In John 1:15 (see also v. 30) we read that John declared the following concerning Jesus: “This was He of Whom I said, ‘He Who is coming after me, has come to be in front of me,’ for He was first, before me.” When John stated that Christ “was first, before” him, he was simply acknowledging the fact that Jesus had always been superior in rank to, and of greater importance than, he himself.
Later, John later stated that Jesus “must be growing” but that it was his (John’s) place to be inferior (John 3:30). Similar to the word translated “first” in Colossians 1:18 (prōteuō), the word translated “first” in John 1:15 and 30 (prōtos) can express the idea of superior rank, or of being “foremost in importance.” Strong’s Concordance, for example, defines prōtos as follows: “foremost (in time, place, order or importance).” Understood as referring to importance and rank, Jesus had always been “first” before his cousin, John. That is, Jesus had always been “foremost in importance” in relation to John. This is something that would be true – and would’ve been true for John to have affirmed – irrespective of whether or not Jesus was alive before John.
Even if one wanted to say that John the Baptist understood Jesus as being “first” in relation to him even before his conception, it wouldn’t require the belief that Christ existed before his conception. For Jesus had always been “foremost in importance” in relation to John with respect to his foreknown and prophesied role in God’s plan. Thus, whether we understand Jesus’ being “first” in relation to John to be something that had been true of Christ ever since he was generated, or whether we understand it to have been true of Christ before both he and John came into existence on earth, there is no good reason to understand John’s words as supporting the idea that Jesus was alive before he was generated in the womb of his mother.
Stephen J. has conceded that this understanding of John’s words is “possible.” Nevertheless, Stephen thinks it’s “highly unlikely.” And why is that? According to Stephen, it’s because John had just been “writing of [Christ’s] pre-existence.” But as we’ve seen, there is no good reason to think this. The Arian’s view that John had been “writing of Christ’s pre-existence” is based entirely on certain assumptions they’re making and reading into the text (e.g., that “the word” of John 1:1-3 was a created celestial being rather than what we’re told God spoke when he created everything). What we read in John 1:1-14 is perfectly consistent with the scriptural testimony of when and how Christ’s existence began. Jesus did not “pre-exist” as the word by which God spoke everything into existence in the beginning. Rather, Jesus is the human through whom God’s word came to be manifested (when we’re told that “the word became flesh”).
Stephen goes on to object to the non-Arian understanding of John’s words, as follows:
Aaron doesn’t seem to explain, in here, why the word “after” is used to describe Jesus as well, and that if we are considering a time-based use of “after” (because I’m sure John wouldn’t say, he’s “after me in importance” in any way,) why we wouldn’t connect “before” with a time-based use as well. Furthermore, it wouldn’t really stand to make sense, then, why John says “he has come to be in front of me,” because that seems to make more sense concerning Christ’s ‘rank,’ and not “before me,” but I digress. If you really wanna read it like that, I wouldn’t harp too badly.
When John said that Jesus was “coming after” him, he meant that Jesus’ public ministry (when he was “dispatched into the world”) began after John’s. When he said that Jesus “has come to be in front of” him,” he meant that Jesus had come to have precedence over John. A transition was, at that time, taking place. John’s public ministry (which was merely preparatory to Jesus’) was being superseded by Jesus’ public ministry. And then John explained why this transition was inevitable: “…for He was first, before me” – i.e., Jesus was superior in rank to John.
Stephen went on to write the following:
By the way, [Aaron] also connects John 3:30 with this passage, which I find confusing, considering that would end up harming his argument. John 3:30 clearly uses the word “inferior,” so John either knows the difference between “inferior” and “superior” in Greek, and can use different words properly to distinguish between stature and time, or John doesn’t know, and is winging it, and likes to be as confusing as humanly possible so as to split modern readers and Israelites, and it’s all ambiguously your interpretation.
Here’s how John’s words in this verse read in the CLNT: “He must be growing, yet mine it is to be inferior.”
John was simply making a similar point that he’d made previously (and using different terminology to do so). Earlier, he’d said that Jesus “has come to be in front of” him. By this he meant that Jesus had come to have precedence over him as a prophet. His preparatory ministry was being superseded by the ministry of the One to whom his ministry was intended to point the people of Israel. In John 3:30, he’s emphasizing the fact that this transition involved the “growing” of Christ (which would result in John being “inferior”).
Before I move on to the next section, I want to emphasize the fact that nothing Stephen has said in response to what I’ve written on these verses from John has proven that the non-Arian understanding is impossible or even unlikely. Stephen has conceded that it’s “possible,” and since – as I’ve already demonstrated – the scriptural testimony is clear with regard to how and when Christ’s existence began, the mere fact that the non-Arian understanding of a certain verse or passage is possibly correct should lead one to prefer it over any interpretation that contradicts this testimony. This interpretative decision becomes even more reasonable when we take into account the fact that the earlier verses from John 1 that Stephen thinks make the non-Arian understanding of later verses “highly unlikely” are, in fact, perfectly consistent with the scriptural testimony of how and when Christ’s existence began, and fail to provide evidence for the Arian position.
Now, earlier in this series, I provided some brief remarks on a number of verses referenced by Stephen J. that he thinks demonstrates that the Arian view is “rooted firmly in the text.” Among the verses to which Stephen referred is John 6:38. This is one of several verses from John 6 in which Christ referred to himself as having “descended out of heaven.” Because of the importance of these verses to the Arian position, I think it would be worthwhile to give them further attention (as well as respond to certain points that Stephen has made in response to what I’ve written in a previous article concerning these statements.
Here is how John 6:32-38 reads in the CLNT:
Jesus, then, said to them, "Verily, verily, I am saying to you, not Moses has given you the bread out of heaven, but My Father is giving you Bread out of heaven, the true, for the Bread of God is He Who is descending out of heaven and giving life to the world."
They said, then, to Him, "Lord! always be giving us this Bread!" Jesus, then, said to them, "I am the Bread of life. He who is coming to Me should under no circumstances be hungering, and he who is believing in Me will under no circumstances ever be thirsting. But I said to you that you have also seen Me and you are not believing Me. All that which the Father is giving to Me shall be arriving to Me, and he who is coming to Me I should under no circumstances be casting out, for I have descended from heaven, not that I should be doing My will, but the will of Him Who sends Me.
The only reason one would conclude that Jesus’ declarations about having descended from heaven should be understood literally is that one already believes that Jesus pre-existed as a celestial being before he existed as a human. However, a literal interpretation of these declarations contradicts the revelation of when Christ’s existence began (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35). And – as already pointed out – the Arian only disputes this fact because his belief that Christ pre-existed prevents him from understanding these verses as the revelation that they are. Apart from the assumption that Christ pre-existed, one would have no reason whatsoever to understand what’s revealed in these verses as being anything other than a revelation of when and how Christ’s existence began.
Those who aren’t reading John 6 with the assumption that Christ pre-existed his life on earth as a non-human celestial being (but who, instead, believe the scriptural revelation of when and how Christ began to exist) will have reason to conclude that, when Jesus referred to himself as having “descended from heaven,” he was using the same kind of idiom that’s found in James 1:16 and elsewhere (i.e., James 3:15; Luke 20:4; cf. Mal. 3:10). According to this idiom, that of which God is the direct source can be referred to as having come out of/from heaven. That is, those who believe what Scripture reveals concerning when and how Christ began to exist will understand the words “descended from heaven” in John 6 in the same way that “all good giving and every perfect gratuity is from above, descending from the Father of lights.” Just as God is the direct source of “all good giving and every perfect gratuity,” so God was the direct source of his Son, Jesus (whom he supernaturally generated in the womb of Jesus’ mother).
Although the Arian thinks that the words “descended from heaven” should be understood literally, a literal interpretation of what Jesus declared in John 6 is not even consistent with the Arian’s assumption that Jesus was referring to a non-fleshly, spiritual being when he declared, “the Bread of God is He Who is descending out of heaven…” For Christ went on to equate “the Bread which is descending out of heaven” with his flesh (John 6:50-51, 56-58). In other words, what Jesus had in mind when he referred to himself as “the Bread which is descending out of heaven” was a flesh-composed human being (with an emphasis on the flesh itself).
Of course, the Arian doesn’t believe that what descended from heaven was human flesh, or a flesh-composed human being. They believe it was a spiritual, celestial being who, only after having “descended from heaven,” became a fleshly being. For example, in his response to me on these verses, Stephen remarked that the “Bread that descends out of heaven” has a “spiritual nature” (“It is crucial to establish that Jesus, in verse 27, highlights the spiritual nature of the “Bread” being spoken of”). By “spiritual nature,” Stephen apparently had in mind the nature that he thinks Christ had before his life on earth began (i.e., when, according to the Arian view, Christ pre-existed as a non-human, celestial being). However, Jesus was clear that the nature of “the Bread which descends out of heaven” was fleshly – i.e., the Bread out of heaven was that which those among the circumcision who believed on him would be symbolically eating in the future when (as an expression of their faith in him) they did that which he commanded them to do in remembrance of him (Luke 22:7-20).
Stephen went on to claim that the Jews were at fault for not apprehending that Jesus was “living beforehand” (and that non-Arians are therefore “taking the side of” Christ’s unbelieving enemies). However, the error of the unbelieving Jews didn’t consist in a failure to believe that Jesus pre-existed. The problem is that they were erroneously understanding Jesus’ words about descending from heaven literally (and were thus erroneously concluding that Jesus was claiming to have literally descended out of heaven). Their unbelief caused them to fail to understand that Jesus wasn’t speaking literally. And like the unbelieving Jews, the Arian also assumes that Christ was speaking literally here. What the Arian needs to prove is that the unbelieving Jews were correct in assuming that Jesus was speaking literally.
Stephen went on to object as follows: “Okay, to be told Christ is the Bread obviously refers to His flesh. That doesn’t mean the flesh must also have been in heaven. Where is this written?? This assumes and adds to the text. It doesn’t say “the flesh was in heaven,” it says the Flesh is out of heaven."
Stephen’s argument here is confused. Notice that Stephen acknowledges that the text says that Jesus’ flesh is “out of heaven.” If Jesus’ flesh was literally “out of heaven” in the same sense that Stephen thinks Christ himself is “out of heaven” then Jesus’ flesh must have necessarily been IN heaven before coming to be OUT of heaven. How could Jesus’ flesh literally be “out of heaven” if it wasn’t previously “in heaven” to begin with? Answer: it couldn’t. Of course, Stephen doesn’t believe that Jesus’ flesh was “out of heaven” in the same sense that he thinks Christ himself is “out of heaven.” But that’s just a one example of the inconsistency that’s inherent in the Arian’s interpretation of Scripture.
What Stephen goes on to say only demonstrates the extent to which he’s struggling to understand what Jesus said in a way that doesn’t lead to the view that Jesus was a fleshly human being when he descended from heaven (and that Jesus’ flesh wasn’t actually in heaven before it came to be “out of heaven”):
When He says He descends, He doesn’t say, “My Bread has descended from heaven,” but “I have descended from heaven.” The last passage we looked at said, “I am the living Bread which descends out of heaven.” ‘Living Bread’ is a title – descriptive of the “I,” but not the subject. There’s a subject/verb agreement in Greek – the verb must agree with the subject in person and number. Here, I and descend very much agree!”
Stephen's understanding of Jesus’ words here is simply confused. When Jesus declared, “I am the living Bread which descends out of heaven,” Jesus was figuratively identifying himself as ”the living Bread which descends out of heaven.” To put it another way, the words “which descends out of heaven” describe/qualify ”the living Bread.” And it’s “the living Bread which descends out of heaven” with which Jesus was figuratively identifying himself.
Later, in verses 49-51 and 54-58, Jesus contrasted the bread (i.e., the manna) that the Jewish fathers “ate in the wilderness” with “the Bread which is descending out of heaven that anyone may be eating of it and may not be dying.” When Jesus said, ”THIS is the Bread which is descending out of heaven” he was clearly referring to that which, if anyone ate of it, would “be living for the eon.” Obviously, this is a reference to his flesh (as Jesus went on to further clarify when, in the same verse, he said, ”the Bread...is My flesh”). After further emphasizing that the one who “is masticating [His] flesh and drinking [His] blood has life eonian” (and would thus be raised up “in the last day”), Jesus went on to declare the following in verses 57-58: “And he who is masticating Me, he also will be living because of Me.” By “masticating Me” Jesus clearly meant “masticating my flesh” (not literally, of course, but by participating in that commanded observance by which Jewish believers regularly demonstrated their faith in him – i.e., the symbolic eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood in remembrance of him).
Christ went on to say, “This is the Bread which descends out of heaven. Not according as the fathers ate and died; he who is masticating this Bread shall be living for the eon.” Again, when Christ said, “he who is masticating Me” and “he who is masticating this Bread,” he clearly had in mind the flesh that composed him as a human being. And since that which the Jewish believers symbolically “masticated” was Jesus’ flesh – and since it was Jesus’ flesh that he had in mind as “the Bread which descends out of heaven” – it logically follows that Jesus was referring to his flesh (and to himself as a flesh-composed being) when he said “I am the living Bread which descends out of heaven.”
There is no amount of verbiage and commentary from Stephen (or any other Arian) that can change this fact, or justify the Arian’s belief that, when Jesus declared “I have descended out of heaven,” he had in mind something other than a certain flesh-composed human being. And, the only reason the Arian is interpreting what Jesus said in the way that he is is because of the assumption that Jesus pre-existed as a celestial being (which, again, is the same assumption that motivates him to deny that Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 is a revelation of when Jesus’ existence began). For the Arian, his entire interpretive methodology – at least, when it comes to understanding verses/passages that he sees as relevant to the subject of when Christ’s existence began (such as what Jesus declared in John 6) – is based on the assumption that Christ pre-existed.
In response to my statement that it was “an idiom among the Jewish people to say that something came down from heaven if God was its direct source,” Stephen wrote, “So the reason the Jews weren’t apprehending this was because they thought it was an idiom! This isn’t an ‘idiomatic’ issue, but a spiritual one.”
Apparently, it didn’t occur to Stephen that being spiritually blinded and failing to realize that someone’s speaking idiomatically are not mutually exclusive states of affairs. It was the spiritual blindness of the Jews that caused them to fail to understand that Jesus was speaking idiomatically rather than literally. Had they not been “locked up in stubbornness” by God at this time, they likely would’ve realized that Jesus wasn’t speaking literally here. But in their unbelief, they were inclined to believe that what Jesus was saying was absurd and obviously false so that they could more easily dismiss it as such. In other words, understanding Jesus’ statements about having descended from heaven literally allowed the unbelieving Jews to dismiss (rather than take seriously and reflect on) what Jesus was saying.
In fact, we find another example in the same context of the Jews misunderstanding Jesus as a result of interpreting his words literally. After equating the Bread of which he’d been speaking (i.e., that which “descends out of heaven”) with his “flesh” (v. 51), we then read the following: “The Jews, then, fought with one another, saying, ‘How then can this one give us his flesh to eat?’” But rather than correcting their obvious misunderstanding, Jesus doubles down on his use of non-literal declarations concerning his flesh and blood, thus reinforcing the misunderstanding of the unbelieving Jews (verses 53-55). So while Stephen thinks the unbelieving Jews were correct in thinking that Jesus was speaking literally when he spoke of descending out of heaven, the fact is that they were just as mistaken for understanding these statements literally as they were for thinking that Jesus was talking about literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
Stephen went on to object that “comparing James to the words of Jesus isn’t quite fair, here, as the context is, once again, completely different.” But there’s absolutely no reason why the same idiom or figure of speech couldn’t be used in different scriptural contexts. There is no linguistic or grammatical rule that defines what kind of context a certain idiom can or can’t be used in. The only “requirement” – assuming, of course, that the one speaking or writing wants to be understood by at least some of those to whom he’s speaking or writing – is that there be some degree of familiarity with the idiom being used among those who are being spoken or written to. And the very fact that James used the idiom that he did proves that it was a known idiom among the Jews in the first century (and that those to whom Jesus spoke were without excuse, and ought to have drawn a different conclusion than they did).
In response to my remarks on John 16:28 (where I wrote that “Jesus could declare that he ‘came out from the Father’ because, as the one responsible for the miraculous conception in his mother’s womb, God was his direct source” and that Jesus “entered the world when he was conceived, and left the world and went to the Father at his ascension”), Stephen responded as follows: “Ah. So it’s all figurative and nothing He’s saying must be grounded in any sort of reality...”
No. Jesus was referring to the fact that he was generated directly by God when he spoke of “[coming] out from the Father.” Thus, he wasn’t using proverbial language to refer to this fact. “Came out from the Father” simply means that God was the direct source of his Son, Jesus. God directly (and thus supernaturally) brought Jesus into existence.
Stephen also objected that “The passages don’t say ‘entered’ – this is Aaron’s supposition.” Stephen has, it would seem, misunderstood the verse to which I was referring. When I used the term “entered,” I had in mind John 16:28. For in these verses, Jesus referred to himself as coming out from the Father and coming into (i.e., entering) the world, and then leaving the world and going to the Father. So it is not my “supposition.” “Entering” is simply another way of saying “coming into.”
John 6:42
Another verse from John 6 to which Arians will sometimes appeal in support of their position is John 6:62. In this verse we read that Christ declared the following to many of his disciples (who, we’re told, were “murmuring” concerning what Christ had been teaching):
“This is snaring you? If, then, you should be beholding the Son of Mankind ascending where He was formerly -?”
The title “Son of Mankind” was Christ’s preferred way of identifying himself during his earthly ministry. At the very least, Christ’s use of this title to refer to himself expressed the fact that he was (and is) a human being. And according to Christ, it was “the Son of Mankind” who was “formerly” in the location to which he was going to be ascending. But what did Christ have in mind when he referred to himself as “the Son of Mankind” being “formerly” somewhere else?
In addition to drawing attention to the fact that Christ was (and is) a human being, this title also has Messianic significance. When Christ referred to himself as the “Son of Mankind” in John 6:62 and elsewhere, he was identifying himself with a certain individual seen by the prophet Daniel in a vision of the future. In Daniel 7:13-14 we read the following:
Perceiving am I in the visions of the night, and behold, on the clouds of the heavens, One as a son of a mortal is arriving: unto the Transferrer of Days He reaches, and they bring Him near before Him…
The un-named individual referred to by Daniel as “One as a son of a mortal” (or “One as a son of mankind,” as it reads in the LXX) is Christ. In this vision of the future, Christ was seen arriving to heaven (after having ascended there) and being presented before Yahweh (“the Transferrer of Days”). It is this important Messianic prophecy that should inform our understanding of what Christ was referring to in John 6:62.
When Christ spoke of “the Son of Mankind ascending where He was formerly,” he was referring to himself as ascending to the heavenly location where Daniel saw him come to be present (with the word “formerly” referring to the time when Daniel saw Christ in heaven).
In accord with this understanding of what Christ declared in John 6:62, an individual could be referred to as being present (or as having been present) wherever they were seen to be present in a vision. For example, in Luke 9:28-33 we read that Moses and Elijah “conferred with [Jesus],” “spoke of His exodus” and stood “together with Him” on the mount where Jesus was transformed. Although Luke wrote as if Moses and Elijah were actually present on the mount with Jesus at this time, we know from Matthew’s account that what the disciples saw was a vision (Matt. 17:9). However, if Moses and Elijah were to visit this same mount in the future (i.e., in the eon to come, after being resurrected), then Peter, James and John could – in accord with what’s said in Luke 9:28-33 – refer to them as standing “where they were formerly” (i.e., standing where they were when they were seen by Peter, James and John).
Stephen’s response to my remarks on this verse consists primarily of an attempt to “paraphrase” what Christ said in a way that reflects what Stephen thinks my understanding of this verse is. However, it’s clear from what he wrote that Stephen did not really understand the view I was defending. Nevertheless, I think I was clear enough in my original remarks that I believe the word “formerly” in John 6:62 refers to the time when Daniel saw Christ in a vision. I was also clear that what Daniel saw occurring in his vision was Christ’s ascension to heaven, and his being subsequently ushered into the presence of Yahweh to sit at his right hand.
Of course, Christ didn’t begin to reign over his kingdom (with “all nations, tribes, and languages” beginning to serve him) as soon as “he came to the Ancient of Days, and was brought near to Him.” Just as the defeat of the prophesied fourth kingdom (see Dan. 7:11, 26) didn’t take place when Christ ascended to heaven and was brought into Yahweh’s presence, so Christ’s reign (and his being served by “all nations, tribes and languages”) didn’t take place when this occurred, either. Unlike the part of the vision in which Christ ascends to heaven and is presented before Yahweh, this part of the vision is still future (with there being an unspecified period of time between the time when Christ ascended to heaven and the time when “all nations, tribes, and languages” will be serving him).
Now, it seems to be Stephen’s belief that Christ’s disciples were unfamiliar with the vision described in Dan. 7:13-14, and that this prophecy would not have informed their understanding of what Christ was referring to when he spoke of “the Son of Mankind” as “ascending where He was formerly.” However, I think Stephen’s simply mistaken here, and that most Jews in Jesus’ day – including those to whom Christ was speaking when he spoke the words recorded in John 6:62 – were far more familiar with this key Messianic prophecy than most Christians are today. At the very least, it’s more likely that at least some of Christ’s disciples would’ve thought of Dan. 7:13 when Christ referred to the ascension of the Son of Mankind than that none of them did.
In any case, there is nothing said by Stephen in his response to what I’ve written on John 6:62 that in any way disproves the non-Arian understanding of what Jesus said, or proves that Christ pre-existed as a non-human being before he existed as “the Son of Mankind.”
John 8:58
Christ’s response to the unbelieving Jews in John 8:58 is commonly understood to mean that Christ existed before Abraham. In this case, the Arian’s misinterpretation of Jesus’ words is at least partly due to the way the last part of Jesus’ statement is commonly translated. Here is how Jesus’ response reads in the CLNT:
“Verily, verily, I am saying to you, Ere Abraham came into being, I am.”
The Greek phrase translated as “I am” here is egō eimi. It occurs many other times in the Greek Scriptures. In a few verses it’s translated as “It is I” (Matthew 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20). More commonly, however, it’s translated as “I am he” (e.g., in Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 8:24, 28; 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8). For example, here’s how John 9:8-9 reads in the CLNT:
The neighbors, then, and those beholding him formerly, (for he was a beggar) said, “Is not this the one who is sitting and begging?” Others said that “This is he.” Yet others said, “No, but he is like him.” Yet he said, “I am he.”
“I am he” is the best possible translation of egō eimi here. The man whom Jesus healed of blindness was simply identifying himself as the man to whom they were referring (i.e., the man that everyone had known to be a blind beggar). So contextually, the words egō eimi (“I am he”) identifies the man as the man of whom they were speaking. If, on the other hand, the expression egō eimi had been translated as it’s commonly translated in John 8:58 (i.e., “I am”), we’d still have to understand it as meaning “I am he” (i.e., I am the man of whom you’re speaking) in order to make sense of it in the context.
Now, in response to my original explanation of what this expression means, Stephen wrote the following:
You’ve heard it here, folks. Finally, after three books, a couple of accounts on His death, and a number of miracles, we finally have the affirmation that Jesus, indeed, designates Himself, here in John 8:58. “Before Abraham was, I am designated.”
Stephen has simply misunderstood me here. I wasn’t saying that “egō eimi” means “I am designated.” By “designating oneself” I simply meant identifying oneself as a certain individual, or pointing oneself out to be a certain individual. Obviously, the man healed of blindness wasn’t saying “I am designated.” No; he was simply identifying himself as the man that others had known to be a blind beggar (and about whom they said, “Is not this the one who is sitting and begging?”).
In response to my pointing out how egō eimi is translated elsewhere, Stephen asked:
“Would saying ‘Ere Abraham was, I am He’ change anything, other than looking weirder in the English?”
It changes a lot, actually (and the fact that Stephen doesn’t think there’s a difference between saying “I am he” and “I am” tells me that he simply hasn’t put as much thought into this as he should have). “Before Abraham was, I am” means something completely different than “Before Abraham was, I am he.” Even Stephen must acknowledge the difference. For it’s clear that Stephen understands the translated words “I am” in John 8:58 to mean, “I exist” (for later, Stephen wrote the following: “They clearly try to stone Him for a different reason, then, namely that He said He exists before Abraham was.”). So according to Stephen, the words egō eimi in John 8:58 mean, “I exist.”
In contrast with this meaning, we know that the expression egō eimi was used as a way of identifying oneself. And as we find explained in Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, this expression – when used without a predicate (as is the case in both John 8:58 and 9:9) – must have a predicate supplied mentally to complete the thought that’s being expressed by the one using the words “egō eimi.”[i]
I suspect that it’s only Stephen’s familiarity with the way egō eimi is commonly translated in John 8:58 that leads him to think that this translation (“I am”) is somehow less “weird” than the alternative – and, I believe, more consistent and “concordant” – translation (“I am he”). If anything, the words “I am” – when understood to mean “I exist” – is a far “weirder” translation of egō eimi than “I am he.” For the expression egō eimi is in the present tense in John 8:58. And if Christ had used the words egō eimi to mean what Stephen thinks he meant (i.e., to express the fact that he existed before Abraham), we wouldn’t expect Christ to have used the present tense. Consider the following statements:
“I existed before my brother.”
“England existed before the United States.”
I doubt there’s anyone reading these statements who would think, “That’s not correct. What one should say is that ‘I EXIST before my brother,’ and that ‘England EXISTS before the United States.’” We all know (or should know) that using the past tense “existed” in statements like these is grammatically correct, and that it would be incorrect (and “weird”) to use the present tense “exists” (i.e., “I exist before my brother” and “England exists before the United States”). Using the past tense “existed” in statements like these is exactly what one would reasonably expect someone to use. Conversely, using “exists” would likely lead someone else to think that either (1) English isn’t your primary language or (2) you’re trying to make some kind of obscure philosophical statement (or, in the case of how most Christians understand John 8:58, an obscure theological statement).
I suspect that, if Jesus’ words in John 8:58 had been translated “Before Abraham came to be, I was” in the CLNT, Stephen would have no problem with it (with regard to the meaning being expressed and the grammatical validity of how it’s being expressed). The only reason he used the word “exists” (instead of “existed”) when he wrote “…namely that He said He exists before Abraham was” is because of how egō eimi is translated in the CLNT.
Consider the following question: “Do you believe Jesus existed before Abraham?” While Arians and non-Arians would answer this question differently, the question itself is grammatically valid, and perfectly compatible with the view that Christ did exist before Abraham. I doubt any English-speaking Arian would think that there’s something inherently wrong about how the question is worded. But grammatically speaking, how should the Arian respond to this question? He should (and most likely would) respond as follows: “Yes, I believe Christ existed before Abraham” (not, “I believe Christ exists before Abraham”).
So the very fact that egō eimi is in the present tense in John 8:58 indicates – and should lead one to believe – that Jesus wasn’t saying that he existed before Abraham. The use of the present tense indicates that Christ was using egō eimi in the same way that it was used by the man whose words are recorded in John 9:9. Here, again, is how this verse reads in the CLNT:
Others said that “This is he.” Yet others said, “No, but he is like him.” Yet he said, “I am he.”
Obviously, the man wasn’t saying, “I exist.” If one were to translate egō eimi in this verse as it’s commonly translated in John 8:58 (and then interpret the man as having said “I exist,” just as the Arian interprets Jesus as having said “I exist” in John 8:58), then one would simply be failing to understand what the man was actually saying.
In accord with the fact that egō eimi is in the present tense in John 8:58, we also know that, in every other verse in which Christ is quoted as having used the expression egō eimi without a predicate (and thus in a way that grammatically corresponds to how the expression is used in both John 8:58 and 9:9), it’s evident that he wasn’t using the expression as a way of saying “I exist.” Consider the following verses (and note that, with the exception of John 5:25-26, I’m quoting from the ESV here, since this translation is – surprisingly – actually more consistent (and thus more “concordant”) in how it translates ego eimi in these verses than the CLNT is):
Matthew 14:27
But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.”
Mark 14:61-62
But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
John 4:25-26
The woman is saying to Him, “We are aware that Messiah is coming, Who is termed ‘Christ,’ Whenever He should be coming, He will be informing us of all things.” Jesus is saying to her, “I am He, Who am speaking to you.”
John 6:20
But he said to them, “It is I; do not be afraid.”
John 8:24
“I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
John 8:28
So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.”
John 13:19
“I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he.”
John 18:5-6
They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.
John 18:8
Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go.”
In none of these verses do the words “egō eimi” mean, “I exist.” Rather than telling people “I exist” in these verses, Jesus was simply identifying himself to others. Even when “egō eimi” is translated as “I am” in Mark 14:62, it’s clear that the expression doesn’t mean, “I exist.” Jesus was simply identifying himself as “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed” in response to the high priest’s question (a question that began with the words, “Are you…”).
So both the expression used in John 8:58 (egō eimi) and the tense in which it was used (the present tense) is exactly what we’d expect Jesus to have used if he was making a claim about his identity (and not a claim about when he existed). To interpret Jesus’ words in John 8:58 as meaning “Before Abraham came into being, I exist” is simply contrary to how the expression “egō eimi” is used in every other verse in which Jesus is recorded as having used this expression. We have no reason to think that Jesus was using the expression egō eimi differently in John 8:58 than he used this expression elsewhere.
In light of the fact that we have no good reason to deny that Jesus was using the expression egō eimi to mean “I am he” (and thus as a way of identifying himself) in John 8:58, let’s again consider the following statement from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon concerning the expression “egō eimi” (emphasis mine):
“The formula ἐγώ εἰμί (I am he), frequent in the Gospels, especially in John, must have its predicate supplied mentally, inasmuch as it is evident from the context.”
Recall the previously-made point that, when the man healed of blindness replied, “I am he,” he was identifying himself as the man of whom they were speaking. In that case, the mentally-supplied predicate is, “I am he (of whom you’re speaking)” or “I am he (to whom you’re referring).” Thus, our understanding of who, exactly, Christ was claiming to be when he used the expression “egō eimi” (“I am he”) in John 8:58 must be informed/determined by the context. So let’s consider the context.
In John 8:24 Jesus had told the unbelieving Jews,
“I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he [egō eimi] you will die in your sins.”
In response to this statement, the unbelieving Jews asked, “Who are you?” Despite their inability to perceive the truth of Jesus’ Messianic identity, the unbelieving Jews still knew what Jesus meant when he used the expression egō eimi. They correctly understood Jesus to have been identifying himself as a particular individual when he used this expression. And in response to their question, Jesus replied, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning.” What had Jesus been telling them? Answer: that his Father is God (John 5:17-18). And since it had been prophesied that the Messiah would be the Son of God (Psalm 2:7-8; cf. Isa. 7:14), Jesus had been implicitly claiming to be the Messiah (whereas, in John 4:25-26, we read that Jesus explicitly affirmed the truth of his Messianic identity in private, when speaking with the woman at the well).
In accord with this fact, Christ also declared himself to be the One about whom the Scriptures bore witness:
“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eonian life; and it is they that bear witness about Me…” (John 5:39).
Similarly, in John 5:46-47 He told them,
If you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?
Now, among the passages where Moses wrote about Jesus (and thus where the Scriptures bear witness about him) is Genesis 22:16-18. In these verses we read that Yahweh declared the following to Abraham:
By Myself I swear, averring is Yahweh, that, because you have done this thing and have not kept back your son, your only one, from Me, that, blessing, yea, blessing you am I, and increasing, yea, increasing your seed am I as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the sea shore. And your seed shall tenant the gateway of its enemies, and blessed, in your seed, shall be all the nations of the earth, inasmuch as you hearken to My voice.
In these verses, the term “seed” (zera) occurs three different times. In its first occurrence, the term clearly refers to a multitude of descendants. However, in its second occurrence (”And your seed shall tenant the gateway of its enemies”), the term is being used to refer to a single descendant of Abraham.[ii]
With this important prophesy in mind, let’s now consider Jesus’ words in John 8:56:
“Abraham, your father, exults that he may become acquainted with My day, and he was acquainted with it and rejoiced.”
How did Abraham become “acquainted with [Christ’s] day?” As is clear from what we read in Hebrews 11:8-19 (cf. 11:39), Abraham didn’t see/become acquainted with Christ’s day as a fulfilled, already-present reality. Instead, Abraham became acquainted with this “day” by faith in God’s promise concerning his future “seed.” That is, Abraham believed God’s promises to him concerning his future Seed – i.e., the one of whom we read in Gen. 22:16-18. And it’s in this way that Abraham became acquainted with Christ’s “day” (i.e., the future time period when the promises made to Abraham concerning his Seed would be fulfilled).
In light of what we read in John 8:56, it’s evident that the implication of Jesus’ statement in v. 58 (which concludes with the expression “egō eimi” or “I am he”) is that Christ is he who’d been promised by God before Abraham existed. Significantly, Genesis 22:17 is not the first time Moses wrote concerning Christ. Nor is Gen. 22:17 the first time that Christ was prophetically referred to as the “Seed” of someone. The first Messianic promise in Scripture (recorded by Moses) is found in Genesis 3:15. In this verse we read of a promised “Seed” Who, despite being injured by the serpent, would deal it a mortal blow:
“And I shall set enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed. He shall hurt you in the head, and you shall hurt Him in the heel.”
Thus, the immediate context in which Christ declared what he did in John 8:58 involves his prophesied identity as the “Seed” concerning whom God spoke to Abraham. And when Christ declared, “Before Abraham was, I am he,” he was implicitly identifying himself as the One promised by God before Abraham existed – i.e., the “Seed” who had been spoken of by God in Genesis 3:15. This divine promise of a future “Seed” was, of course, made long before Abraham came into being, and before Abraham “became acquainted with” Christ’s “day” (which, again, is something that occurred when Abraham believed God’s promise to him concerning his future “Seed,” in whom all of the nations will be blessed).
This makes Jesus’ claim one of preeminence and not pre-existence (keep in mind that, just a few verses before, the Jews had said to Jesus, “Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died?”). By claiming to be the promised “seed” or offspring foretold by God even before Abraham existed, Jesus was claiming to be greater than Abraham (a fact which was inconceivable to the unbelieving Jews, since they did not believe that he was who he claimed to be in).
In response to this contextually-informed understanding of Jesus’ response to the unbelieving Jews, Stephen objects as follows:
“…you’re missing the crucial verse 57, which matters just as much, and again, compares the words of the Pharisees. Here they say, “You have not as yet lived 50 years, and you have seen Abraham!” Once again, they presumed that, because He ‘wasn’t alive’ then, that He couldn’t have actually known what was going on with Abraham. Their own logic barred them from apprehending the wisdom of Jesus’ words. He replies, clearly, with, “Ere Abraham was, I am.”
I doubt Stephen believes that the unbelieving Jews to whom Christ was speaking were correct in thinking that, when Christ referred to Abraham as having been acquainted with his day, Christ was claiming to have seen Abraham. Hopefully Stephen is aware of the fact that the unbelieving Jews misunderstood what Christ was saying about Abraham having become acquainted with his day. Jesus wasn’t claiming to have seen (or to have been seen by) Abraham. And yet, this is what the unbelieving Jews absurdly interpreted Jesus to have been saying. And it’s this misunderstanding that led to their ridiculous question.
Obviously, the unbelieving Jews didn’t think that Christ had seen Abraham. But we have no reason to think that Christ thought he had seen Abraham, either. The erroneous belief that led to the question asked by the unbelieving Jews wasn’t that Christ didn’t see Abraham, but rather that Christ was claiming to have seen (or to have been seen by) Abraham. And this point makes all the difference. When Christ responds to their absurd question, he’s not correcting them on their belief that he hadn’t seen Abraham. He’s returning to the point that he was making before they asked their question, and building on it.
Stephen thinks that Christ then responded to their absurd question by claiming to have existed (or, in accord with Stephen’s preferred translation, “by claiming to exist”) before Abraham. But there’s no good reason to think that Christ was talking about when he existed (or “exists”) here. One has to be assuming the Arian (or Trinitarian) position and disregarding how Christ used egō eimi elsewhere to think that Christ was making a claim about his existence in relation to Abraham in John 8:58 (rather than a claim about his identity as the one promised by God). If one isn’t assuming the Arian (or Trinitarian) position, one will correctly understand that Christ was talking about his identity here (i.e., who he is), and that the one he was claiming to be when he used the expression egō eimi is – in accord with the immediate context – the Seed who was promised by God before Abraham existed. [iii]
Part twelve: That Happy Expectation: An Antidote to Arianism: Part twelve
[i] The formula ἐγώ εἰμί (I am he), frequent in the Gospels, especially in John, must have its predicate supplied mentally, inasmuch as it is evident from the context (cf. Krüger, § 60, 7); thus, ἐγώ εἰμί, namely, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖον, John 18:5 (here L marginal reading expresses ὁ Ἰησοῦς, WH marginal reading Ἰησοῦς); John 18:6, 8; it is I whom you see, not another, Matthew 14:27; Mark 6:50; Luke 24:36 (Lachmann in brackets); John 6:20; namely, ὁ καθήμενος καί προσαιτῶν, John 9:9; simply εἰμί, I am teacher and Lord, John 13:13; οὐκ εἰμί namely, ἐξ αὐτῶν, Luke 22:58; John 18:25; I am not Elijah, John 1:21; specifically, I am the Messiah, Mark 13:6; Mark 14:62; Luke 21:8; John 4:26; John 8:24, 28; John 13:19; I am the Son of God, Luke 22:70 (like הוּא אֲנִי, Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:10); cf. Keim, 3:320 (English translation, 6:34; Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, i. 63f). The third person is used in the same way: ἐκεῖνος ἐστιν, namely, ὁ υἱός τοῦ Θεοῦ, John 9:37; namely, ὁ παραδώσων ἐμέ, John 13:26.
[ii]
This can be
reasonably concluded based on the following two grammatical
considerations:
1. The term “seed” is the subject of a
third person masculine singular verb (“shall tenant”).
2. The direct
object (“enemies”) is qualified by a pronominal suffix that is also in
the third person masculine singular (and which refers back to
the seed/offspring in view).
In other words, the use of the third
person masculine singular verb and the third person masculine singular
pronominal suffix that qualifies the word “enemies” indicates that a single
descendant of Abraham (rather than a plurality of his descendants) is
in view in the last clause of Gen. 22:17.
Here are some
English translations that accurately reflect these grammatical facts:
American Standard
Version
“…and thy seed shall possess the gate
of his enemies…”
English Standard
Version
“And your offspring shall
possess the gate of his enemies…”
Orthodox Jewish
Bible
“..and thy zera shall possess the gate
of his enemies…”
Young’s Literal
Translation
“…and thy seed doth possess the gate
of his enemies…”
Moreover, because the immediately preceding reference to “seed” in v. 17 denotes an individual, this must also be the case in v. 18 (for there is nothing here to indicate a change in number or referent with regard to the offspring referred to in the second part of v. 17). Thus, the offspring in view in v. 18 (and in whom God said “all the nations of the earth” shall be blessed) should be understood as a reference to the same singular descendant of Abraham whom God promised “shall possess the gate of his enemies” (compare with Psalm 72:17, which connects an individual king – i.e., the Messiah – with the fulfillment of the “seed” referred to in Gen. 22:17-18).
[iii] Regarding the response of the unbelieving Jews (who, we’re told in v. 59, intended to stone Jesus), we know that the Jewish religious leaders wanted to kill Jesus before he said what he did at the end of the discussion recorded in John 8. Jesus made this clear in v. 37 and v. 40 (see also John 7:19; cf. 7:43-45 and Mark 3:4-6). So Jesus’ statement in v. 58 simply provided them with an opportunity to do what they were already set on doing.
The unbelieving Jews would have understood Jesus’ statement in v. 58 (in which he implicitly identified himself as the one promised by God before Abraham came into being) as both an affirmative response to their earlier statement (i.e., “Not you are greater than our father Abraham who died!”) and as a reaffirmation of his prior implied claim to be the Son of God/Messiah. Thus, in the eyes of the unbelieving Jewish religious leaders, Jesus was guilty of being a false prophet and blasphemer.
No comments:
Post a Comment