Does the Lord claim deity with the use of egō eimi (I am)?
This text is from a letter written by David Gooding in 2003.
I take note of your detailed discussion of the different ways in which the Greek phrase egō eimi is used; and of the examples that you quote. I will in a moment add some more from the Old Testament.
But let me start first with your comments on 2 Corinthians 3:17. In reply to my argument that, in the light of the context of Exodus 34:34 which Paul here quotes, 2 Corinthians 3:17 says explicitly that Yahweh is the Spirit—you comment, 'certainly, the argument is sound and the conclusion reasonable'.
That, naturally, pleases me, for, as I understand it, this verse, in straightforward, explicit, simple, language, actually says Yahweh is the Spirit. But then you add, 'However, one commentary . . . suggests . . . but for all practical purposes it doesn't really matter'. And you proceed with a detailed devotional commentary, which in itself is very helpful.
Nevertheless, I am left wondering why you shy away from the explicit statement of 2 Corinthians 3:17, and seem not prepared to take it at its face value. Is that because your concept of the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit does not find the idea acceptable, that the Spirit and the Son are equally Yahweh as is the Father? In other words, is it your concept of the status of the Son and the Spirit that controls your interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3:17? Or, is it that the explicit statement of 2 Corinthians 3:17 as it stands should be allowed to modify your concept of the status of the Son and of the Spirit?
But, now, to come to the Greek phrase egō eimi, as used by our Lord in the New Testament.
At Isaiah 45:22, God says, 'Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.' Again, at Isaiah 46:9, God repeats his statement: 'For I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me'. My question here can be phrased thus: Is he, who is called the Word of God, included in this God who says, 'I am God, and there is none else'? Or, is he not included? It is not enough to answer that the Son of God is like God in his divine nature, but is not God in the same sense that the Father is God; because, here in Isaiah 46:9, God not only says, 'I am God, and there is none else', but he adds, 'I am God, and there is none like me'. This God, then, who says 'there is none like me'—does he include the Son and the Spirit, or not?
At several places in this context in Isaiah, God uses a phrase of himself that in Hebrew is ani hu, (literally translated, 'I He'). The Septuagint translates this phrase egō eimi = I am. What the significance of this phrase is can be seen if we compare it with Isaiah 47:10, where Babylon says in her heart, 'I am, and there is none else beside me'. Here, once more, the Septuagint translates Babylon's assertion, 'I am', as egō eimi. It is easy to see what Babylon means by egō eimi: she is claiming for herself what is true only of God. Her claim is sheer blasphemy.
Now, in an earlier letter, I pointed out that at John 8:24 our Lord says, 'Except you believe that egō eimi, you shall die in your sins'. Your comment on that, I think, was that it wouldn't make sense to understand our Lord's phrase as claiming to be Yahweh incarnate. And, similarly, in your latest letter, you suggest that when, at John 8:28, our Lord says, 'When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM' (ISV), he was not claiming to be Yahweh incarnate, but simply that he was what he had elsewhere claimed to be.
My question, therefore, is as follows: In Isaiah, when Babylon says, 'I am', it is obvious that Babylon is claiming the same status as God, and her claim is, of course, blasphemous. Why, then, is it not obvious that, when Jesus says 'I am', he is, likewise, claiming to be equal with God, to be Yahweh incarnate; and that his claim is not blasphemous, but absolutely true in the highest possible sense?
I have a feeling that you will not allow this. You will, of course, allow that when God says to Moses in Exodus 3:14, 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you"', that the term 'I AM' is the name by which God identifies himself. But, if I have understood you rightly, you will not allow that this name, I AM, applies to the Son and the Spirit equally as it does to the Father. My question is, therefore, why not?
On the broader issue of the Trinity, I think I understand your feelings of frustration when faced with discussions of the doctrine of the Trinity, with their inevitable use of technical language; and I likewise understand your preference for the straightforward language of Scripture. I myself prefer it. And I, likewise, thank God that he has not written his word in the form of systematic theology, but communicates to us his doctrine within the context of our need and particular occasions in world history.
It is also true that the Bible nowhere says that you have to have a clear understanding of all the profundities of the Godhead if ever you are to be saved. I suspect that the dying thief knew nothing at all about the doctrine of the Trinity, when through simple repentance and faith in Jesus he was given the assurance of immediate entry into paradise.
It is true that one of the Creeds—and I forget for the moment which one it is—says that you must believe the clear doctrine of the Trinity if ever you are to be saved. But this is understandable from the historical background against which the Creeds are written. In those days, there were many professing Christians who denied that Jesus was divine at all. They held he was a very special man, but only human. Others, at the other extreme, denied that Jesus was human at all: they claimed he only seemed to be human, but was actually divine and only divine. I think you would agree with me on the seriousness of these denials, and that they destroy the very basis of salvation. But, then, let me put it, rather, as a question to you. Would you say that someone can be saved without believing that Jesus is the Son of God? I think I know that you would say, 'No, that is not possible, since Scripture itself says, "Whosoever denies the Son, the same has not the Father"' (1 John 2:23).
Inevitably, then, the question arises: what exactly is the relationship between the man, Jesus, born in time, with the eternal Word of God, who never began to be, but existed eternally, and was not only with God, but was God.
Our wisdom, surely, is that we begin by believing everything that the Scripture says about him. That, at least, is my position. I do not claim that I understand everything that is said in the Bible about our Lord, but I start by believing everything it says, and where I do not understand what it means I pray for further light.
I gather from your correspondence that this is the attitude that you yourself take, but when you ask, 'Why should we trouble to go beyond what Scripture says, and invent complicated terminology?', my reply to you would be, that you, like the rest of us, do the very same thing, even though you do it without being aware of it.
When first I pointed out to you that John 1:1 says that the Word was God, instead of taking the straightforward meaning of God as it is used already in that verse and in subsequent verses, you suggested to me that here the Greek word means, not God in the fullest sense, but in some other sense. So you were already adding to Scripture an argument based on the technicalities of the Greek language. Necessarily, we all do that kind of thing, since ultimately the New Testament was written in Greek, and to understand it fully we need a precise understanding of the technicalities of the Greek language. I think, therefore, you should not be quite so hard on those who try to understand what the New Testament says in precise terms.
We all make a sincere effort to understand fully what the Scripture says about the Lord Jesus, whom we all love and seek to honour, and rightly worship. We do need, however, to be aware that, though we may criticize other people's systems of theology as being unbiblical and self-constructed, each of us has our own particular system, whether we know it or not. Naturally we then feel ours is more scriptural, and we soothe ourselves by thinking that all we are doing in our understanding is simply accepting what Scripture says. In other words, we all of us have our interpretations, and should always be willing to let the Lord refine our understanding as he leads us on into his truth.
Let me cite as an example of this, your argument: 'Therefore, I have no reason to believe that using the Greek phrase egō eimi constitutes a claim of deity. If it did, then the blind man in John 9:9, who used those identical words, egō eimi, would also be claiming deity'. I notice that here you are once more appealing to the Greek. Understandably so. But you do not seem to allow that the Greek phrase egō eimi carries different connotations according to the context in which it is used. All Greek scholars, as far as I am aware, would agree that this phrase has different connotations in different contexts. Your argument, therefore—that the phrase egō eimi cannot constitute a claim to deity, because if it did, the blind man's use of that same phrase, egō eimi, in John 9:9 would also be a claim to deity—is, in fact, false, even according to the technicalities of the Greek language.
We, of course, are concerned with what this phrase may mean in certain biblical contexts. I, therefore, would like to ask you another question: As noted earlier, according to Isaiah 47:10, Babylon is rebuked, because 'Thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and there is none else beside me'. What do you think Babylon means by saying, I am; and why does God take such exception to it, and announce complete destruction on Babylon for making the claim, I am? (see also, Isaiah 47:8).
But now, perhaps, you are becoming a little wearied of this extensive correspondence, and of course I leave it to you entirely whether you think it worthwhile proceeding.
All I would say for the moment is this. Since we love the Lord Jesus, and rightly worship him, and honour him as we honour the Father (John 5:23), we need, of course, to begin by simply believing all that Scripture says; but then we need to seek the grace of God, as I am sure you do, that we should not, in our limited understandings, say anything that is not worthy of our Lord, or in any way detracts from his person.
Yours sincerely,
