which he always does in
his works'). It should also be noted that it is the deficiency of the English that is to blame for the rendering-to place weight on the meaning of the English perfect tense when rendering the Greek present tense
in this way would be in error.4

So why should John 8:58 not be rendered in this way? Why do so
few translations follow this path? Because to translate it that way is to
miss the entire context and content of what is being said! The vast
majority of translators see, as do many commentators, that there is a
clear differentiation being made here between the derivative existence
of Abraham and the eternal existence of the Lord Christ. Many scholars
rightly point out the same contrasting of verbs as seen in the prologue
of John 5 as well as the same kind of differentiation found in the Septuagint Greek rendering of Psalm 90:2. They also recognize that the
response of the Jews would be rather strong if this was simply a claim
of preexistence. The oft-repeated charge of blasphemy as found in John
makes this clear. Rather, the usage of a term used of God himself (as
will be shown later) would be sufficient to bring the response of verse
59, where the Jews pick up stones so as to kill Him.

The phrase was so understood by the early church as well. Irenaeus
showed familiarity with it as "I am,"6 as did Origen7 and Novatian.8
Chrysostom wrote, "As the Father used this expression, `I Am,' so also
doth Christ; for it signifieth continuous Being, irrespective of time. On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous."9
The context of this passage is far too strong to allow this to be rendered
as a simple historical narrative, resulting in the conversion of the present indicative into a perfect tense."'

OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND OF EGO EIMI

It happens all the time: we are in a hurry to make a point, so we
jump from one point to another quickly, skipping a few necessary
points in between. There's always that one person in the bunch who
stops you and makes you go back and trace your argument, step by
step, rather than allowing you to condense things a bit and make better
speed.

When dealing with theological issues, we often condense things
and make connections that, in reality, take a little more proof than we
have offered. This is nowhere better illustrated than in the connection
that is alleged to exist between Jesus' words in John 8:58 and the words
of Yahweh in Exodus 3:14, "I am that I am." You will find references
to Exodus 3:14 in most commentaries on John 8:58, yet those who
deny the deity of Christ cry "foul!" and argue that such an immediate
connection can't be made. The strongest argument they can present is
that the ego eimi portion of Exodus 3:14 isn't really the assertion of
divinity: the ho ohn portion is (ho ohn being translated as "the Being"
or "the One Existing").

As far as the argument goes, this is true. However, the claim that
Jesus' words in John 8:58 (and the other passages) should be connected
to Exodus 3:14 does not exist in a vacuum. There is a line of argumentation, a very solid one, that leads us from John 8 back through
Isaiah to Exodus 3. We need to trace that path before we can make the
statement that Jesus is, in fact, using a name of deity of himself in
John's gospel.

The closest and most logical connection between John's usage of
ego eimi and the Old Testament is to be found in the Septuagint rendering of a particular Hebrew phrase, ani hu, in the writings (primarily) of Isaiah." The Septuagint translates the Hebrew phrase ani hu as
ego eimi in Isaiah 41:4; 43:10; and 46:4. In each of these instances the phrase ani hu appears at the end of the clause, and is so rendered (or
punctuated) in the LXX (just as in these seven examples in John). The
phrase ego eimi appears as the translation of a few other phrases in
Isaiah as well that are significant to this discussion. It translates the
Hebrew anoki anoki hu as ego eimi in 43:25 and 51:12. Once (52:6) ani
hu is translated as ego eimi autos (basically an even more emphasized
form). And once (45:18) we find ego eimi kurios for ani Yahweh! This
last passage is provocative in that it is in the context of creation, an
act ascribed to Jesus by John (John 1:3) and other New Testament writers (Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2-3).

The use of ani hu by Isaiah is a euphemism for the very name of
God himself. Some see a connection between ani hu and Yahweh as
both referring to being." That it carried great weight with the Jews is
seen in 8:59 and their reaction to the Lord's usage of the phrase. If one
wishes to say that Jesus was not speaking Greek, but Aramaic, the difficulty is not removed, for the identification would have been just that
much clearer!

There seems to be a direct connection between the Septuagint and
Jesus' usage of ego eimi. In Isaiah 43:10 we read, "In order that you
may know and believe Me and understand that I am He."" In John
13:19, Jesus says to the disciples, "From now on I am telling you before
it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am
He." 14 When one removes the extraneous words (such as the phrase
that connects the last clause to the first) and compares these two passages, this is the result:

Isaiah 43:10: hina pisteusete ... hoti ego eimi

John 13:19: hina pisteusete ... hoti ego eimi

Even if one were to theorize that Jesus himself did not attempt to
make such an obvious connection between himself and Yahweh (which
would be difficult enough to do!), one must answer the question of
why John, being obviously familiar with the LXX, would so intentionally insert this kind of parallelism.

Another parallel between the usage of ego eimi in John 13:19 and
its usage in Isaiah has to do with the fact that in 13:19 Jesus is telling them the future-one of the very challenges to the false gods thrown
down by Yahweh in the passages from Isaiah under consideration (the
so-called "trial of the false gods.") This connection is direct in Isaiah
41:4, "Who has performed and accomplished it, calling forth the generations from the beginning? `I, the LORD, am the first, and with the
last. I am He.'" Here the "calling forth" of the generations-time itself-is part of the usage of ani hu. The same is true in John 13:19. In
the same chapter of the book of Isaiah referenced above, in verse 22
we read, "Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take
place; as for the former events, declare what they were, that we may
consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is
coming." That this reference to knowledge of the future would appear
in the same section that uses ani hu as the name for God, and that this
would be introduced by the Lord himself in the same context in John
13:19 is significant indeed.

Hence, though some would easily dismiss the ani hu/ego eimi connection,'' or ignore it altogether,16 the evidence is overwhelming that
this connection is intended by John himself.

UNDERSTANDING JOHN'S MESSAGE

It is not hard to understand why there have been many who have
not wished to make the connection that John makes between Jesus and
Yahweh. One cannot make this identification outside of a Trinitarian
understanding of the Gospel itself, as one can certainly not identify
Jesus as the Father in John's Gospel. If Jesus is identified as ego eimi in
the sense of the Old Testament ani hu, then one is left with two persons
sharing the one nature that is God, and this, when it encounters John's
discussion of the Holy Spirit, becomes the basis of the doctrine of the
Trinity! 17 An interpreter who is unwilling to dismiss the words of Scripture as simply "tradition" (and hence nonauthoritative) or to interpret
Scripture in contradiction with itself (as in a violation of strict monotheism in the positing of a being who is quasi-god, mighty, but not
"almighty") will be hard-pressed to avoid the obvious conclusions of
John's presentation. Lest one should find it hard to believe that John
would identify the carpenter from Galilee as Yahweh himself, it might be pointed out that he did just that in John 12:39-41 by quoting from
Isaiah's temple vision of Yahweh in Isaiah 6 and then concluding by
saying, "These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory and he spoke
about Him." The only "Him" in the context is Jesus; hence, for John,
Isaiah, when he saw Yahweh on His throne, was in reality seeing the
Lord Jesus. John 1:18 says as much as well."