There are many ways to interpret a verse, and that's the meat that keeps Biblical and Quranic commentators so well fed :)
This is an interesting conversation because the major difference between Christanity and Islam is this very question, the divinity of Christ. Otherwise, there are so many things both belief systems have in common, and yet Christanity and Islam seem destined to forever to be at each other's throat like some sort of obscine sibling rivalry.
A rivalry that can only be ended by a mutual understanding, and so more Christians and Muslims need to just talk, not as Christians and Muslims, but as fellow human beings.
Please forgive the length of my reply, you have some very good questions and I must admit I had to do some research on what the greek used in the NT really states..
First
As you pointed out, as we were discussing, they attempted to seize Jesus after his statement, but it clearly states earlier that they had picked up stones to stone him. They were angered because Jesus had just asserted his authority as a prophet, a different charge from the outright blasphemy of claiming he was God. For this, I'm sure there were those who wished to bring him before the Sanhedrin and charge him as a false prophet, a claim they would have to prove, and may have had a hard time doing, for as Jesus stated, paraphrasing "Judge me by my works".
The fact that Jesus slipped away indicates that there was probably chaos and confusion in the crowd about just what exactly should be done about his claim, a fact which would have been easier to decide if he had stated, "I am God".
I think that when He refers to Psalm 82:6, He is just pointing out that if ordinary Jews can be called "gods," it is certainly not blasphemous for "the one whom the Father set apart as his very own" to call Himself God.
But it wasn't the Jews who first called themselves "Gods", as Jesus points out, it was God who did it. Now the question is, was God being literal or allegorical? Mind you, Jesus doesn't say, "I am God", he says, "I and the father are one", then uses this allegory to defend what he has said as alegorical.
If he had meant to say he was God, he should have said "I am God", and not attempted to explain what he said in some context. Indeed he wouldn't have had to as the meaning would have been crystal clear.
I, as a Muslim, agree that Jesus was set apart as God's own, as he claims he was above, as were all the prophets, and the nation of Israel. Many of the prophets performed miracles, not just Jesus, in fact some of those more impressive than Jesus', are any of them God by virtue of that?
What angers the Pharisees in the above chapter isn't that Jesus is claiming to be an ordinary Jew, no he wasn't. What angers them is that he was claiming that he, like Moses and others sent before him, was chosen to be a prophet to the nation of Israel. He asserted that he was a messenger embodying the very word of God and that they needed to pay heed.
Being the religious authorities and experts of the day, they naturally resented this upstart Rabbi lecturing them, not to mention his claim to Prophet-hood.
I am sure that you are familiar with the Old Testament passages in which God gives His name as "I am." What do you think Jesus was claiming in the following passage?:
57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. John 8:57-59
Jews of the 1st century would certainly have known that a claim to have existed before Abraham was a claim to be God. The use of the name of God "I am" made it absolutely unambiguous that Jesus was claiming to be God.
As you point out John 8:58 seems a logical connection to Exodus 3:14 where, when asked by Moses who he should say sent him, God replied, "I am".
So, does this verse supports the position that Jesus is God, or the "I AM." Logicly, why else would the Jews try to stone him unless he blasphemed?
Or did he?
Looking closer at the greek use of the wording "ego eimi" underlying these verses looks quite different and so it is questionable that the writer of John intended for us to see a connection between these two verses. Is the mere utterance of "ego eimi" a blasphemy? Does the use of "ego eimi" automatically identify the speaker as the God of Moses, the I AM, and thus a stone-able offense?
Several individuals aside from Jesus use "ego eimi" as well. In Lu. 1:19, the angel Gabriel states, "Ego eimi Gabriel." In Jn. 9: 9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Jesus states, "Ego eimi." In Acts 10:21, Peter said, "Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek." Obviously, the mere use of "ego eimi" does not equate one to the "I Am" of Ex.3:14.
Jesus uses the phrase "ego eimi" at least twenty times and yet, in only one instance, the one you quote, did the Pharisees seek to stone him . Jesus said, "I am the bread of life" to a large crowd in Jn.6: 35 & 48, yet no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Pharisees murmured because he said, "I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven." But in verse 42, the Pharisees questioned only the phrase, "I came down from heaven" and ignored "ego eimi." The same is true of verses 51; 52.
In Jn.8: 12, 18, 24, & 28, Jesus uses "ego eimi" with Pharisees present and yet no stoning. He again uses it four times in Jn.10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning. Jesus said to his disciples, "...that...ye may believe that I am (ego eimi)" in Jn. 13:19 without them becoming offended.
An interesting account occurs in Jn.18 when the Jews came to arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. When the chief priests and Pharisees said they were seeking Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus said to them, "Ego eimi." At that they fell backward to the ground, surprised and startled, that the one they were seeking, had the fortitude to confront them face to face. What followed will make it clear that Jesus was not claiming to be the "I AM" of exodus.
After Jesus' arrest, the Pharisees took him to Annas first, then they took him to Caiaphas and eventually to Pilate . A parallel account is found in Mt.26: 57-68. Notice, in particular, verse 59. The same men that had fallen backward to the ground were in attendance when the council sought false witnesses against Jesus to put him to death. Verse 60 says they couldn't find any. Eventually two came forward. Interestingly, they didn't bear false witness about what Jesus states in Jn. 8:58, but about his reference to destroying the temple and building it again in three days. Where were all those witnesses from Jn. 8:58?
The point about Mt.26 is, why would false witnesses be sought if they had true witnesses in attendance to his supposed blasphemy? The arresting officers heard Jesus say "Ego eimi." They could have stoned him right there in the garden for blasphemy, but they didn't. They could have reported the supposed blasphemy to the council, but they didn't. Why not? Because it wasn't blasphemy, nor was it a stone-able offense. He was merely identifying himself as jesus of Nazareth. The fact of the matter is, the Greek phrase "Ego eimi", simply means "I am the one", or "I am He."
Back to Jn. 8:58, So why did they wish to stone him? The answers might be found in the same chapter.
Jesus,
1) accused the Pharisees of "judging after the flesh" (vs.15).
2) said they would die in their sins (vs.21,24).
3) implied they were in bondage (vss.32,33).
4) said they were servants of sin (vs.34).
5) said they were out to kill him (vss. 37,40).
6) implied they were spiritually deaf (vs.43,47).
7) said their father was the devil (vs.44).
8) said they were not of God (vs.47).
9) accused them of dishonoring him (vs.49).
10) accused them of not knowing God (vs.55).
11) accused them of lying (vs.55).
Imagine telling Pat Robertson that! :)
Aside from that, the Pharisees misunderstood Jesus' words leading them to believe;
1) that he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41).
2) Jesus was possessed by a devil (vs.52).
3) that he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53).
4) that he saw Abraham (vs.56).
On the other hand, what might jesus have really meant by what he said?
Let's look at the context of what Jesus said. It begins in verse 51 with the thought of eternal life; "If a man keeps my saying, he shall never see death." The Pharisees thought since Abraham and the prophets were dead, Jesus must be teaching a false doctrine, thus a false prophet, not understanding that Jesus is speaking of spiritual life. Then in verse 56 Jesus says Abraham "rejoiced to see my day." Notice he did not say he saw Abraham as the Pharisees misunderstood. How did Abraham see "Jesus' day", the coming of the messiah? Heb.11:13 says, "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." Thus, according to Hebrews, he saw the coming of the prophet Jesus by faith.
Jesus then resumed the initial conversation by saying, "Before Abraham was, I am the 'coming' one." "was" is from the Greek "ginomai" meaning, "to come into being, to be born,... to arise." In the Greek, the tense of the word is NOT pure "past" tense. The word is middle voice, infinitive, meaning past tense action without any indication that the act was completed. What Jesus actually said literally in the greek was, "Before Abraham "comes" to be born, I am he. In other words, before Abraham comes to be born (at his resurrection on Judgment day and into eternal life), I am he, (the "coming" one)." What Jesus was stating is that he was the eternal coming one (the messiah, deliverer) in the plan of God from the beginning. *
It looks as if Jesus' words in verse 58 were the climax of an encounter that was so offensive to the pharasees that they couldn't restrain themselves anymore. They simply couldn't take it... so they sought to stone him, not because of the two simple little words, "ego eimi," but because they thought he was making himself out to be greater than their beloved father Abraham. They sought to stone him.
Thus the verse is not evidence that he was stating that he was God, but that again he was asserting his prophet-hood and his position as the forseen messiah.
Again, please forgive the length of the post, this is a subject that requires and deserves a bit more thought than just a quick comeback.
Jim, if you(r anyone else here is in the Terre Haute aera during Rammadan (starts in about 14 days), I would be honored if you stopped by and observed iftar, the breaking of fast with me in the evening. I think it would be very cool to break bread with anyone here and hang out. :)
Peace.
*Notes: Confirmation of this use of the greek comes from
"Figures of Speech used in the Bible" by E.W. Bullinger, pgs. 521,522. Under the heading "Heterosis (Of Tenses)," sub-heading "The Present for the Future," he writes "This is put when the design is to show that some thing will certainly come to pass, and is spoken of as though it were already present." He then lists some examples. Included among this list of examples of Heterosis is Jn.8: 58. "Before Abraham comes into being, I am (the one)" with "I am the one" in the simple present tense, the meaning points to the future, "Before Abraham comes to be born, I am the one."
Some translators believe this verse should be translated, "Before Abraham existed, I existed." However, neither Greek verb is in the perfect past tense. "was" is in the aorist 'infinitive' (or imperfect past) tense and "am" is in the present first person indicative tense. Let's look a little closer at "was." Concerning the aorist tense,
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey states, "It has time relations only in the indicative, where it is past and hence augmented." The verb ginomai 'was' (to have been born) is in the Greek aorist (infinitive) tense, not the indicative. Therefore it should not be understood as being in the past tense. This same reference says of the infinitive, "The aorist infinitive denotes that which is eventual or particular, ..." Abraham will eventually be resurrected (to have been born into eternal life) which is why the Greek uses the aorist infinitive. The meaning is, "Before Abraham comes to be born" not "Before Abraham was (or 'existed')."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
