The Forgotten Trinity (15 page)

It is self-evident that such a far-reaching and in reality astounding
claim as is made by the Lord Jesus in John 8:24, 58 is hard to accept
outside of the highest estimation of His person. Indeed, Augustine
wrote,

Weigh the words, and get a knowledge of the mystery. "Before
Abraham was made." Understand, that "was made" refers to
human formation; but "am" to the Divine essence. "He was
made," because Abraham was a creature. He did not say, Before
Abraham was, I was; but, "Before Abraham was made," who was
not made save by me, "I am." Nor did He say this, Before Abraham
was made I was made; for "In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth;" and "in the beginning was the Word." "Before Abraham was made, I am." Recognize the Creator-distinguish the creature. He who spake was made the seed of Abraham;
and that Abraham might be made, He Himself was before Abra-
ham.'9

But can the usage of ego eimi withstand that much weight? A large
number of believing Christian scholars certainly think so. Leon Morris
has written,

"I am" must have the fullest significance it can bear. It is, as
we have already had occasion to notice ... in the style of deity.20

B. B. Warfield has written concerning this,

... and again, as the most impressive language possible, He declares...: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I
am," where He claims for Himself the timeless present of eternity
as His mode of existence.21

The great expositor J. C. Ryle noted,

Let us carefully note what a strong proof we have here of the
pre-existence and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He applies to
Himself the very name by which God made Himself known when
He undertook to redeem Israel. It was "I AM" who brought them
out of the land of Egypt. It was "I AM" who died for us upon the
cross. The amazing strength of the foundation of a sinner's hope
appears here. Believing on Jesus we rest on divinity, on One who
is God as well as man. There is a difference in the Greek verbs here
employed which we should carefully notice. The Greek for "was"
is quite different from the Greek for "am." It is as if our Lord said,
"Before Abraham was born, I have an existence individual and
eternal."22

Luther, like Augustine before him, wrote in no uncertain terms,

The Lord Christ is angry below the surface and says: "Do you
want to know who I am? I am God, and that in the fullest sense.
Do as you please. If you do not believe that I am He, then you are
nothing, and you must die in your sin." No prophet, apostle, or
evangelist may proclaim and say: "Believe in God, and also believe
that I am God; otherwise you are damned.23

A. T. Robertson certainly did not see any linguistic problems here:

I am (ego eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between
genesthai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless
being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in 1:1 and
egeneto in 1:14. See the contrast also in Psa. 90:2 between God (ei,
art) and the mountains (genethenai).24

And finally, William Hendrickson put it rather bluntly:

The "I am" here (8:58) reminds one of the "I am" in 8:24. Basically, the same thought is expressed in both passages; namely,
that Jesus is God! "15

There simply is no way that John could have been any more obvious in his intention to invest in ego eimi a significance far beyond
the simple function of identification that it can, and does at times,
perform. In 8:58 the Jews pick up stones to stone Jesus. The other two
times this occurs are right on the heels of claims to deity as well-first
in John 5 where Jesus has just claimed equality with the Father both
by calling God His own Father in very special terms as well as claiming
the same right to work on the Sabbath as the Jews understood to be
God's in upholding the universe; secondly in John 10 after Jesus claims
that He and the Father are one in their role of bringing salvation to
God's elect-His "sheep." In both instances John spells it out clearly
that these claims were understood to be claims to equality with Godcan 8:58 then be different?

In John 13:19, the introduction of the phrase in the context of the
revelation of future events, just as is found in Isaiah, even to the point
of nearly quoting the LXX rendering, is far too specific to be overlooked. And in 18:5-6, John even repeats himself just to make sure no
one can possibly miss the reason why the soldier fell back upon the
ground:

They answered Him, "Jesus the Nazarene." He said to them, "I
am He." And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing
with them. So when He said to them, "I am He," they drew back
and fell to the ground.

Twice John repeats the phrase ego eimi, emphasizing that it is the
uttering of these words that causes the soldiers to draw back and fall
down. Some have tried to say that the soldiers were simply amazed
that Jesus would so boldly identify himself and that they stumbled in
the darkness.16 But such is far beyond the realm of meaningful interpretation, for it not only reads a good bit out of the immediate text,
but it also isolates this passage from the rest of John's gospel. When
8:24, 8:58, and 13:19 are allowed to speak their peace, as well, the reason for the soldiers' discomfort and humiliation is all too obvious.
John's meaning cannot be mistaken.

If each of these instances were examined solely in a vacuum, sep arated from the others, without any thought of the entire book of John,
one might see how their collective significance could be missed. But
this is not the way of scholarly interpretation. These statements are
not made in a vacuum-they are placed in a book that is rich with
meaning and purpose. We have asserted that John intends the entire
Gospel to be read through the "interpretive window" of the prologue
of 1:1-18. Given the teachings of that passage, can one seriously doubt
the meaning of ego eimi in the above examined passages? It would seem
not.

We might do well, then, with this understanding in mind, to look
at Jesus' words at John 8:24: "Unless you believe that I am He, you will
die in your sins." Jesus here gives us the content and object of saving
faith-real faith is that which focuses on the real Jesus. A faith that
demands a change in Jesus before a commitment is made is not real
faith at all. The Jews standing around Him during this conversation
most assuredly would not have denied that He was a man-but that
was not sufficient for faith. Some had only recently proclaimed Him
as Messiah-but that was not sufficient for faith. Some might hail Him
as a prophet or a miracle worker, blessed by God-but that was not
sufficient for faith. Some today say He was a great moral teacher and
philosopher-but that is not sufficient for faith. Some call Him "a
god" or a great angel-but that is not sufficient for faith. No, Jesus
himself laid down the line. Unless one believes Him for who He says
He is-the ego eimi-one will die in one's sins. There is no salvation
in a false Christ. If we are to be united with Christ to have eternal life,
then we must be united with the true Christ, not a false representation.
It is out of love that Christ uttered John 8:24. We would do well to
heed His words.

It is instinctive, something simply built into us. When we pray, we
recognize, intuitively, that God is the Creator, and we are the created.
Our hearts are filled with awe when we consider the One who has given
us our being.

There is no greater proof of deity than to be the Creator. As we saw
earlier, God constantly upbraided the idols of the people of Israel for
the very reason that they could not claim to have created the world
(Jeremiah 10:10-11). A god who is not the Creator is not worthy of
our worship and adoration. Such is a plain biblical teaching.

In light of this, we can hardly underestimate how important it is
that the New Testament often speaks of Jesus Christ as the Creator. No
discussion of the deity of Christ would be complete without dealing
with the fact that the Man from Galilee was described by His immediate followers as the Maker of the heavens and the earth!

Of course, if Jesus is described as the Creator, another truth is therefore established. He who creates cannot himself be created. Hence,
the eternality of Christ is directly related to His being the Maker of all
things. Obviously, then, those who wish to deny the deity of Christ,
whether they do so because they belong to a non-Christian cultic
group, or simply reject the bare possibility that Jesus was more than a
mere man (as in liberal Protestantism or liberal Catholicism), focus
quite strongly on the passages that assert both His creatorship and His
eternality. The first group attempts to get around the passages, either
by misinterpretation or even mistranslation. The second group dismisses the passages as later "reflections" that have little if anything to
do with the "historical Jesus." But the fact of the matter is that we have
the plain assertions of the earliest Christian writings that they believed
Jesus Christ created the entire universe. And as we shall see in the next
chapter, this belief fits perfectly with the earliest forms of worship in
the Christian church, where we find the highest thoughts and confessions about Christ's eternity, power, and might.

The first passage we will examine is one of the most important in
all the New Testament, Colossians 1:15-17. But before we can properly
understand this passage, we need to establish some of the background
of the passage.' While many have argued about what these words
mean, rarely is that debate played out in full light of the reasons that
prompted Paul's letter to the church at Colossae. If we wish to deal
with Paul's words, we must understand one of the major religious
movements of that day, Gnosticism.

GNOSTICISM

One of the greatest struggles of the early Christian faith was against
a mortal foe, an enemy that believers recognized as one of the most
dangerous threats to the infant church. Today most Christians have
never heard of this movement, yet, in some senses, we are still threatened by it. Gnosticism was a religious movement that prompted many
of the early literary efforts of the early church. Many of the leaders of
the church in the second and third centuries wrote blistering denunciations of Gnosticism. At times, and in certain places, Gnosticism
threatened the very existence of orthodox Christian faith.

By its very character Gnosticism was dangerous, for it was an eclectic movement. That is, it was willing to "make room" in its theology
for religious leaders and beliefs it encountered as it spread west into
the Roman Empire and south into the academic strongholds of Egypt.
Like some religious faiths today, it could adapt and change its own
views to "make room" for new religious concepts, heros, theories, or
dogmas. It was, to use a modern term, a very "inclusive" movement.
That is not to say that there were not fundamental concepts that
marked the general movement we today call Gnosticism. There were.
But the Gnostics were willing to add your favorite deity to their system,
as long as it resulted in your "going along" with their program.