Category: Hermeneutical Considerations

D.A. Carson, ‘ �I Am� Sayings’, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology

In the NT, many �I am� sayings are supplied with a subjective completion (e.g., �I am the light of the world,� John 8:12) and therefore do not qualify as �I am� utterances in the absolute sense. More difficult are the few instances outside John’s Gospel where the text offers a simple eg? eimi (lit. �I am�) but where the context makes clear that the meaning is �It is I� or �I am he��with the antecedent of the �I� or �he� apparent in the surrounding verses. These are probably at best ambiguous self-disclosures of deity, hints for those familiar with OT; for many of Jesus’ prepassion self-revelations adopt such a stance of planned ambiguity. For instance, when Jesus walks to his frightened disciples across the surface of the water, he calms their fears by saying, eg? eimi, The context demands the conclusion that Jesus is identifying himself (�It is I�), showing that what they perceive is not a ghostly apparition (Mark 6:50). Yet not every �I� could be found walking on water: it would be premature to discount all reference to OT theophany. Again, Jesus warns his disciples against those who will lead many astray by claiming �I am� (Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8); but the context demands this be interpreted as �I am the Christ��as Matt. 24:5 makes explicit. Jesus used identical language at his trial (Mark 14:61-62) and similar language after his resurrection (Luke 24:39), in each case bearing some ambiguity.

The Fourth Gospel raises new questions. Although many of Jesus’ �I am� utterances recorded by John are supplied with explicit predicates (�I am the true vine,� �I am the good shepherd,� �I am the bread of life,� �I am the resurrection and the life�), two are undeniably absolute in both form and content (8:58; 13:19) and constitute an explicit self-identification with Yahweh who had already revealed himself to men in similar terms (Isa. 43:10-11). Jesus’ opponents recognize this claim to unity with Yahweh (John 8:58-59); in 13:19-20, Jesus himself proceeds to make it explicit. These two occurrences of the absolute �I am� suggest that in several other passages in John, where �I am� is formally absolute but a predicate might well be supplied from the context (e.g., 4:26; 6:20; 8:24,28; 18:5,6,8), an intentional double meaning may be involved.

And that was so good that I think I shall have to do something revolutionary, something that almost never happens, and add more books by D.A. Carson to my Amazon wish list.

Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, p.308 (Hendrickson:1993)

[Of the reading of the Scriptures in the synagogue]

As the Hebrew was not generally understood, the Methurgeman, or Interpreter, stood by the side of the reader (comp. 1 Cor. 14:27,28), and translated into the Aramaean verse by verse, and in the section from the Prophets, or Haphtarah, after every three verses (Megill. 24a). But the Methurgeman was not allowed to read his translation, lest it might popularly be regarded as authoritative. This may help to us in some measure to understand the popular mode of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament. So long as the substance of a text was given correctly, the Methurgeman might paraphrase for better popular understanding. Again, it is but natural to suppose, that the Methurgeman would prepare himself for his work by such materials as he would find to hand, among which, of course, the translation of the Septuagint would hold a prominent place. This may in part account alike for the employment of the Septuagint, and for its Targumic modifications, in the New Testament quotations.

A.W. Pink, Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

In what has just been before us we may see a very real warning against a slavish literalism, which has ever been the refuge into which not a few errorists have betaken themselves. In this instance the Pharisees kept themselves close to the letter of the Word, but sadly failed to understand and insist upon its spiritual purport. Papists seek to justify their erroneous dogma of transubstantiation by an appeal to the very words of Christ, “this is My body,” insisting on the literal sense of His language. Unitarians seek to shelter behind His declaration, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:18), arguing therefrom the essential inferiority of the Son. In like manner, the ancient rabbis took the words of the seventh commandment at their face value only, failing to enter into the full spiritual meaning of them. Let pre-millenarians heed this warning against a slavish literalism or a being deceived by the mere sound of words, instead of ascertaining their sense.