The website at http://www.jesussaidiamgod.com aims to prove that Jesus said, “I AM GOD.”
As is often the case with pages like this, they have to depend on poorly translated passages of the Bible to accomplish their goal.
The page starts with a bad translation of Exodus 3:14, 15: And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.’ [Emphasis his]
The I AM WHO I AM and the I AM are inadequate translations of the Hebrew, and the Greek Septuagint. The Hebrew actually says "I will be" here and the LXX (Septuagint) says "I am THE BEING."
Look at this image that shows the same word used two verses prior at Exodus 3:12 where it is translated in your Bible as "I Will Be." It seems odd to translate it so oddly at Exodus 3:14, unless you are going to great pains to link it to Jesus' words at John 8:58.
Notice also how the jesussaidiamgod site adds the emphasis on certain words to make it seem as if God's name was I AM. The words "Lord God" is a gross mistranslation. Look at how this is translated in the New English Bible:
"You must tell the Isrealites this, that it is JEHOVAH the God of their forefathers, the God of Abraham, The God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, who has sent you to them. This is my name forever; this is my title in every generation."
So, God's name is Jehovah (YHWH) not I AM. The words "I am" are only an identifier. For instance, I did a search of the phrase "I am Jehovah" in the American Standard and it is used 162 times. The silliness of focusing on the "I am" is akin to me saying "here is the President" and then having everyone settling their attention on the words "here is."
The website goes on to write: "Jesus tells the paralytic that his sins are forgiven, an act that the Jewish leaders know only God can perform."
Reply: There is an assumption here that God does not or cannot delegate authority. John 5:22, 27 says, "Nor does the Father himself judge anyone. He has given his Son the full right to judge...And he has given the Son the right to judge" TEV/GNB
Since Jesus was GIVEN the right to judge, this indicates a transfer of power which the Son did not previously have.
When Jesus forgave a man of his sins, the people understood that this was a transfer of power.
"When the people saw it, they were afraid, and praised God for giving such authority to people." Matt 9:8 TEV
Then Jesus passed on this authority to forgive sins to his apostles (John 20:22, 23). This does not make them God.
The website now turns to John 8 and the "I am" sayings there. It should be noted that many Bibles do not translate in the traditional way at John 8:58.
The word EIMI (am) is in the present tense, but the surrounding context is not. They call this the “Extension from the Past” idiom or PPA (Present of Past Action). The reason for this are the words PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI (before Abraham was). Many grammarians realize this, and have thus abandoned trying to read more into John 8:58. Here is a list of these grammarians:
Meyer, The Gospel of John, 293; Tholuck, Commentary on the Gospel of John (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1859), 243; J. N. Sanders and B. A. Mastin, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 236; F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 168, sec. 322; Mckay, A New Syntax of the Verb in NT Greek, 41-42 etc etc.
To go along with this, the EGW EIMI at vss 24 and 28 has the OTI (that) before it, implying a predicate:
Verse 24, "EIPON OUN UMIN OTI APOQANEISQE EN TAIS AMARTIAIS UMWN EAN GAR MH PISTEUSHTE OTI EGW EIMI APOQANEISQE EN TAIS AMARTIAIS UMWN"
Verse 28, "EIPEN OUN [AUTOIS] O IHSOUS OTAN UYWSHTE TON UION TOU ANQRWPOU TOTE GNWSESQE OTI EGW EIMI KAI AP EMAUTOU POIW OUDEN ALLA KAQWS EDIDAXEN ME O PATHR TAUTA LALW"
Kenneth L McKay adds: The verb 'to be' is used differently, in what is presumably its basic meaning of 'be in existence', in John 8:58: prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi, which would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since before Abraham was born.'
BDAG also says, "The formula egw eimi is oft. used in the gospels (corresp. to hebr. aWh ynla} Dt 32:39; Is 43:10), in such a way that the predicate must be understood fr. the context: Mt 14:27; Mk 6:50;13:6; 14:62; Lk 22:70; J 4:26; 6:20;8:24, 28; 13:19; 18:5f and oft.-In a question mhti egw eimi; surely it is not I? Mt 26:22,25." If you notice, John 8:58 is not mentioned here, this is because the eimi in 24 and 28 is predicated by the preceding OTI. In verse 58 however, the eimi is strictly a verb because of its connection with the adverbial prin. PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EIMI
Let us look at the context of John 8:
Jesus identifies himself as the one "sent" by a superior, he did not come of his own accord (Jn.8:16,29,42,). This superior is identified as "Father" and "God" (8:54). Is not the sender the superior of the one sent? (Jn.13:16 cf Jn. 14:28). Jesus does nothing of his "own initiative" and he can only speak what he was "taught" by the Father (8:28). Jesus does not seek his own glory, but God's and "keeps His word" (8:50, 54). Could this be said of Almighty God?
So why do the Jews try to kill him? Maybe it was for the same reason that they stoned Stephen. Does this mean that Stephen was claiming equality with God?
Let us look at the context even more closely:
Jesus says they will die (v.21)
Jesus says they are killers (v.37,40)
Jesus says their Father is not God (v.41)
Jesus says their Father is Satan (v.44)
Jesus says he is above Abraham (vss. 53-58)
Says A Rabbinic Anthology, “So great is the [merit] of Abraham that he can atone for all the vanities committed and lies uttered by Israel in this world.” (London, 1938, C. Montefiore and H. Loewe, p. 676)
It was only after all this, and after FIVE "I AM's" [EGW EIMI vss. 12, 18, 24, 28, 58] that they tried to stone him. The Jews did not understand the I AM to mean that he was saying he was Jehovah, they were upset at him for elevating himself above Abraham, and this is only heightened by the fact that he was hurling the above rebukes at them, simply put.
Jesus identifies himself as the one "sent" by a superior, he did not come of his own accord (Jn.8:16,29,42,). This superior is identified as "Father" and "God" (8:54). Is not the sender the superior of the one sent? (Jn.13:16 cf Jn. 14:28). Jesus does nothing of his "own initiative" and he can only speak what he was "taught" by the Father (8:28). Jesus does not seek his own glory, but God's and "keeps His word" (8:50, 54). Could this be said of Almighty God?
So why do the Jews try to kill him? Maybe it was for the same reason that they stoned Stephen. Does this mean that Stephen was claiming equality with God?
Let us look at the context even more closely:
Jesus says they will die (v.21)
Jesus says they are killers (v.37,40)
Jesus says their Father is not God (v.41)
Jesus says their Father is Satan (v.44)
Jesus says he is above Abraham (vss. 53-58)
Says A Rabbinic Anthology, “So great is the [merit] of Abraham that he can atone for all the vanities committed and lies uttered by Israel in this world.” (London, 1938, C. Montefiore and H. Loewe, p. 676)
It was only after all this, and after FIVE "I AM's" [EGW EIMI vss. 12, 18, 24, 28, 58] that they tried to stone him. The Jews did not understand the I AM to mean that he was saying he was Jehovah, they were upset at him for elevating himself above Abraham, and this is only heightened by the fact that he was hurling the above rebukes at them, simply put.
K.L. Mckay states: "It has become fashionable among some preachers and writers to relate Jesus's use of the words 'I am' in the Gospel according to John, in all, or most, of their contexts, to God's declaration to MOSES in Exodus 3:14, and to expound the passages concerned as if the words themselves have some kind of magic in them."
Jason Beduhn also writes: "Separating 'I AM' off as if it were meant to stand alone is an interpretive sleight-of-hand, totally distorting the role the phrase plays in the whole sentence, either in the Greek Septuagint version of Exodus 3:14 or in John 8:58."
So, Jesus saying, "I have existed before Abraham was born" (Moffatt/Goodspeed) is not proof that he was saying "I am God".
The website jesussaidiamgod.com moves on to John 10:
"Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one. The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself (a) god."
I am of course using a different but viable translation of John 10:25-33. When Jesus says "I and the Father are one" he means they "are 'one' in purpose, and unified in their goals and actions. Jesus and the Father operate in perfect unity, and it should be the goal of every Christian to be “one” with them. This is clearly what Jesus wanted when he prayed, “…that they [Jesus’ followers] may be one as we are one; I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be perfected into one' (John 17:22-23 Young’s Literal Translation). When Jesus prayed that his disciples “may be one as we are one,' he did not mean 'one in substance,' he meant 'one in heart' having unity of purpose. There is no reason to take John 10:30 to mean what Trinitarians says it means, that is that Christ and the Father are of the same “substance” and make up 'one God.' To be “one” was a common idiom in the biblical world and it is even still used the same way today when two people say they are 'one.' For example, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry in Corinth, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, 'he who plants and he who waters are one' (1 Cor. 3:8 KJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up “one being,” or are somehow “of one substance.” Furthermore, the NIV translates 1 Corinthians 3:8 as “he who plants and he who waters have one purpose.” Why translate the same Greek phrase as “are one” in one place, but as “have one purpose” in another place? The reason is the translator’s bias toward the Trinity. But translating the same Greek phrase in two different ways obscures the clear meaning of Christ’s statement in John 10:30: Christ always did the Father’s will; he and God have “one purpose.” The NIV translators would have been exactly correct if they had translated both John 10:30 and 1 Corinthians 3:8, instead of just 1 Corinthians 3:8, as 'have one purpose.'" Source
When jesussaidiamgod.com quoted John 10:33 they use "You, being a Man, make Yourself God." This is fine, but I wish they would have quoted what Jesus said in response: "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"
As to John 10:33 the Intepreter's Bible says, "Jesus met their attack by a two-fold argument. First, he parried their thrust with a weapon that they were bound to respect, for it was quite sound reasoning on principles of rabbinical exegesis. He quoted Ps. 82:6, where God says to the judges of Israel, 'I said ye are gods, sons of the Most High-all of you.' If an inspired scripture allowed that title to mere men to whom God entrusted a message, how much more so can he, whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, claim to say I am the Son of God (vs.36), without incurring the reproach of blasphemy? But the second line of defense was a repetition of the contention that his works were of a character to reveal the presence of God with him (c.f. 5:20, 23, 36). Jesus is the revealer of God. In all that he says and does God is speaking through him." p.634
So, Jesus' words at John 10 do not prove that he was saying "I am God".
The website jesussaidiamgod.com moves on to the use of the term "worship". It noted that Peter refused worship, as did an angel at Rev. 19:10, but Jesus did not refuse worship.
But what do we know about the word "worship". "The most frequent use of the term, PROSKUNEW [worship] (60 uses in the NT), in its many LXX uses can describe reverence or respect given to a variety of figures where no deification of the recipient seems implied." The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian Worship, p. 188, by Larry. W Hurtado
The word worship had a fluid quality about it. For instance, despite what happened at Revelation 19:10, we have an angel receiving worship at Joshua 5:14: "So He said, 'No, but as Commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.' And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped, and said to Him, 'What does my Lord say to His servant?'" NKJV
God's appointed human king also received worship: "And all the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Jehovah, and the king." 1 Chron. 29:20 ASV
The BDAG lexicon writes of the word "worship", that it is “frequently used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person or persons and kissing their feet or the hem of their garment, the ground, etc.; the Persians did this in the presence of their deified king, and the Greeks before a divinity or something holy. It is to express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission to an authority figure, (fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully”
This is why many Bibles do not use the word worship in many places, even when it applies to Jesus Christ.
So, Jesus accepting "worship" is not proof that he said "I am God."
Next, this website moves on to John 20:28, where we have Thomas facing Jesus.
"Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God!'"
However, before this, in verse 17 Jesus declares that he has a God: "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God."
Also, right at the end of this chapter, it is written, "but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." This would have been a perfect place to declare that Jesus was almighty God, yet this was never done.
Let's not forget that at John 17:3, Jesus declared that the Father was the only true God.
It is for these reasons that many have decided that John 20:28 was not directed at Jesus.
One of these was Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia (350-428) who wrote that Thomas' statement at John 20:28 "was an exclamation of astonishment directed to God." - p. 535, Vol. 3,Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament (John), 1983, Hendrickson Publ.
Some have also taken Thomas's exclamation as directed towards the Father, hence you have, "My Master, and my God" as in the 20th Century NT.
Winer, as does Beza, thinks it is simply an exclamation, not an address. (see G.B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 1872, p. 183
John Raymond Brown reads it as "my divine one" The Gospel According to John, 1966
William Burkitt paraphrases it as "It is Jesus himself, and now I recognize him as divine."
"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other." Augustine in "Tractate CXXI"
"It is extremely significant that on the one occasion where there is no argument, in the case of Thomas, the statement is not a theological proposition but a lovers cry; it is not the product of intellectual reasoning but of intense personal emotion." p. 33, Jesus As They Saw Him, by William Barclay
AS Margret Davies says in her book RHETORIC AND REFERENCE IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL, 125-126, "Naturally, the interpretation of Thomas's words was hotly debated by early church theologians who wanted to use it in support of their own Christological definitions. Those who understood "My Lord' to refer to Jesus, and 'my God' to refer to God[the Father], were suspected of heresy in the 5th cent CE. Many modern commentators have also rejected that interpretation and instead they understand the confession as an assertion that Jesus is both Lord and God. In doing so they are forced to interpret 'God' as a reference to LOGOS. But it is perfectly for Thomas to respond to Jesus' resurrection with a confession of faith both in Jesus as lord and in God who sent and raised Jesus. Interpreting the confession in this way actually makes much better sense in the context of the 4th gospel. In 14:1 belief in both God and in Jesus is encouraged, in a context in which Thomas is particularly singled out.... If we understand Thomas's confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20:31 becomes an anti-climax."
When we look at similar constructions in the New Testament, we see that it always seems to indicate that two persons or groups of persons are in view.
The John 20:28 O KURIOS MOU KAI O QEOS MOU and compare it with Mt 12:49 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI ADELFOI MOU "my mother and my brethren".
Let's look at some other examples:
Mt 12:47, H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of you and the brothers of you
49 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI ADELFOI MOU/the mother of me and the brothers of me
Mark 3:31, H MHTHR AUTOU KAI OI ADELFOI AUTOU/the mother of him and the brothers of him
32 H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of you and the brothers of you
34 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI ADELFOI MOU/the mother of me and the brothers of me
Mk 6:4 TH PATRIDI AUTOU KAI EN TOIS SUGGENEUSIN AUTOU/the father of him and the relatives of him
7:10 TON PATERA SOU KAI THN MHTERA SOU/the father of you and the mother of you
Lk 8:20 H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of thee and the brothers of thee
Lk 8:21 MHTHR MOU KAI ADELFOI MOU/mother of me and brothers of me
Jn 2:12 H MHTHR AUTOU KAI OI ADELFOI [AUTOU] KAI OI MAQHTAI AUTOU/the mother of him and the brothers of him and the disciples of him
Jn 4:12 OI UIOI AUTOU KAI TA QREMMATA AUTOU/the sons of him and the cattle of him
Acts 2:17 OI UIOI UMWN KAI AI QUGATERES UMWN/the sons of you and the daughters of you
Rom 16:21 TIMOQEOS O SUNERGOS MOU KAI LOUKIOS KAI IASWN KAI SWSIPATROS OI SUGGENEIS MOU/Timothy the fellow-worker of me of me and Lucius and Jason and Sosipater the kinsmen of me.
1 Thess. 3:11 QEOS KAI PATHR HMWN KAI O KURIOS HMWN IHSOUS/God and Father of us and the Lord of us Jesus.
2 Thess. 2:16 O KURIOS HMWN IHSOUS CRISTOS KAI [O] QEOS O PATHR HMWN/the Lord of us Jesus Christ and the God the Father of us
1 Tim. 1:1 QEOU SWTHROS HMWN KAI CRISTOU IHSOU THS ELPIDOS HMWN/God savior of us and Christ Jesus the hope of us
2 Tim 1:5 TH MAMMH SOU LWIDI KAI TH MHTRI SOU/the grandmother of thee Lois and the mother of thee Eunice
Heb 8:11 EKASTOS TON POLITHN AUTOU KAI EKASTOS TON ADELFON AUTOU/each one the citizen of him and each one the brother of him
Rev 6:11 OI SUNDOULOI AUTWN KAI OI ADELFOI AUTWN/the fellow-slaves of them and the brothers of them
[Heb 1:7 is a LXX quote and is therefore translation Greek.]
As we can see, every time this same construction is used, it is referring to TWO different people, or TWO different groups of people.
Again, John 20:28 reads, O KURIOS MOU KAI O QEOS MOU. The KURIOS/Lord here is in the nominative form, while the vocative form KURIE is used mainly in direct address. Yes, there is such a thing as the "Nominative for the Vocative," but as Edwin Abbott, in his Johannine Grammar puts it:
"The Egyptian Papyri use KURIE freely, but never, so far as alleged, hO KURIOS vocatively. Thus, a great mass of evidence from all extant Greek [shows] that, had the vocative been intended, KURIE would have been employed. This is confirmed by the Latin versions, which have 'dominus.'" 94 sec., 2049
The question needs to be asked, since the vocative KURIE with the possessive MOU was not uncommon in direct address, it seems odd NOT to employ it at John 20:28. The argument is strong that Jesus was NOT being addressed here, especially as the vocative KURIE was also used in the Gospel of John elsewhere at 4:11, 15, 19, 49; 5:7; 6:34, 68; 9:36, 38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5, 8, 22; 20:15; 21:15, 16, 20, 21.
The website jesussaidiamgod.com also includes John 2:19 where Jesus states "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The language used here is figurative so I will not waste any time on this.
As we see with any of the many websites that promote the deity of Christ, all such attempts fall apart after closer inspection.
"When we consider further the fact...that Christ is nowhere called God in any unambiguous passage by any writer of the New Testament and that it is nowhere recorded that he ever claimed this title, we cannot reasonably regard this abstinence from the use of the term as accidental." Ezra Abbot
The website http://www.jesussaidiamgod.com is based on the premise that, indirectly, Jesus said I AM GOD. Jesus had many opportunities to actually say "I am God" and yet, he never once did. EVER! Rudolf Bultmann was right when he said, 'In describing Christ as _God_ the New Testament still exercises great restraint.'
No comments:
Post a Comment