The Second Adam
Verily, verily, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58)
Trinitarians use this verse to prove that Jesus is God. They say that Jesus is calling himself the "I Am" of Moses' burning bush. Let's be clear about this; the "I Am" of Moses' burning bush IS YHWH. So, according to Trinitarians, Jesus is claiming here that he IS YHWH. This understanding of what Jesus is saying is verified (so say Trinitarians) by the Jews reaction to it. They took up stones to stone him for blasphemy.
This understanding at first seems very reasonable. However, there are problems. And they are the kind of problems that, in my experience, occur because there is a plethora of data that doesn't fit with the premise. And when that happens, it indicates that the premise - that is, the seemingly clear meaning of the text (that is, our understanding of the text) - is mistaken.
Here are some problems. All these statements are taken from the IMMEDIATE context - the very same conversation with the very same people - in which Jesus made his "I am" statement.
8:16: Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.
Notice that it is "not I alone" who judges. This statement is nonsensical if "I alone" and "he who sent me" are the same thing. "I and he who sent me" indicates a distinction between the one doing the sending and the one being sent.
8:17, 18: In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.
Jesus is CLEARLY making a distinction here between himself and the Father. The whole point is that there are two witnesses, not one. The two witnesses are Jesus and the Father. If Jesus and the Father are the same thing, then there are not two witnesses and Jesus' statement is false.
8:19: They said to him therefore, "Where is your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither me nor my Father; if you knew me, you would know my Father also."
"...neither me nor my Father..." That's two beings - "me" and "my Father".
8:26: I have much to say about you and much to judge; but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.
Again, one is sending, the other is being sent. The one is speaking to the other, and the other is declaring what he heard spoken to him.
8:27: They did not understand that he spoke to them of the Father.
1) Jesus spoke to the Jews of the Father. Again, a clear distinction between the thing spoken of (the Father) and the one doing the speaking (Jesus).
2) A clear, didactic statement that the Jews DID NOT UNDERSTAND what Jesus was saying.
8:28: So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me."
Again, a clear distinction between Jesus and the Father. Jesus does nothing on his own authority but says only what the Father has taught him. How could he speak thusly if he and the Father were the same thing? And why would he speak this way if he and the Father were the same thing?
Secondly, when Jesus here says, "I am he" the translators have inserted the word, "he". The phrase is exactly the one used in 8:58, "I am" (Gk: ego eimi). Why did the translators not insert the word "he" in 8:58? If the translators were consistent, they would insert the word "he" in verse 58 or leave it out in verse 28. In which case, verse 28 would read, "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me." The translators have inserted, "he" because they do not wish for Jesus to be giving the impression that he is the I AM of the burning bush. That would lead to the idea that the I AM and "the Father" are not the same thing. Yet, the translators do want to give the impression in verse 58 that Jesus is saying that he is the I AM of the burning bush, so they do NOT insert the word, "he" even though the Greek in both cases is identical - ego eimi.
8:29: And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him.
Yet again, a clear distinction - same argument as above.
8:38: I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.
A comparison. He called the Jews father "the devil." The comparison stated another way: As are the Jews to the devil, so is Jesus to God. This comparison would be totally false if Jesus is God.
8:40: ...but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did.
Jesus says who and what he is; "...a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God..." How could it be any plainer?
8:42: Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me."
Once again a clear distinction. The Trinitarian will understand "proceeded and came forth from God" in terms of his Trinitarian doctrine; Jesus preexisted with God, and was God. He proceeded and came forth from the very being of God, obtained human flesh through Mary, and was born into the world as a human being. Thus he is God and human at the same time. However, Jesus' statement is a Hebraic parallelism. Notice that, "proceeded and came forth from God" is paralleled by, "he (God) sent me." This doesn't require any kind of preexistence at all. It's the same kind of "sending" as John the Baptist; in John 1:06 it says of John the Baptist: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John." God "sent" all the prophets to Israel. God "sent" the plagues on Egypt. God "sends" lots of things, and whatever God "sends" proceeds and comes forth from God, and none of it requires literal preexistence. We should understand Jesus' way of speaking from the Biblical, Hebraic matrix as opposed to the philosophical literalistic Greek matrix.
8:43: Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.
Another clear statement indicating that the Jews did not understand what Jesus was saying.
8:49: Jesus answered, "I have not a demon; but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me."
Another statement that makes a clear distinction.
8:50: Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it and he will be the judge.
Another clear distinction.
8:54: Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God."
1) If Jesus IS the Father, then he IS glorifying himself and his glory is nothing. According to Jesus' own argument, he (Jesus) CANNOT be God or else his own argument is negated.
2) The Jews said that their God was YHWH. This is who Jesus identifies as his (Jesus) Father.
8:55: But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word.
Another clear distinction.
In light of all the above, how can Jesus possibly be saying that he is THE SAME THING as the I AM of the burning bush? The I AM who is YHWH himself? And why is it that Trinitarians use the understanding of the Jews as a case-in-point when there are TWO didactic statements in the immediate context that state unequivocally that the Jews did NOT understand what Jesus was saying?
Consider this: Two chapters later we have a similar situation. In John 10:30 Jesus says,
"The Father and I are one."
The Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jesus replied, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?"
The Jews answered, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God."
Jesus answered, "Is it not written in your law, "I said, you are gods'? If those to whom the word of God came were called "gods' - and the scripture cannot be annulled - can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, "I am God's Son'? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."
Let me simplify this for the sake of making my point.
The Jews said, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God."
To which Jesus replied, "[How] can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, "I am God's Son'?"
According to Jesus, he (Jesus) was not claiming to be God, he was claiming to be God's Son, that is, the Messiah. Who do you believe? Jesus, or the Jews?
If Jesus, then the statement, "The Father and I are one" and, "...know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father" must be understood in a non-ontological way, a way that is different from the way Trinitarians understand it, which happens to be the way the Jews understood it - and the Jews were wrong and did NOT understand what Jesus was saying - this according to Jesus himself.
This episode in John 10 is comparable to the "I AM" episode in John 8 because in John 10 it says, "The Jews took up stones again to stone him." Therefore, Jesus' statement, "before Abraham was, I am" must be understood in a way that parallels "The Father and I are one" AND does not conflict with the PLAIN statements in the immediate context that CLEARLY make a distinction between Jesus and his Father, e.g. "In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me."
Furthermore, going a little further afield yet remaining in the same book, there are many statements in John that are incompatible with the idea that Jesus is saying that he is the "I AM" of Exodus 24. Statements like:
-
John 13:16: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him."
-
John 14:28: "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."
The next step is to answer the question, "What exactly is Jesus saying, and why did he say it THAT way?"
Speaking to the question of what it is that Jesus is saying: I have shown from the immediate context that Jesus could not have been saying that he was God because of a plethora of statements that indicate the exact opposite - statements that make a CLEAR distinction between Jesus and God. Secondly, based on comparing a similar situation in John 10 - which comparison is warranted in the text itself ("The Jews took up stones again to stone him.") we must conclude that Jesus was not claiming to be God, he was claiming to be God's son. Which is one of the titles of the Messiah. Furthermore, it plainly says - twice - that the Jews did not understand what Jesus was saying, so if the Jews understood Jesus to be saying that he was God, then Jesus could not have been making that claim. If Trinitarians hold that Jesus, by making his "I am" statement, was saying that he is God - and they do - then they are making the same mistake the Jews made, and are not understanding what Jesus is saying in John 8.
As to why did Jesus say it THAT way - I don't really know. It's clear that he knew he was being misunderstood yet he doesn't seem to do much about the disconnect. So...I will give several alternative explanations. I think that all of these are interesting and worth pursuing. However, it will be noted that my strategy is different from all these and has very little of them in it. My issue is that most of the arguments in favor of this or that explanation boil down to translational issues, and I am not an expert in the Greek, so I have to take whoever's word for it. I prefer to arrive at an understanding based on the immediate context. So far, I have shown from the immediate context that Jesus was not claiming to be God, he was claiming to be God's son. These alternative explanations are not mine, but will be copy-and-pasted from others. At the head of each position I will give the web address where it can be found.
The first one below I found at least a year after coming to the conclusion above; Jesus was saying that he was the Messiah, God's Son, not God. The man who wrote the following has come to the same conclusion, through a route that is more knowledgeable of Hebrew and Greek than myself.