Response to Two Unitarian Articles on John 8:58

 

This blog is my Trinitarian response to two Unitarian blogs/articles on the topic of John 8:58 that was recommended to me by a Unitarian on Facebook. I'll post the first half on Facebook what I've posted here. But this blog version will have minor edits and grammatical corrections (etc.) as I discover them. The two Unitarian blogs are:

‘Before Abraham was, I’…what, exactly? (posted 2016)

John 8:58 – An Alternative Approach to Its Role in the Debate Over Christ’s Identity (posted 2020)

The following is my Trinitarian Response:

I did a running commentary starting with the 2016 blog, then continuing with the 2020 blog.

I  have to say I REALLY enjoyed those two articles. Truly fun reads. Both were well written and thoroughly ENGAGING. As well as informative with respect to what some Unitarians think and how they reason. However, I think they both clearly fail to address things which make the traditional interpretation more likely.

This begins my running commentary on the FIRST blog:

With respect to your 2016 article titled, "‘Before Abraham was, I’…what, exactly?"

Since my Greek is rudimentary, I grant that McKay's translation is might be correct. Especially in isolation from the rest of GJohn.

But I still think the traditional interpretation of "I AM" makes most sense:

1. GIVEN what White has written in his article. Here's the link again: 

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/general-apologetics/purpose-and-meaning-of-ego-eimi-in-the-gospel-of-john/

2. GIVEN everything else the rest of the Johannine corpus says about the Word/Jesus [e.g. John 1:1ff; 5:18; 10:30; 17:5; 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 2:23; 3:14; 5:13-14; 17:14; 19:16; 22:12-13] 

3. GIVEN that there are other times they tried to kill Jesus in GJohn and more than once it was because they interpreted Him to be claiming to be God or equal to God [John 5:18; John 10:33; John 19:7] . McKay's interpretation/translation would be an unusual exception that doesn't conform to those other times under similar circumstances. Admittedly, there are other times when GJohn says the Jewish leaders wanted Him dead and either don't explain the reason why, or give a different reason. But when it's in CONJUNCTION to something that could be construed as a claim to deity, that IS the reason why according to the Jews themselves. And so, interpreting John 8:58 as a veiled claim to be "I AM" fits better with that PATTERN, than that He's a prophet or "God’s living, breathing power of attorney" (as you put it) who's telling a "preposterous lie."

4. I even think it's possible that a COMBINATION of both McKay's and the traditional interpretation could be true. At the spur of the moment some (or all) of the Jews could have interpreted Jesus to mean what McKay's translation says; but that Jesus and the author of GJohn intended/meant for later hearers and eventual readers of the story (who knew more of the complete life of Jesus, could stand back and could reflect more deeply on His life and sayings) to understand the deeper meaning was a claim to be Yahweh. This is especially true considering the other points in this list. Jesus and/or the author of GJohn could have been intentionally ambiguous so that both senses could and would be interpreted and translated, while expecting the deeper meaning would be caught by careful study and reflection. It's common for Jesus and the Bible in general to have layered and multivalent intended meanings. And different methods are used to do this. Sometimes in idioms, in puns, in figures of speech, in the meaning of names etc.

5. McKay's translation of the beginning of John 8:58 as "The truth is" is unfortunate. The repetition of "Truly, Truly" ("Verily, verily" in the KJV) is intentional on Jesus' part. It's His way of indicating a very solemn statement is about to be made. Translating it as "The truth is..." makes His statement more trivial and detracts from the intended seriousness of His statement. One that (IMO) better fits with Him saying "I AM."

//While that may be true generally speaking, offering such as a response to McKay’s argument is really rather silly. Jesus’ opponents wanted to stone him, not because a claim to be old was blasphemous, but because his claim to have been in existence since before Abraham was born could only have been viewed as a preposterous lie by them,//

If Enoch arrived, he could rightly say he ante-dated Abraham. If Jesus was merely claiming to be older than Abraham, they could have considered him crazy, and left Him alone; or considered Him a false prophet and stoned Him. They would have known about Jesus' childhood. They even insinuated that He was conceived under scandalous circumstances (John 8:41). So Jesus couldn't claim to come straight down from heaven. The Jewish leaders reacting irrationally and wanting to kill Him for no good reason is a possible scenario. However, a more reasonable reaction would have been to ask Him for clarification on what He meant. The fact that they understood Him to possibly be making a veiled claim to deity earlier in the Gospel (John 5:18) makes the traditional interpretation of "I AM" more likely. I mean, the very first verse of the book begins NOT with Yahweh at/in "the beginning" (harkening back to Gen. 1:1), but with the Word. It literally says, "In the beginning was the WORD." Not, "In the beginning was God and with Him was His Word." The fact that the "Word" is first mentioned (before even God [i.e. the Father]) makes sense if the author is trying to convey the full and true Deity of the Word on par with YHWH. 

For more on why this IS an allusion to the opening verses of Genesis, see this excerpt of Robert Bowman I typed up here:

https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-trinity-at-beginning-of-creation.html

Some Unitarians have denied a connection between John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1. Robert M. Bowman gave 5 reasons why such a connection makes sense.

//1. The words en arche occur at the beginning of each book; 

2. The name God (ho theos) occurs in the opening sentence in each book, and frequently thereafter as well; 

3. Both passages speak about the creation of all things; 

4. The name given to the preexistent Christ, "the Word," reminds us of the frequent statement in Genesis, "And God said, 'Let there be...'"—that is, in Genesis God creates by speaking the word, in John he creates through the person of the Word; 

5. Both passages in Greek use the words egeneto ("came into existence"), phos ("light") and skotos or skotia ("darkness"), and both contrast light and darkness. 

These point of similarity taken together constitute a powerful cumulative case for understanding en arche to be referring to the same beginning in John 1:1 as that of Genesis 1:1—the beginning of time itself. //

// “I am God’s name-bearing agent”//

Given my comprehensive theology of the Malak/Angel/Messenger of YHWH, I think that's a description of a divine figure. 

Exo. 23:20 "Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. 21 Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him.

If this angel had no power to forgive sins, there'd be no point in saying "he will not pardon your sin." YHWH saying His Name is IN this angel implies the divinity of the a/Angel. There are other reasons to think the Angel is divine. See Rogers articles and debates. But specifically in the context of the Name, names in Semitic cultures was very important. They were connected to the actual or hoped for nature of the person named. This was why naming babies were so important. Because Semitic names have meaning. The Name of God refers to the character, nature, attributes and predictable wonted behavior of YHWH.

Prov. 18:10 The name of the LORD is a strong tower; the righteous man runs into it and is safe.

Psa. 9:10 And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you.

These passages are not saying the NAME of YHWH is a place one can literally enter. Rather, it saying that God's nature and character is such that you can rely on Him.

Prov. 30:4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know!

Literally asking what's God's name was was simple for a Jew to answer. It's obviously "YHWH." But it's not ultimately and literally asking that. It's cryptically asking, "What is God's nature?" The answer to that rhetorical question is that it is incomprehensible.  The secondary question of "what is His s/Son's name?" hints at the Son's incomprehensibility as well, because both are divine. Being YHWH's agent with His name residing within is therefore a way of saying He's divine. Inanimate objects and cities were named for YHWH. Many OT names are theophoric and have YHWH's name in them. For example, Yirme-𝘆𝗮𝗵𝘂 (Jeremiah), 𝗬𝗲𝗵𝗼-natan (Jonathan). Jerusalem will be called Yahweh Tsidkenu (Jer. 33:16) [cf. where I think Jesus is prophetically named the same in Jer. 23:6]. The way YHWH's name is IN the Angel in a special and unique way, and how he is described throughout the OT clearly suggests divinity and ontology on par with YHWH. Again, see Rogers' materials. His debates on numerous YouTube channels, and his own channel. Also his articles here:

https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers.html

---

---

This begins my running commentary on the SECOND blog:

With respect to your second blog which was a Guest Post by a friend of your who goes by the online handle/nickname HeKS. My comments here should be read in light of what I said about the first blog. They build on those former comments.

//After a lengthy discussion with Jesus, the Jewish religious leaders suddenly decide in John 8:59 to kill Jesus by stoning him. //

That's a strawman. It's not "all of a sudden." It occured previously in 5:18 when they thought Jesus was claiming to be equal with God. It happens again later in 10:33 and (I would argue in) 19:7. John 8:58 would be just one of a number of instances when the Jews wanted Him dead because He ostensibly claimed to be Deity or equal with Deity.

//The only thing it could possibly be was his use of ego eimi (I am). //

In all three Gospels that record Jesus walking on water, Jesus uses "ego eimi" with divine connotations (Mark 6:50, Matt. 14:27 & John 6:20). When He walked on the sea it's clearly meant to be understood as a theophany for a number of reasons. The coincidences are WAYYYYYY too many. See my blog, "Brant Pitre on the Divinity of Jesus Revealed When He Walked On Water"

https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2021/05/brant-pitre-on-divinity-of-jesus.html

//The notion that the Jewish religious leaders suddenly decided to kill Jesus in John 8:59 because of his comment in the prior verse can be dispensed with quickly. After all, it is explicitly contradicted multiple times in the text.//

Yes, that's exactly my point. I'm typing up this response as I'm reading this Unitarian blog. So, I'm glad that the author acknowledges that the Jews were wanting Him dead prior. But why he strawman's the Trinitarian argument instead of steelmanning it is unfortunate. That some Trinitarians think they JUST THEN suddenly wanted to kill Jesus, doesn't mean that all Trinitarians argue that way. Rather than attacking the weaker versions ("weak-manning" so to speak), he should have steelmanned it before critiquing it.

//The desire of the Jewish religious leaders to kill Jesus long predated his discussion with them in John 8.//

HeKS also cites GMark where the religious leaders wanted to kill Jesus. That's fine. But, so far, as I'm reading this blog, there's no acknowledgement of the PATTERNED THEME of (specifically) GJohn of them wanting to kill Jesus when He make apparently veiled divine claims. Sufficiently clear enough that they think they know He is claiming deity, but sufficiently vague that they aren't absolutely certain. Jesus even uses dissembling and prevarication (in a sinless way) to be subtle with His claims to deity (see my blog here: https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2015/07/god-gods-and-jesus-in-john-1030-39.html).

//The simple fact that the Jewish religious leaders were seeking to kill Jesus long before the discussion in John 8 deals a serious blow to the Verse 59 Argument.//

This bypasses the fact of 1. in THIS Gospel (i.e. John) they wanted to kill Him for claiming to be equal with God or God both before and after John chapter 8. But also 2. it bypasses the fact that in this context of John chapter 8 prior to v. 59, and the verses he mentions the Jews wanted to kill Him (vss. 40 and 37), Jesus may have already made other veiled claims to deity in verses 8:24 and 8:28. So that weakens HeKS's claim that it couldn't have been because Jesus was implicitly claiming deity since they were trying to kill Him before v. 58. In other words, his citation of vss. 40, and 37 are STILL AFTER verses 24 and 28. In which case, their intention to kill Him in 40 and 37 could still be due to His veiled claim to Deity.

Notice Jesus' statements:

24I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he [ego eimi] you will die in your sins."

28 So Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he [ego eimi], and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.

IF Jesus is making a veiled claim to deity in His use of ego eimi in both verses, then it should and/or could be translated "I am" or "I AM". I said, "and/or" because, as I said above, I could combine the traditional translation and interpretation with something like McKay's.

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗯𝘆 𝗛𝗲𝗞𝗦 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀:

//The simple fact that the Jewish religious leaders were seeking to kill Jesus long before the discussion in John 8 deals a serious blow to the Verse 59 Argument. To the extent that it relies on the claim that Jesus must have said something so shockingly blasphemous that it ignited in the Jewish religious leaders a spontaneous and novel desire to kill him, it fails utterly. //

I'm glad HeKS makes the following concession:

//With regard to the more basic claim that Jesus must have said something blasphemous within the confines of this conversation for the Jews to now attempt to publicly stone him, it is hard to say with certainty whether or not this is true. It’s certainly possible, but...........//

//...........but it must be remembered that these religious leaders had been seeking to kill Jesus since he healed the man on the Sabbath. On that occasion, Jesus exposed “the insensibility of their hearts”, but they apparently believed that he had broken the Sabbath. Sabbath-breaking was a capital crime under the Law and so, in the eyes of the religious leaders, they would have already had their justification for stoning him. //

It's ironic that he mentions sabbath breaking. Since, earlier the Jews wanted to kill Jesus in THIS Gospel for "breaking" the Sabbath by healing on that day and thus making Himself equal with God, in that He claimed to be able to work on the Sabbath like God does.

John 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.

17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."

Jesus Is Equal with God 

18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

See my blog "Jesus' "Breaking" the Sabbath as Evidence of His Equality with the Father"

https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/jesus-breaking-sabbath-as-evidence-of.html

//Second, the specific claim Jesus was making would have been considered blasphemous because he would have appeared to be appropriating for himself the prerogatives of God in the same way as he was earlier accused of doing when he healed a paralytic by saying, “your sins are forgiven.” On that occasion, he was accused of blasphemy, and the same charge would apply here.//

That's ironic for HeKS to say because Jesus' claim to be able to forgive sin IS a veiled claim to deity. Presumably HeKS would prefer citing the Markan version of Jesus forgiving sin. Well, I've argued that GMark has a VERY HIGH Christology and when seen in light of the OT clearly portrays Jesus as Yahweh. See my blogpost titled, "Markan Christology":

https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/03/markan-christology.html

//This single claim, then, if untrue, would represent two separate capital offences. //

It should be noted that HeKS's claims of different capital offenses don't conflict with the Trinitarian interpretation of John 8:58. They could just be added to the charge of the blasphemy of claiming to be God. Proving that the Jews had other offenses in mind does nothing to disprove they *also* had in mind the offense Trinitarians who hold to the traditional view think they had in mind at v. 59.

//On this reading, any basis for the Verse 59 Argument evaporates.//

Not at all, since I said that there can be a combination of 1. "Prior Existence Rendering" & 2. " ‘I AM’ Rendering."

//The interpretation that the Jews tried to stone Jesus in verse 59 because they rightly understood him to be claiming the identity of their God is not and cannot be the simplest interpretation for one reason: It is not a plausible interpretation at all.//

My comments above shows why it's not implausible at all. Because in other locations in GJohn, but before and after John 8, there were attempts and intentions to kill Jesus on account of their impression that Jesus was claiming to be God (John 5:18; 10:33; 19:7).

John 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God."

Regarding John 19:7, I concede to Unitarians that the phrase "Son of God" with reference to Jesus often (usually?) refers to Jesus as the Messianic Davidic heir (esp. in the Synoptics). However, that can't be the sense here in John 19:7 because it wasn't a capital offense according to the Law to claim to be the messiah. Therefore, in this instance (and in other places in John [though not necessarily all]) the phrase "Son of God" is being used as a title with the connotation of a claim to Deity. 

Regarding John 10:33, see this excellent article by Jonathan McLatchie, ""I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE" (JOHN 10:30): A CLAIM TO DEITY?"

https://web.archive.org/web/20180806022624/http://apologetics-academy.org/blog/2016/2/19/i-and-the-father-are-one-john-1030-a-claim-to-deity

//However, given the Jews’ conception of God, this interpretation would simply not be possible for them given the content of Jesus’ own statements throughout the dispute.//

I disagree given the "Two Power in Heaven" view popular among many of the Jews prior to and during that time. A view also reflected in the Targums. Rabbinic Judaism is post-Christian. Second Temple Judaism [~500 BCE to ~100 CE] allowed for the orthodoxy of the Two Powers in Heaven doctrine whereby there was a Greater invisible Yahweh in heaven and a Lesser Yahweh who could visit earth and become visible. Some Jews held to it. Only with the popularity of Christianity was the doctrine deemed heretical by Jews in the 2nd century CE. When one examines the OT, the second Yahweh figure is attributed the same honor, worship, attributes, names, deeds & authority the first Yahweh figure does. Rogers makes a great arguments showing the 2nd Yahweh, the Angel of Yahweh is to be the Messiah.

Here's Segal's Two Powers in Heaven online in archive.org: https://archive.org/details/TwoPowersInHeavenEarlyRabSegal

Here's Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser's website where he introduces the Two Powers concept:

http://twopowersinheaven.com/

Word of the Lord in the Targums

http://juchre.org/articles/word.htm

//In all these statements, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and his Father, making it plain that they are numerically distinct individuals. Given that the Trinitarian believes God to be one Being, but the Father and Son to be two Persons,...//

As I said, there are different Trinitarian models. Some flirt with nascent tritheism in that they, for all intents and purposes to the contrary, posit the persons of the Trinity as [or almost like] distinct entities with their own beings or substances. As I said, some of the church fathers expressed their Trinitarianism in ways kind of like this [with variations and permutations in both understanding and expression]. I'm open to those type of models, but like the quote says about [modern, usually Evangelical] Trinitarians, they believe the three distinct persons share one divine being [which is my default position]. That seems to better preserve monotheism without going in the other extreme of Modalism.

//While a modern Trinitarian might be able to sustain a belief that Jesus went on to identify himself as the One True God in spite of his explicit statement in this verse, the same could not be said for any ancient Jew. By explicitly identifying his Father, The Father, as the one whom these Jews said was their God, Jesus foreclosed on any possibility that they could then go on to understand him to be claiming the identity of that very same God when he used the utterly common words ego eimi just seconds later.//

ALSO

//It is not remotely plausible to think that an orthodox Jew of the 1st century, after hearing Jesus repeatedly and explicitly distinguish himself from the one he identified as God, would then go on to hear Jesus use the words ego eimi and suddenly place his comment into the context of a multi-personal Godhead, which would have been necessary in order to sustain the interpretation that Trinitarians allege here. Such a concept was simply not within the interpretive toolkit of 1st-century Jewish theology.//

Again, that's a non-sequitur given the Two Powers view. Genesis 19:24 is a classic passage that troubled and perplexed interestamental Jews, and upon which variations of the Two Powers view was grounded. Because it appears to describe two different persons named Yahweh/YHWH/Yehovah.

Gen. 19:24 Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.

Unitarians often claim this is a case of illeism. Michael R. Burgos Jr. wrote in chapter 2 of "Our God is Triune" regarding Gen. 19:24:

//Malone has attempted to explain the third person reference via illeism.[lxxxii] However, the explicit personal distinction in Genesis 19:24 annuls such a reading: “Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven.” The prepositional phrase מֵאֵת יהוה מִן־הַשָּׁמָיִם (“from Yahweh from heaven”) indicates via spatial and functional distinction that two persons who are both Yahweh are in view, namely, Yahweh and the Angel of Yahweh.[lxxxiii] Aside from these examples, there are several other passages which indicate trinitarian plurality, if taken in tandem with the other biblical data.[lxxxiv]

ENDNOTES:

[lxxxii] Malone, Andrew S. 2009. “God the Illeist: Third Person Self-References and Trinitarian Hints in the Old Testament,” JETS, 52/3, 501. Elledge follows Malone here, and in his dissertation on the subject he completely neglects to assess the significance or impact of the divine Angel. Elledge, E. Roderick, The Illeism of Jesus and Yahweh: A Study of the Use of the Third-Person Self-Reference in the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Texts and its Implications for Christology, PhD Diss., 2015, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 4-5; 85-86.

//And if they couldn’t possibly have understood Jesus to be claiming the identity of the Father, then they could not possibly have understood him to be claiming the identity of God at all.//

But THAT'S EXACTLY what happens in the passages I cited and which are never brought up in the entire blog. Namely, John 5:18, 10:33, 19:7. In those passages the Jews see Jesus claiming to be both distinct from God/Father, yet also equal to the Father and in some sense God. It's a SERIOUS DEFECT in HeKS's analysis and interpretation to never bring up those passages. They are bright flashlights shedding much light on the interpretation of John 8:58. ONLY as HeKS interprets John 8 IN ISOLATION from the rest of GJohn, could he make his interpretation seem plausible. But when the rest of GJohn IS taken into consideration, the 'I AM' Rendering, or a combination of the 'I AM' Rendering with the Prior Existence Rendering makes more sense.

//The wholistic interpretation of John 8:58 that has been offered here, which includes the Prior Existence Rendering, shows that Jesus did not claim the identity of God in this verse and that it cannot reasonably be cited in support of the doctrine of the Trinity. However, it does not specifically contradict the Trinity doctrine either. When properly rendered and understood, this verse establishes that Jesus existed prior to his human birth and that his existence extended at least thousands of years into the past. This fact is certainly consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, but it is also consistent with the position of those millions of unitarian Christians around the world who accept Jesus’ preexistence but deny that he is Almighty God or that the Trinity is a properly Biblical doctrine. As such, this verse is actually irrelevant to the disagreement between the two groups on the issue of Christ’s ultimate identity [2].//

I'm glad that he concedes that his interpretation is compatible with Trinitarianism. I said nearly as much before, but I didn't know he would grant it. So then, there are then three options for Trinitarians: 

1. the 'I AM' Rendering Alone, 

2. the Prior Existence Rendering Alone, and 

3. the Combination of both. 

I lean toward the 3rd option in the way I explained in point #4 above. I didn't explicitly say earlier that the Prior Existence Rendering Alone was compatible with Trinitarianism, but it's understood given that I think both renderings could be combined. Though, I don't think it's likely given the evidence for the 'I AM' Rendering.