The Use of “I AM” in John 8:24

The following is an excerpt of an email conversation on John 8:24 from a message delivered by Andy in July of 2006 

Andy,

I thought your message last Sunday morning was excellent. It’s not often you hear a message on Deity of Jesus, let alone Trinitarian theology. And, I appreciated your candid “So what?” question. It was the better question. In fact, it was such a good question that I wish you could have spent more time developing it. It’s the “punch line” to Deity of Christ that I’m still discovering the importance of.

This is a long email, so I apologize in advance. I wanted a sounding board to your message to help flush out my thoughts. I hope you’ll find it beneficial and engaging as well. Let me develop this and I’d appreciate your comments.

The problem I want to explore is our historical amnesia in the interpretation of the verse in John 8:24 “Unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins…” This verse is commonly quoted to confirm Christ’s claim to deity, but also to support the view that acceptance of the deity of Christ is a necessary component of one’s Christian salvation. It is commonly used by Evangelical Christians to emphasis why one must relinquish any other notion of who Christ is, and adopt the tightly defined post Nicene view of Christ and the Godhead. And, as a Christian and an education one, I accept this in the historical traditions of our faith as correct and consistent with the proper treatment of the NT. However, we may have picked the wrong verse to support our understanding. When Jesus spoke these words, he was not speaking to a religious sect or those outside of his faith. He was speaking as a Rabbi, prior to the cross, to other members of the most monotheistic institution in history, Judaism, regarding another issue, the acceptance and forgiveness of sinners. At the time, his audience was the Pharisees who were anything but polytheistic, pantheistic or atheistic. So what was Jesus’ point? What message was he driving home to his listeners in this historical context?

What strike’s me as obvious with the gospel writers is that these words were meant to confront the ruling Jewish establishment (Judaism) and their consequential practices to people outside their righteous community. It was his ultimatum for them to accept his authority to forgive sins and to embrace the social ethic in His Gospel preaching, including his involvement with the fringe of society (i.e. Samaritans, the sick, etc), militant movements (rebels), and authoritative cultures (the Romans). His was a message of acceptance, forgiveness and service to people in and outside their immediate comfort zones (i.e. family, social status, race, and nationality). In this verse, He establishes His right to set an ethical precedent for both culture and economic practices that reaches into one’s personal and private life. In the following pages, I’ll develop and support this perspective from this verse. As such, the choice of songs that Sunday morning were a great fit before and after your message – Amazing Grace (recall Newton’s “career” as a slave trader and his acceptance of God’s forgiveness and the role it played out in his life) and How Great Is Our God (indeed, as Christ has broken the barriers between race, culture, economics, through the gospel – our ability individually, corporately and in our national governance to extend the foundation and practice acceptance, forgiveness, service). So let me frame the discussion starting with some of the symptoms of our challenge to understand Jn 8:24.

In the midst of our multicultural societies, the preaching and message of the cross and the deity of Christ is controversial. In fact, in western secularist societies, it’s seen as narrow and ignorant of other religious cultures. In our pluralistic society, it’s viewed as lacking tolerance for other peoples of race, religion, and culture (i.e. the popular perception of the missionary moment). Christians are viewed as wanting to convert everyone. Popular Western culture often rejects Christ and Christianity on these grounds, and adopts a more soften view of our faith, Christ as a moral teacher or prophet, the golden rule, the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount, and so on. The implication that one religion could be right and thereby make all other religions wrong does not sit well with us.

In contrast to the rise and dominance of our secularist world views over the past 100 plus years, the first war of the 21st century turned out to be a religious war. In the east/west conflict over terrorism, we see the hard lines of the Muslim faith and its call to Jihad, the defeat of the great Satan, and a world governed by the Koran. Such radical views played out on the world stage only affirm that radical or hard line religion is something to be avoided.

So where does that leave us on the issue of the God/man and Jn 8:24? There is no question that Jesus claimed that He was God. The testimony and accounts of the various writers of the New Testament confirm this so as to leave no doubt about Christ’s claim. But what purpose did this serve? Unless you believe that He is God, you will die in your sins. Is this the message? Is this the universal principle of salvation for all men that draws a line between Christianity and all other religions? Is this a necessary element for the salvation of all men? Was the point of our Lord’s words in this verse to be reduced to this literal understanding? Where is the historical context? Is there more to it? Or is our literal view more of a post Nicene perception rather then pre Nicene? Does the historical context give us an implication here that we need to account for? Are we suffering from a moment of historical amnesia that, if recalled, feeds a broader meaning into this statement?

I would suggest that there is a broader meaning and that the meaning is significant enough to change our understanding. Jesus spoke his words in a very similar and pluralistic religious situation to us today. Even a light reading of the Bible reveals that the entire accounts of the Old and New Testament were written to address pluralistic cultures and their implications. This context feeds wisdom into Jesus words and our world today. The historical situation and the contextual framework painted by the NT and OT writers and especially our modern understanding of the Roman Empire should be allowed to speak and set the meaning for our Lord’s statement.

When I teach (not frequently), I often use this illustration to make the point. The newspaper headline “The Braves Scalped The Indians” can have several meanings. The literal interpretation of these words depends on when you lived. During the early 19th century, it refers to two Indian tribes at war. Only one hundred years later in the 21st century, it could be a baseball headline. Technically then, literal translations are impossible without the historical context. This is true for our verse in question.

However, the breakdown to connect the literal and the historical in Biblical interpretation has done some damage to Christianity over our history. We can all think of examples of “radical” sects that have taken verses out of context and used arguments of reduction to justify the most horrific of actions (i.e. from the Crusades to Jim Jones, and so on). But for us in the Protestant main stream, the failure to apply this connection is more subtle but still significant in its impact. Most notably, it is really a victory for the enemy of man, Satan himself as the embodiment of all that is evil. Anything that dilutes the gospel, especially if it is subtle enough not to be notice, can render Christianity fruitless. It is mission accomplished on the part of evil. I would suggest that this was the problem with Judaism post 500 BC to the time of Christ. A system and definition of righteousness so well developed that it forgot the heart of it message.

For many training preachers and career messengers of the Cross, creeds and credos, Greek and Hebrew, cultural and political studies are the boring and unpractical sides of their training. These areas are left to the more eccentric of students and teachers in general. Rather, most enthusiastic workers want to get to the “meat” of the matter, saving souls as fishers of men. And here is a breakdown in our training institution that is replicated down into the pastoral and lay ministry. The historical and literal context of the OT and NT is the core, foundation point, for any Christian task, weather lay or professional, personal or public. Without the historical background, the gospel in part is neutered. I believe this to be the case with our common understanding of Jn 8:24. And, this neutering has left us outside of the debate on multiculturalism and especially economic practice that has surrender itself to Milton Freeman’s Darwinian view of free markets ethics. I would suggest that the gospel has more to say on multiculturalism and economics then any other world view, and by implication, this verse. Jesus said more about the principles and values of economics (i.e. how to live in community) then most other topics in the gospels. It’s tragic that we have boxed ourselves outside the common debate.

I have stressed this historical point because it is the rub of the matter. The connection between history and the gospel can help put the gospel back into a place of social credibility. Credibility is not acceptance, but it’s easier to accept what is credible. As great a man as the reformation leader Luther was, his contribution to reform (Protestantism and the modern evangelical) was the reduction of the gospel. It fit his own personal need (a personal encounter with God) and addressed the social failings of the Catholic Church at that time. However, the protestant movement has not been prolific at communicating the gospel as both a personal and public reform, AND linking the two closely together (i.e. as James, the brother of Jesus does). Yes, there have been excellent and extremely valuable movements in this direction (i.e. Martin Luther King, World Vision, Mother Teresa, and many others including the efforts at Liberation Theology), but the common understanding of the gospel today is associated with irrelevance in the Western world (mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism) or limited to those individual whose lives are so bankrupt, they require a “Salvation Army” like experience.

These are sweeping statements and generalizations. And, they are probably not fair to those that are making contributions to the gospel and our Lord’s church well beyond what I will ever do. However, in the business of marketing, there is a saying about inside the bottle and outside the bottle. Inside the bottle is the corporation. Here, everything is going well. Plans are being executed, costs are being contained and financial goals met. Things are comfortable here. Outside the bottle are the customers. Here, things are not going so well. Products are in short supply, and fail often. Customer support is hard to find and problem resolution rare. Today, successful companies have to take an outside the bottle approach to marketing. All analogies fall short, but I would suggest that the approach Jesus took that embodies the gospel is an outside the bottle view of the world.

What I’m outline is nothing new. They are the conventional understandings from mainstream protestant theology. What may be new, but I doubt it, will be the insight on how the pieces fit together for Jn 8:24. This fitting, I hope, will give fresh discussion into these words of our Lord. If we correctly understand Christ words in this context, it may be a step to renew our proclamation of the gospel in a multicultural society and global economy. It is a proclamation that can bring healing to personal, economic, political, and international chaos that we see today. Unfortunately, not all will accept it. It is, after all, a narrow path, but not an ignorant one. Rather it is a contributing and viable voice to the discussions of culture and nations. As a voice on culture, we stand in a great tradition, starting with Moses.

Here are some contextual points for my understanding of this passage, Jn 8:24.

• The context of Jn 8:24 is a debate about Jesus’ authority to forgive the adulterous woman’s sin and set her free from her accusers. It begs the question, so rightly asked, about “who are you?” It asks by what authority he is acting on. They already know that He is Rabbi. This is a similar situation repeated as in the case healing of the paraplegic at Peter’s house. The stage is then set for the discussion that follows on what authority does Jesus forgive as a Rabbi, and rescues the woman from certain death. Jesus states that his purpose and actions are in line with the Fathers, and climaxes his argument around his claim to be I AM. His position as God (ultimate authority – the one who spoke to Moses at the burning bush) gives Him the right to forgive those that have failed and trumps Jewish law that shows no mercy. This is His argument and one that he clearly understands the implications of.
• The context of Jn 8:24 is pre Nicene and pre cross, so the primary meaning must be interpreted in its original context, NOT as post resurrection statement pertaining to atonement as done in the following popular statement: “Jesus is saying that forgiveness of your sins, the very work he did on the cross cannot be applied unless you understand who died for you. So believing Jesus is the savior in a general sense is not enough. Believing Jesus is the Son of God in a general sense without actually understanding it is a claim to deity is not enough.” http://www.letusreason.org/Trin19.htm (No. 1 position in Google search string “unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins”). Simple put, this is poor biblical exegesis (historical, grammatical, and literal interpretation).
• The post context is the continuation of the argument about Jesus authority for his position to forgive the sin of the adulterous women. The presupposition that Jesus and his Jewish adversaries are working under is that only God has the rightful authority to forgive sins, so how can Jesus forgive sins. Jesus continues to make the argument that his works of forgiveness for the “unrighteous” (bridging the gap between race and social status through the example of service) are not only the works of the Father, but ultimately grounded in His claim to be God.

The broader context of the Gospel and thrust for the “forgiveness of sins”:

• Jesus’ mission in Lk 4:18 was not a general statement about making the world’s wrongs right, but a specific call to the liberation of people wrongful burdened by a social status and misguided notions under Judaism. It was in part an appeal to the Jewish practice of Jubilee, although Judaism had developed many technical means to practice yet avoid the transfer of wealth (loans, land, and labor). His mission statement in Lk 4:18 also embraced his teaching covering the rich and poor, men and women, finance and economics, law and freedom, war and peace, race and culture, empire and occupation. His magna carta is outline in the Sermon on the Mount, illustrations (parables), and summarized by the Lord’s prayer. The controversy of his works were his miracles that were intentionally done to upset the governing religious, social and political establishment (i.e. the blind beggar at the temple). This was the “buzz” or controversy focused on by the gospel writers over his ability to accept, forgive and service people regardless of their ethnic, social, or religious background. Jesus was breaking new grounds in multiculturalism, and was very much a pioneer.
• Forgiveness in the Lord’s prayer carries not only the definition of the Kingdom of God (“thy Kingdom come”), but a similar warning to Jn 8:24 in the terrible partition of the prayer, “forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.” The word sin can be better translated as debt, financial debt. One cannot miss the meaning here in light of his proclamation of Jubilee. This is first full warning against not exercising forgiveness in perhaps it’s most difficult form, financial debt. Augustine called it the terrible petition for good reason.
• This motif continues at Peter’s house with Christ’s pertinent question to the Pharisees before he heals of the paraplegic, “which is it easier to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven’ or ‘Rise up and walk?’” Here, his question breaks the old paradigm that sickness and its outcast status is not the fault and punishment of one sins or their parent’s shortcomings. Sin’s can only be forgiven by God, so it impossible for man, especially a Rabbi to make this statement. Equally, to heal the man is by implication to grant that his past has been forgiven. The restoration of health means God’s judgment has been removed. It’s a trick question that dissolves if Jesus does not heal the man. In this case, the healing means his sins are forgiven and that he is to be resorted to full social status. Here, as in so many of the other miracles, Jesus is bridging one of many oppressive societal gaps. His legal authority as a Jewish Rabbi for his actions is his claim to be God. His actions are in line with the works of His Father.
• Jesus practice to forgive the unforgivable is deliberately giving his Jewish counterparts quite a shock. First, by departing from the pure monotheistic principles of Judaism. His controversial forgiveness and acceptance of sinners was linked to His claim to be God. One may wonder if this was necessary. Why not just stick to a reform message? But as in our time as in Jesus era, a reform message is not enough, it has to be grounded in a higher reality and authority for it to have universal application and motivation. The 20th century was one of the bloodiest on record and proof positive that man cannot live without God. We have developed other concepts, such a “crimes against humanity” but they are weak and tend to be applied at random. The higher reality is in the One God as sole creator. As creator, we are not only in His image, but personably accountable for our behavior to one another at all levels. Jesus’ repeated demonstrations of forgiveness as God and from God is a frightful reminder of our social responsibility to really care for those who fall outside the norms of any convention, especially religious. Second, Jesus shifts from the letter of the religion (law) to the heart of religion (law). He brings back into Judaism the original teaching of Moses. God as creator who endows all men with His image and holds men accountable for their actions to one another. This standard is call righteousness. It is a standard of social acceptance, forgiveness, and service that breaks the social barriers of race, culture, norms, and softens the common standards of justice and one’s rights (i.e. Sermon on the Mount). It’s a very powerful multicultural message. These are the pregnant concepts Christ call us to live by that lie behind His claim to be God. One cannot read the gospels and not see the simple logic of his claim. If Jesus as God can forgive the unforgivable (the brutality of the Romans and the ensuing social debt from Roman taxes), accept the unacceptable (the half breed Samaritans and their other temple), and service those of lesser status (the sick and poor perceived to be under a Jewish form of “karma” - the judgment of God), then I and we are expected to behave in a similar manner. At a very minimum, our heart must be in the right place when I look at my neighbor, my brother, my enemy, or those in need or who owe me money (i.e. divorce situations). Saying that it is “too bad for this person or that person” is not enough. It’s a call to action that Jubilee was. Unfortunately, for Judaism as it developed after Solomon, in it zeal for the Kingdom of God, it shifts the teachings of Moses to become an oppressor of men and women outside of its tightly held religious standards. Oddly enough, these religious standard’s were to expected to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth. And ironically, it’s unfortunate that both the Catholic and Protestant faiths have both strayed tragically from these founding principles at some time in their respective histories.
• Jubilee – The acceptable year of our Lord – this whole concept, emphasis in Jesus teaching is riddled with forgiveness and economic codes of conduct. What’s probably noteworthy to mention here is that Jubilee was not a communistic or socialist practice for the distribution of wealth. It was true free market system, that prevent the consolidation of wealth (particularly land) that restored individuals and families back to a means whereby they could care for themselves and not be subject to the exploits of financial power. The 48th year was like a game of monopoly where the game started over again. The forgiveness of debt and the restoration of family land played in the 48th year was the tipping point in the renewed economic cycle.
• The Exodus – Moses as the writer of the Pentateuch, watches the genocide of some of the most helpless and dependant persons, those under two years old and witness the increasing brutal oppression of a slave nation. These acts were justified under the polytheistic religion of Egypt and the Pharaoh. It was the impetuous for God coming to Moses and for Moses to write the first five books. It starts with Moses anger against Pharaoh’s treatment of the Israelites and his subsequent killing of an Egyptian guard. It starts with God when Moses is old and humble. Here YHWH not only demonstrates His superiority against empire and the polytheist world that produced the ethics of genocide against a slave nation and their young. These actions by YHWH and the opening chapters of Genesis speak directly for the dignity of all men, regardless of ethnicity or culture. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is one of the most concise question asked. Its answer, in the context, is obvious. These values are at the heart of the law, as alluded to by Jesus in such famous illustration about “Who is my neighbor?”

So, in a nutshell, what does Jn 8:24 mean? I think Jesus in his typical Rabbinic fashion, is making a play on words to drive home a very serious point. As God, YHWH, he has the authority to forgive her sin. And it’s the same authority by which he meets with sinners (ie tax collectors), helped a Roman centurion that probably oversaw the execution of his Jewish bother (rebels), accepted the Samaritans, and associate with the poor, the sick and their needs. These are only a few of his actions. In each case, he looked into their heart and except them to practice the same level of forgiveness, acceptance, and service as he showed. Believing on Him to be saved meant not only God’s forgiveness, but also to accept his social teaching on ethnic acceptance (Samaritans and sinners) and practice of forgiveness (Romans, the sick) and extend it to the highest level, serve to our enemies. For His Jewish listeners in Jn 8:24, who could not accept this practice and belief in Him, he condemns them to the very sin that will separate them from God. Jesus is almost being poetic. The very thing that separates the Jewish elite from others, sin, is what they will be accused of and separates them from God. If you don’t forgive others, you will die in your sins – this is the message and import of Jesus claim to be God.

To bring this full circle, I think this verse would best use in a message on “extreme” forgiveness and multicultural acceptance. This adulterous women who lives outside the bounds of cultural Judaism in the worst way is who Jesus reaches out to forgive, accept and server. It’s how He behaved as the Prince of Peace. To read this verse as supporting the point that one must believe Jesus to be God in order to receive the forgiven of sins is a distortion of the words and historical context. Rather, the verse calls for, even demands acceptance, forgiveness and service because Jesus, as our example and authority, is God. The former understanding sees the language through a filter of post Nicene and Luther where meaning is read back into it. In the historical/literal interpretation, where the text speaks for itself, the meaning is focused on our acceptance to forgive others grounded in Christ authority as God to do the same. The consequences of not practicing forgiveness are dire. It is tackles the heart of the matter on divisive social issues (the adulterous woman) and speaks his broader practice of cultural acceptance, forgiveness and service. Acceptance, doesn’t mean the we endorse cultural practices that are outside the law of love. It does mean that we accept the people unconditionally and leaves room for cultural diversity that fits under the paradigm and ethics of the one God. In this way, Jn 8:24 have little to do with the atonement and justification of Paul’s Roman’s, and more to do with James 1:24 and the Lord’s Prayer. It begins to integrate a cultural society of segregation and hate between Jews and their own, Samaritans, Romans, and in this case, an adulterous woman. The Gospel, as embellished on the Sermon on the Mount was a personal and political manifesto of acceptance, forgiveness, and service to be practiced as community.

The broader meaning of this verse may mean that we’ll see Mormons, Muslims, Jews, and peoples of other religious practice in heaven. The thief on the cross, the Roman Centurion, the Samaritan all had varying theology and beliefs, from strict monotheism to polytheism. We don’t know if these people “converted” in our modern Protestant or Catholic sense, but we do know that they believed He had authority to forgive as eyewitness of His miracles. But, we do know that they understood what His practice meant for their lives as He invited them into His Kingdom. As such, the Gospel and its multicultural values, has direct world wide practical application for the Hindu when karma reveals her victims (i.e. the Untouchables), for Buddhism when it show’s an aversion for dealing with evil in this world, for the Muslims and Jews by calling them to acceptance, forgiveness, and to restoration for one another (land and dignity) and not to retribution based on race and religion. For western culture, it underpins the dignity of man as more then just a random metric of “crimes against humanity,” or other altruistic sound bites. More importantly, it places a “metaphysical imperative” behind the motivation for the forgiveness of economic debt (private, corporate, international), the shadow lurking near many of our social crimes and issues both locally and internationally. For the Christian believer, it carries the terrible warning that “If you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.” In our personal lives, it speaks to our behavior in family relationships, and to our situations in marriage, especially divorce. It informs our actions to both our neighbors and enemies. Christ’s practice points the way to break down divisive social barriers and heal our communities, locally and internationally. In doing so, he teases out something beyond Judaism’s practice of law to bring about the Kingdom of God. This something was the law of love, a religion of the heart measure by our acceptance, forgiveness and service, and in doing so to bring the Kingdom of God here and now. This is the importance or force of John 8:24.