The Johannine Christology and the Synoptic Christologies Are Closer Than Is Usually Recognized

The Synoptic Christologies might actually have a Jesus claiming to be divine to the same [or near same] degree as GJohn. The reason why we often think Jesus' statements about His divinity are very much higher in GJohn than in the Synoptics is because we often read them in light of the pre-interpretation given by the author who says in the very beginning of his gospel that Jesus was "God" (John 1:1-3). But if you actually read Jesus' statements on their own [not letting the introduction flavor or taint them], while they do clearly have Him *claiming* He is Divine, they don't actually have Him *saying* or *stating* [at least explicitly] that He is Divine. The author of the GJohn expects his *readers* to understand Jesus' statements to be claims to Deity [given his introduction of Jesus being God], but the author also expects readers to understand that the original audience of Jesus couldn't always tell whether Jesus was or wasn't claiming to be Divine. Often in GJohn Jesus uses language which could be interpreted either way. Either interpreted in a way that is a claim to Deity, and in another way that could be interpreted as not being a claim to Deity. This is why His hearers sometimes didn't know how to react to Him. Or were frustrated by His wording and (apparent intentional) ambiguity. Not just on His Deity, but His messiahship and other topics (e.g. John 10:24; 11:12-14; 16:25-29). For example, Jesus says in John 8:24 "Unless you believe that I am [ego eimi], you will die in your sins." That could be interpreted by the original audience to be a claim to deity. Or just a claim to being the messiah, when He says "I am [he the messiah]." It's only at John 8:58 that His hearers have enough data and confidence that Jesus was probably claiming deity that they felt justified in taking up stones to stone Him to death. Even though, Jesus' statement, per se, could still be interpreted in a way that's not claiming Deity. For proof, see the arguments Unitarians (who reject the full Deity of Jesus) use to argue that the correct interpretation is one of no claim to Deity on Jesus' part. However, while Jesus' statement even there could be construed by His original audience in a way that doesn't have Him necessarily claiming Divine status, I think it's clear that the author of GJohn would have his *readers* understand it actually IS a claim of Deity. The same could be said of many other places in John (e.g. John 13:19; 18:5-6, passim). When one sees GJohn in this way, and combines it with an understanding of how much higher the Christologies of Jesus are in the Synoptics as is usually recognized [see my blogpost Markan Christology], the seeming alleged discrepancy [or difference, or disparity or their being disparate in nature] in the Johannine Christology and the Synoptic Christologies is greatly diminished or eliminated.

See also my blogpost:

Why Don't the Synoptics Have Jesus Claiming to be the "I Am"?   

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.

 

John 9:9, ἐγὼ εἰμί, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) by Edward Dalcour

 

John 9:9, ἐγὼ εἰμί, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) by Edward Dalcour
https://christiandefense.org/trinity/john-99-and-the-jws/

The Irony of the Jehovah's Witnesses' Name

The Irony of the Jehovah's Witnesses' Name

https://youtu.be/iH2JR0JEnnY

 SCREENSHOT

Can Unitarians really fault us Trinitarians for coming to the conclusions that we do given passages like this? There are so many ways the New Testament connects Jesus with Yahweh/Yehovah that it seems to stretch credulity that in every instance its a case of the Law of Agency/Shaliach Principle/agentival representation as Unitarians claim.

See my blogpost where I show many other ways the New Testament connects Jesus with YHVH.

Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah

Why Don't the Synoptics Have Jesus Claiming to be the "I Am"?

The following are my main comments [with expansion and some alteration] in Steve Hays' blogpost HERE. Steve's comments in that blogpost and in Ipsissima verba were in response to Lydia McGrew's blogpost: Transcript and commentary: The "I am" statements, again

The pressing issue for the conservative Christian position on the historicity of the "I Am/am" sayings is not whether Jesus could have uttered them, but why they aren't recorded in the Synoptics if they were historical? Especially since they are so theologically important.

The following are some of my "solutions" to account for this apparent problem.

First off, it's incorrect to say that Jesus doesn't refer to Himself as "I Am" in the Synoptics in a way, and in a context, that might reasonably suggest a claim to full Deity. See for example Anthony Rogers' excellent article contribution Mark My Words; or my synopsis Here which shows Mark recording it twice and Matthew once. One of the great points Rogers makes is that Mark 6:50, Matt. 14:27 and John 6:20 are parallel passages, and that if you're going to be consistent and say that the "I am" saying in John 6:20 is a self-indentification of Deity on Christ's part, then Mark 6:50 and Matt. 14:27 might also plausibly indicate such a self-identification as well [I phrased it more modestly than Rogers]. Especially since all three passages have the flavor of an Old Testament theophany.

But why aren't they more numerously recorded in the Synoptics? One would think that Luke would record them because he did intensive research after others had already written gospels, and wrote at a time late enough that early strains of Christian tradition would have spread more uniformly throughout the church. Yet, also early enough that skeptics couldn't too easily chalk up any high Christology in Luke/Acts to development [at least to the degree they foist on GJohn].

I suspect that maybe Mark, Matthew, Luke and their sources just didn't recognize the full significance of the "I am" sayings as a claim to Deity and therefore didn't record them. At the very least that seems to be the case with Matthew and Luke since they would have included both of Mark's "I Am" sayings in their Gospels seeing they are explosively suggestive of a claim to deity. Remember that most skeptics accept Markan priority and that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. Besides Rogers' article, see (Catholic) Brant Pitre's video HERE (at 42:47 for about 10 minutes) where he describes the Divine implications of Jesus statement of "I am" when was walking on water in GMark. See my blogpost HERE regarding Jesus' "I am" statement at His trial in GMark. Matthew may have unintentionally, but fortuitously, preserved Mark's historical "I am" statement [Mark 6:50] into his own Gospel in Matt. 14:27. Unfortunately, he didn't do so in the case of the trial of Jesus. Interestingly, Matthew's account of Jesus walking on water ends with Jesus and Peter entering the boat and the passage saying, "And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, 'Truly you are the Son of God.' " Matthew is clearly is implying Jesus is more than an ordinary human being, irrespective of whether you translate the Greek as "did obeisance" [as Unitarians would prefer] or "worshiped" [as Trinitarians would prefer].

It must also be realized that Luke and Matthew are among the largest books in the New Testament [Luke, I believe, being the largest]. With so much to record, it's easy to leave out things that are important. Not just easy, but inevitable because it would have been financially, physically and practically prohibitive to write books much longer than they did [See this video HERE at 12:46]. Books that were also meant to be short enough that they could be quickly copied repeatedly and distributed throughout the Roman empire.

Matthew and Luke were meant to be much more exhaustive than Mark. Yet interestingly, Mark records two contextually conspicuous "I am" sayings EVEN THOUGH it's the shortest Gospel and the earliest Gospel [and so likely to be more historical by comparison, given skeptical assumptions attached to Markan Priority, which is itself not necessarily a skeptical position to take].

Also, it should be recognized that Luke wrote for a Gentile audience, and so the "I am" sayings would not be as significant to Gentile readers [even given the fact that Gentile converts would eventually read the LXX which does have Divine "I am" statements]. Skeptics often claim Luke was written relatively late. Most scholars accept Markan priority and often also think Luke wrote his gospel after the finalized version of Matthew was more universally published. Yet, interestingly, Luke's Gospel [and possibly with the inclusion of Acts] has the lowest Christology of the canonical Gospels (IMO). That's contrary to the versions of theological and christological development popular among skeptics. Conservatives too can consistently affirm development, but not of the magnitude and type skeptics claim.

I already said that Matthew may not have recognized [or at least fully appreciated] the significance of the "I am" statements, but we should also take into consideration the fact that his target audience were Jews. For Matthew to too frequently have Jesus use them and directly claim divinity would likely have been too shocking to their Jewish ears. It would have been too incredible. Instead, Matthew only hints at Jesus' full Divinity in his Gospel [STRONG and frequent hints as they are, and as I've argued many times in my blogs on the Trinity].

When the church fathers talked about there not being any secret teachings/doctrines, they wrote those statements after the first generation of Christians had passed, and so everything by then was completely open to the public. I say that because I don't think it's impossible that there were deeper theological teachings of Jesus which John records and which the Synoptics didn't record precisely because the earlier Gospels were meant to be introductions to Christianity to ease people into the shocking claims of Christianity. Shocking to both Jews and Gentiles, but for different reasons. Though, one common reason would be to safeguard monotheism against polytheism. None of the Gospels wanted to give the impression that Jesus was just like the others pagan gods who came down to earth. They wanted to distance themselves from all that. Whereas John was written at such a late time that it would have been culturally and theologically safe, and apologetically necessary to proclaim the inner teaches of Jesus, which included the "I am" sayings. I don't think this contradicts Jesus' teaching to preach openly what He taught, since there can be different levels of teaching. Even at the present time we talk about introductory level, intermediate and advanced levels of teaching regarding modern secular subjects.

What about the epistles? Why don't they contain Jesus' "I am" sayings? The epistles are occasional letters written for specific purposes to address a pressing issue in the life of the church. In most instances, there would have been no occasion needed to quote Jesus as having claimed to be the I Am. Though, they did regularly attribute or apply Old Testament passages concerning YHVH to Jesus [see my blogpost on this topic HERE]. Thus showing very high Christologies in Christian writings/communities PRIOR to the writing of the canonical Gospels. At the same time they also wanted to affirm, and not deny, Jesus' functional subordination to the Father. There was a theological balancing act all early Christians were attempting when addressing Jesus' divinity AND submission to the Father. Different Christian communities made that attempt, and voiced it, differently. So, we shouldn't expect a Pauline community to sound like a Johannine community, or vice versa. Even today, pastors and theologians who have virtually the same theology will still express it differently and have different emphases in their sermons.

See also my blogpost  Markan Christology which shows how the earliest of the canonical Gospels teach Jesus' full Deity. I'll post below an excerpt of my comments regarding the two "I am" saying in Mark.

Regarding Mark 6:48-52 (see especially verse 50)

However, with Jesus, there was no immediate need for a miracle. Jesus could have waited out the storm. Instead, for His own sake, and without an intention to showboat or show off His powers and authority before an audience, Jesus walks on the water like a god. Or like God, viz. Jehovah/Yahweh. In fact, in verse 50 Jesus uses the Greek phrase "ego eimi" which can be translated as "I am" or "I AM." Here's what Bowman and Komoszewski wrote concerning this passage:

"As various scholars, both conservative and liberal, have observed, the Gospel accounts of Jesus walking on the sea [Mt 14:23-33; Mk 6:47-52; Jn 6:16-21] allude rather clearly to the account in Exodus 14-15 of the Israelites' crossing of the Red Sea. The Israelites walked in `the midst of the sea' (Exod. 14:16, 22, 27, 29 NASB) and crossed to the other side (Exod. 15:16). Likewise, the disciples' boat was `in the middle of the sea' (Mark 6:47 NASB) and they also `crossed over' the sea (Mark 6:53). A strong wind from the east blew across the Red Sea and, close to daybreak, the Egyptians found it increasingly difficult to drive their chariots as they attempted to follow the Israelites (Exod. 14:21, 24-25). Likewise, an adverse wind blew across the Sea of Galilee and, based on the geography, it also would have been blowing from the east; this wind also blew close to daybreak and made it difficult for the disciples to row their boat (Mark 6:48). According to Mark, the disciples had the same problem as the Egyptians: their hearts were hardened (Exod. 14:4, 8, 17; Mark 6:52). ... in this miracle account `Jesus is portrayed as filling the role ... of a greater Moses and of Yahweh. Jesus' response to the disciples' fear encompasses both roles. Moses had told the Israelites, `Take heart!' (tharseite, Exod. 14:13 LXX) and Jesus told the disciples the same thing: `Take heart!' (tharseite, Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50). But then Jesus added, `It is I [ego eimi]; do not be afraid' (Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20). This statement echoes statements by the Lord God in Isaiah, where he speaks of a kind of `new Exodus' when the Jews would be restored to their land: `Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine. When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; Do not fear, for I am with you; ... so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he [ego eimi] ... I am the LORD, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King:' Thus says the LORD, who makes a way in the sea, a path in the mighty waters. (Isa. 43:1-2, 5, 10, 15- 16)." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, p.205).[copy and pasted from this blog HERE]

 Regarding Mark 14:62 and Mark 13:26 which allude to Dan. 7:13

This passage refers to the son of man "coming in the clouds." This is a clear reference to a divine being since in Semitic cultures only the gods (e.g.YHWH, Baal and other deities) rode on the clouds. They were the vehicles and chariots of the gods. According to Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser, Baal was the primary pagan God described and understood by pagans as the god who rode the clouds. [cued up at 1:29:32]. Everyone in the Semitic world knew about Baal. Baal was a major God. The cult of Baal was so pervasive and long lasting it endured till the time of the Romans. The Jews were in constant theological war against Baal worship. The Jews, in order to assert and make clear that YHWH (the God of Israel) was the true God rather than Baal, began describing YHWH in the Old Testament as the one who rode the clouds. Heiser goes on to say that in every instance of the Old Testament where a figure is riding the clouds it refers to YHWH (Deut. 33:26; Ps. 68:4, 33; Ps. 104:3; Isa. 19:1). With the one exception being Dan. 7:13 where the son of man is the one riding the clouds. This therefore strongly implies the divinity of the "Son of Man." Yet, Jesus applies that "Son of Man" passages to Himself. Jesus claimed to be the one who would be "coming with the clouds of heaven." The Septuagint in Dan. 7:13 states that people would "serve" the "son of man." According to James White (in his debate with Adnan Rashid) the underlying Greek word used in the LXX for "serve" refers to the highest kind of worship and service which only belongs to God. It's true that the Septuagint isn't an inspired translation of the Hebrew. Nevertheless, many of the 1st century Jews and Christians would have known this passage as it's found in a textual variant in the LXX and have known how Mark's claim that Jesus applied the passage to Himself is an indirect claim to full deity. This is why the High Priest and chief priests charged Jesus with blasphemy. He was claiming deity. Also, as noted previously, Mark 2:10 has Jesus referring to the Son of Man "on earth." The phrase "on earth" may be in contrast to the Son of Man "in heaven" or as Dan. 7:13 puts it "with the clouds of heaven."

It should also be noted that in Mark 14:62 Jesus says "I am" (ego eimi in Greek). It's true that Jesus could merely be saying "I am [the Messiah]" without claiming to be deity. However, it's possible that the author of Mark is having Jesus use the Greek phrase "ego eimi" in order to have Jesus claim absolute deity, as the author of John in John 8:58 almost certainly did. Especially since Jesus uses the phrase in the context of claiming to be the Son of Man in Dan. 7:13. When Jesus responded in the way He did, the high priest charges Jesus with blasphemy.

---

Additional Further Comments:

---

- These further comments added 2019/10/15
The issue is one example of the more general question of why the Synoptics are so similiar to each other but very different from the Gospel of John (GJohn).

Another possible reason for the differences is that the Synoptics often record the statements that Jesus made publicly in crowds in Galilee, while some of the unique sayings of Jesus in GJohn were spoken in private or more intimate settings. Often in Jerusalem (rather than Galilee) which would have a greater number of Jewish leaders, rabbis and scribes who would understand the theological innuendos and hintings of Jesus which the less learned masses would not get/understand in rural Galilee. In GJohn Jesus would seem to intentionally make statements which are sufficiently vague that His hearers couldn't pin Him with what they would rightly regard as blasphemy were Jesus merely a man as they thought. Yet, at the same time those statements would be sufficiently clear that one could infer a possible claim to full deity. See for example my understanding of John chapter 10 and my quotation of Daniel Waterland HERE. While Jesus was willing to make such shocking statements, the Synoptics may have intentionally left such statements out in order to not offend possible Jewish readers and so immediately cause them to dismiss Christian claims about Jesus. By the time GJohn was written, the majority of Christians were Gentiles and therefore it was safer for the author to recount and record the more scandalous statements of Jesus where He (upon further theological reflection made more evident to the contributors of GJohn) intimated and hinted at His own self knowledge of His divinity [e.g. "I Am" sayings].

Another reason why there would be some differences between the Synoptics and GJohn is that the latter was likely written by a direct disciple of Jesus (possibly the Apostle John son of Zebedeee). Whereas of the three Synoptics only Matthew might have been written by a direct disciple. Luke was not a direct disciple of Jesus. Mark may or may not have been, but Peter from whose recollections and sermons Mark allegedly [per tradition] wrote his Gospel was a disciple of Christ. Both Peter and John (of Zebedee) were both fishermen, and therefore not trained to be rabbis. In which case, Peter may not have recognized the theologically pregnant statements of Jesus in his recollections which were written down early in the history of the church. Whereas John had decades to reflect on Jesus' statements which he could later recognize as having implicit claims to deity.

It has been argued by some [e.g. atheist Richard Carrier] that if the resurrection of Lazarus were historical, then the Synoptics would have recorded it. But they were written early enough that it would likely not have been prudent to record Lazarus' resurrection. Since Lazarus and his sisters probably still were alive it would stir up again the hostilities between the Jews and Lazarus' family [John 11:46-54]. But by the time GJohn was written (probably in the 90s CE), it was safer for the author to include the details of Lazarus' miraculous resurrection from the dead.

Richard Carrier even goes so far as to argue that the author of GJohn took the fictional parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke, and turned it into a falsely claimed historical event of the literal resurrection of a historical Lazarus. But there's no good reason to think that. Especially since the Synoptics would have been circulating for a long time by the time GJohn was published and it would contradict the already well established Gospels for the author to blatantly fabricate a story about an alleged historical Lazarus. And so providing an obstacle for his own late Gospel being accepted as being truthful/reliable in the Christian communities.

Moreover, the (likely) fictional or fictionalized parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16) might possibly be based on a historical Lazarus distinct from the Lazarus of John 11. Lazarus being a common Jewish name in the region at the time. Jesus didn't normally give names to characters in His purely fictional parables. Whereas the parable of Lazarus does include a name. This might suggest that Jesus was either relaying a more or less literal story about Lazarus and the Rich Man (using figurative spacial metaphors of distance, chasm etc.), OR a stylized story of a real Lazarus who died. Similar to how Job might be a stylized retelling of a literal Job. Even though the dialogue between Job and his friends are possibly fictionally expanded for poetic purposes. As modern film makers might embellish the story of a historical figure which is nevertheless based on real events. All for the sake of getting the gist of the the person's character and life story in the limited space of about 2 hours. 

---

- These further comments added 2019/10/27
In summary, what possible reasons might explain why there are fewer (not none) "I AM/Am/am" sayings in the Synoptics than in GJohn if they were actually spoken by Jesus?

With GMark (assuming its priority), Mark may not have been a disciple of Jesus. If he was, as I understand it, it would have been in the latter part of Christ's ministry and he likely wasn't among Jesus' inner circle. Nor with Jesus on a daily basis. Remember, he was young at the time, and youths are usually less zealous in their religiosity. Though he might have cryptically referenced himself as the youth who ran away naked in Mark 14:51-52. So, Mark wouldn't be in a position to remember the "I Am" sayings. GMark was likely based on Peter's sermons and recollections, but we have to remember that Peter was a man of action, not necessarily a man of deep philosophizing and theologizing thought. Peter's personality as a man of action shines through as he highlights Jesus' own personality when he repeatedly writes "immediately" or "forthwith" or "straightway" Jesus did this or Jesus did that. Also, [likely] being the first canonical Gospel, much time hadn't elapsed in which Peter (and his community) could contemplate the deeper meaning and implications of Jesus' "I Am" statements. Though, Mark does record two instances that are pregnant with implications of divine self-awareness. 1. When Jesus was walking on water reminiscent of an Old TestAment theophany (Mark 6:50). 2. At Jesus' trial when Jesus applies to Himself the combination of Dan. 7:13-14 with Ps. 110:1 [Mark 14:62].
[see HERE for why Dan. 7:13-14 teaches a divine "Son of Man"]

With GMatt, assuming it really was written by Matthew/Levi, one would think he would include the "I Am" sayings. Since, being a levite, he might have some special training in Judaism slightly above the average Israelite. Even if he was never really religiously studious or pious in his youth. However, as noted above, he wrote his Gospel with his fellow Jews [evangelistically] in mind and it would have likely been too shocking for unconverted Jews for Matthew to include too many "I am" sayings. Jews might have quickly dismissed the Gospel as blasphemous, otherwise. Though, Matthew does have one in Matt. 14:27. It's the same incident also recorded in Mark 6:50 and John 6:20. All three passages in each of the three Gospels have a seemingly theophanic context.

With GLuke, Luke wasn't a disciple of Christ, so he couldn't have remembered the sayings. His sources might have remembered, but Luke [likely a Gentile writing primarily for Gentiles] may not have recognized the divine implications of the "I Am" sayings and so might have excluded them. Or recognizing them himself, excluded them because his Gentile readers wouldn't have picked up on them. Excluded them especially since he had so much to record that he had to be very selective. GLuke of course being the longest canonical Gospel written. Like GMatt, GLuke's ending is clearly rushed/clipped/succinct because he was running out of space for the type and size of scroll he was looking to have his Gospel copied onto for mass distribution.

With GJohn, it was likely written by John son of Zebedee. Though some modern scholars speculate some other John or possibly even Lazarus wrote it. Assuming it was by Zebedee's son, it's true he was a "simple" fisherman like Peter. But he apparently was more contemplative than Peter and (as noted above) had many more decades to recall and reflect upon Jesus' sayings and recognize in them divine self-identification. GJohn being likely written in the 90s CE. The Ehrman's of the world like to emphasize the clear divine claims of Jesus in the "I Am" statements, but when we look at them, they are both clear and vague at the same time. Clear enough for us readers to see  (partly) because of how they are recorded in the Gospel. Yet, if we were among the original audience, vague enough for us not to be absolutely sure what Jesus was saying or claiming. Even in GJohn Jesus doesn't go around shouting on the rooftops "I Am God!". The same [or similar] type of cryptic and enigmatic methods of speech Jesus is recorded to have used in the Synoptics on other topics is used of Jesus in GJohn regarding His divine identity.

Also, by the end of the 1st century, Jews in the empire would have known of the destruction of the temple. They would have known that something dramatic had occurred in their relationship with YHVH. That God may have been displeased with them or some how distanced Himself from them for some reason. The older generation of Jews would have already made up their mind to either follow or reject Jesus, while the younger generation of Jews wouldn't have been so sensitive to the "I Am" sayings. So, John wouldn't be in the situation that Matthew was in during the early fledgling Jesus Movement. Where he had to tiptoe around Jewish theological sensibilities. By the late 1st century the vast majority of the church was now Gentile and John was the last Apostle. Now was the time for him to disclose and record for posterity any deeper and more revealing teachings of Jesus beyond what was sufficient for evangelism and basic discipleship. Mark and Matthew were likely written when the church still had the hope that Christ's return might be in their lifetime. Whereas Luke had an inkling (Luke 19:11ff.), John started to strongly suspect that in all likelihood the Lord's return wouldn't be any time soon.

---

UPDATES:

The Historicity Of The "I Am" Statements Of Jesus by Jason Engwer

---