For an Answer Home | Commentary Index | Bibliography | Glossary |
The Bible Gateway | The Blue Letter Bible | The Greek New Testament (NA26) | Greek & Hebrew Lexicons |
The Apologists Bible Commentary
John 18
<< Previous Verse |
Next Verse >> |
3 - 8 |
|
C o m m e n t a r y |
The crucial question in this passage is: Does Jesus use a divine title for Himself or not? And why did the Roman cohort (about 600 soldiers) and temple guards fall to the ground? Were they merely stunned by Jesus' calm yet forceful response? Or was there something else far more profound going on? In the English, the proper meaning is lost in the translation "I am He." In Greek, it is egô eimi ("I am"), which some have proposed is more than mere self-identification, but a claim to Deity. This theory is supported by the number of times Jesus uses this absolute expression in John's Gospel (9 times)1, particularly John 8:28). I would argue that there is a progression of the "I am" declarations of Jesus in John, climaxing here. We should first note that Jesus uses egô eimi with an explicit predicate numerous times in the Gospel of John ("I am the way, the truth, and the life," "I am the door," "I am the bread of life," etc.). But He uses it without the predicate on nine occasions. It is these instances where disputes arise: What exactly did Jesus mean by these absolute uses? "The strange use of the words 'I am" in Jn 18.5, 6 and 8 clearly show that while egô eimi is used as simple identification, the two words may simultaneously have a far deeper meaning. The reason that the soldiers fall down when Jesus utters the words egô eimi is not stated. It is assumed the reader will know. While accepting the fact that Jesus identifies himself to the soldiers with these words, the reader must look for something that would explain their strange reaction. The words here act as a trigger to point the reader to other occurrences of the term in the Gospel to explain Jesus' words. The threefold repetition of egô eimi emphasizes the importance of the expression. That this statement occurs at the moment of betrayal particularly points back to 13:19 where the fulfillment of Scripture and Jesus' own words was linked to the betrayal in order that the disciples might believe. Thus a simple recognition formula in which Jesus states that he is the person whom the soldiers seek is given a double meaning by the reaction of those same soldiers to his words as well as by the previous use of egô eimi in the Gospel. Although it is correct to talk of Jesus' identity in terms of Jesus of Nazareth on one level, on another level there is something that cannot be explained without looking into the environment in which the Gospel was first written. In that environment, the Gospel writer can take simple words and, by the way they are formulated (8:24,28; 13:19) as well as by the reactions to them (8:58; 18:5-6,8), allude to a background where Yahweh alone is God and Saviour. In the Gospel, these words are taken up by Jesus and applied to himself" (Ball, p 201). "They went backward, and fell to the ground - None of the other evangelists mentions this very important circumstance. Our Lord chose to give them this proof of his infinite power, that they might know that their power could not prevail against him if he chose to exert his might, seeing that the very breath of his mouth confounded, drove back, and struck them down to the earth. Thus by the blast of God they might have perished, and by the breath of his nostrils they might have been consumed: Job 4:9" (Clarke). |
G r a m m a t i c a l
A n a l y s i s |
speira
speira band (of soldiers), cohort
uperhreths twn Iudaiwn hUPHRETHS TWN IUDAIWN Officers, temple guards, of the Jews
egw eimi egô eimi I am.
|
O t h e r
V i e w s
C o n s i d e r e d |
Jehovah's Witnesses objection: Former Witness Greg Stafford offers the most significant objection to Christ claiming Deity in this verse. He objects to Christian writer James White for 'failing to deal with' what Mr. Stafford feels are the three most significant obstacles for those claiming that Jesus asserts His deity in this passage:
response: Let's take these one at a time: John 7 Commentators, such as those cited by Mr. Stafford, often attempt to draw connections with John 7:32, 46. But a careful reading suggests that it is not the same group of "officers," here. There was an entire Roman cohort at Jesus' arrest (or at least as many who could be referred to in that way), which was not present at the earlier incident. The two scenes are thematically connected, to be sure, but in John 7, the officers did not return with Jesus because they thought they were going to arrest someone very different from the man they actually encountered: "No one speaks as does this man!" Perhaps they thought they had been sent in error, and they would be commended for returning without Him. In John 18, there is a group of upwards of 600 Roman soldiers, in addition to the Temple guards, coming to arrest Jesus. That the two groups were identical is a mere assumption and is not substantiated by the Biblical evidence. Robertson offers the following definition of "officers" here:
When we look at John 18, the fact that this was not the same group of "officers" from the encounter in John 7 is made clear::
John actually repeats the declaration of His divine identity not once, but twice (vv. 6, 8). They were so overwhelmed that they "drew back and fell to the ground." Clearly, more than mere self-identification is in play, here.
Variants The fact that our standard Greek NTs (UBS4/NA27) are in agreement that egô eimi is absolute should be ample reason to accept that reading as genuine. Add to this the comments of Bruce Metzger:
To be fair, this reading is given a C rating (the scale ranges from A to D), indicating that the Committee "had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text" (Ibid, p. xxviii). But, I find Metzger's comments to be persuasive. And the reading is made even more certain by the recurrence of egô eimi in verses 6 and 8. Also, it really would not matter how Jesus replied, Stafford would still have to account for the reaction of the entire Roman cohort (or at least a portion thereof) and the temple guards.
The Reaction of the officers in John 7 As already discussed, it is doubtful it was the same group of soldiers that were dispatched to arrest Jesus as witnessed His bold, authoritative speech in John 7. Even if some or all of them were present at both incidents, what about the Romans cohort, who as Mr. Stafford admits, were not believers? Why did they fall down? It is inconceivable that anything less than something supernatural could explain why hardened, pagan Roman soldiers would collapse to the ground. Stafford implies the cohort was there on both occasions,2 but as we have seen, they were absent from the first encounter all together.
Conclusion As I hope I have demonstrated, Mr. Stafford's counter-arguments have failed to be persuasive. He does not engage the 'double meaning' hypothesis at all in regard to these verses, and cites only scholars favorable to his position. I could cite scholars favorable to mine (as indeed I have!), but that would only prove that these scholars believed as I do, and not John's original intention. In summary, John emphasizes Jesus' word not once, not twice, but three times. This comes as the climax of a progression of absolute "I am" statements, running from 4:26, through 3 instances in chapter 8 (24, 28, 58), 13:19, and finally culminating here with the threefold proclamation. Jesus is claiming for Himself absolute eternality, self-existence, and creatorship of all things by echoing YHWH's words in Isaiah, translated in the LXX (the Greek OT) as egô eimi.
Notes 1. The lone exception is John 9:9, where formerly blind beggar also uses ego eimi and, of course, is not proclaiming himself to be deity. This demonstrates that ego eimi was a fairly common way to say "I am he" in Greek. But those who say this usage disproves that Jesus used this expression to also claim He was Divine, are saying too much. The fact that John places this expression so often in the mouth of Jesus illustrates there is something more going on than mere self-identification, as I shall attempt to demonstrate in this article. 2. "[White] does not address the impression left on the soldiers who had come to arrest Jesus earlier in the Gospel account, impressions that were so great that even Roman soldiers (non-believers) could not arrest Jesus simply because of the way he spoke" (Stafford, pp. 287, n. 92). |
<< Previous Verse |
Next Verse >> |