A Few Clarifying Thoughts

Regarding "I Am"

Some friends have pointed out there are several more than the seven “I am” phrases we examined in the gospel of John.

They are quite right.

Yet, our focus has been to consider the phrases in which Jesus makes an emphatic, explicit declarative statement about his person, that is, about his nature. We looked for those phrases that explicitly, and not implicitly, emphasize the words, “I” and “am”, carrying existential meaning, “to be, to exist.” A noun usually follows the phrase, indicating that Jesus “exists” as a certain thing: bread, light, door, good shepherd, resurrection (and life), way (truth and life), vine. Typically, in these he speaks metaphorically. There are seven such phrases (sometimes used more than once in a discourse), the ones we examined.

We also noted the singular “Before Abraham was, I am” as the central statement concerning Jesus’ self-identification in which he intended, and was so understood by his hearers, to say he and the Father were one.

There are other phrases in our English Bibles that read “I am” in Jesus’ words, of course. These are sometimes idioms of our language in which the verb “to be” is a helping verb. We dismiss those instances from being part of the thoughts above.

Yet, other times Jesus appears to indicate that he “is” something which we do not include above. For example, Pilate asks whether he is a king, and Jesus summarizes Pilate’s statement with, “You say that I am a king.” (18:37). Jesus does not exactly assert, “I am a king”; we infer this through reasonable and logical deduction, and Jesus acknowledges that we infer this. Yet, though we, with Jesus’ fellow Hebrews, reasonably infer that Jesus presents himself as a king, the point is that Jesus did not say this explicitly. And we were looking for explicit self-identifications.

Or again, Jesus says to those who oppose him, “You say I am blaspheming because I said I am the Son of God?” (10:36). Here as before, Jesus summarizes his opponents’ inference, and he agrees that their inference is correct. Yet, we note two things that are at slight variance from what we sought for originally: (1) As in the previous case, we infer that he is the Son of God inasmuch as he calls God his father; Jesus, however, did not use that exact phrase about himself in his discourse. (2) It is not immediately apparent in our translations, but Jesus does not use explicitly the term “I” here. Rather, the term is implied by the verb. In contrast, we were looking for those self-identifications in which Jesus was emphasizing the “I” explicitly.

The above discussion will suffice as offering representative examples of the process we engaged.

Having said all this, I do not want to put more emphasis on the matter than makes truly too much difference. Nevertheless, we should be aware of these types of subtleties in Scripture.

Regarding The Law and Sabbath breaking

Some friends take issue with the allegation that Jesus broke the Sabbath laws, in the account of John 5.

I wish to summarize fairly my friends' thoughts with these words: Jesus was not breaking God’s law either in healing the man on the Sabbath or in bidding the man carry his bed roll. Rather, in Jesus' day the application of the Sabbath law was misapplied to mean that one ought not to heal nor to bear burdens on the Sabbath. This misapplication of the Mosaic law grew out of events much subsequent to the giving of the Law. Therefore, Jesus broke no law of God.

Now, it is true that the gospels do not present Jesus as breaking laws of God.

Jesus indeed, in the gospel of John, after showing them their inconsistency in applying the Law, calls upon his fellows to “judge with right judgment” in regard to this very question. (7:21-24). Jesus’ detractors did not see it his way, of course, but that’s beside the point.

Nonetheless, Jesus broke the law, not God’s law to be sure, but he broke the law of the land (the Sabbath law as it was then defined) and he bade another to break the same law likewise.

In his defense to the accusing authorities, we note that Jesus does not challenge them in their misapplication of the fourth commandment. Rather, he speaks of inconsistent application of the law. Jesus is not ignorant of the consequences of his actions; he could have waited another few hours until after the Sabbath to heal ... but he did not.

This is a reality we, too, must face as we consider who he was and what he did. We are left to struggle with Jesus’ motive or intent in his willful breaking of the law, a man-made law, but law nonetheless.

In the gospel of Mark, his answer to a similar circumstance is no less stunning than what he says in John (5:17). He says, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27). His argument leading to that thought (vv. 25-26) is not merely that the Law was misapplied, but that David even broke what the Law was quite explicit about!

At every level, Jesus challenges us to rethink our relationship with God so that we may be sons of God indeed, that we may be perfect, as he is perfect. (Mt. 5:48).