Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
“Before Abraham was, I was already, in God’s plan, the Messiah.” Is this what Jesus means in John 8:58? This interpretation was argued for by Dr. Dustin Smith in episode 62. But Dr. Smith is not the first to read John 8 in this way.
In this episode we hear some thoughts on John 8 from F.F. Bruce, Dr. James F. McGrath, and Thomas Belsham (pictured here). Only Belsham agrees with Dr. Smith, but all make helpful points, and Belsham quotes several early modern scholars on various sides of the issue, including the great Nathaniel Lardner, who, like Belsham, reads John 8 as Dr. Smith does.
You can also listen to this episode (and all others) on youtube (scroll down), stitcher, or itunes (please rate us there). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
Links for this episode:
- MyPodcastReviews is how I can see itunes reviews in the various different itunes stores, which differ by country. Podcasters take note of this very helpful service!
- Ben Nasmith’s blog Cognitive Resonance
- F.F. Bruce’s The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes.
- James F. McGrath’s Exploring Our Matrix blog
- Thomas Belsham
- A Calm Inquiry into the Scripture Doctrine Concerning the Person of Christ (paperback, pdf)
- The New Testament, in an Improved Version (4th ed., 1817) (And a very polemical historical account of it.)
- works by Thomas Belsham at the Post-Reformation Digital Library
- Nathaniel Lardner on the Trinity
- Dustin Martyr Blog
I’ve responded here: https://youtu.be/6r0ZM_uqKOo
Hi Michael,
Thanks for posting your rebuttal. I think you made some good exegetical points here.
Thanks for the reply, Michael. Will listen and decide if I want to respond in a future episode.
Dale,
I hope you will respond to Michael’s efforts.
Michael does make some valid points about the usage of EGW EIMI that we, as Biblical Unitarians, should be able to account for.
He also began the video by saying that “Dale is not an exegete and is miserable at handling the scriptures.” I don’t think that’s a fair or accurate assessment.
John … I agree. I think many people overlook the fact that all of the supposed “preexistence” texts in the NT were written after the resurrection of Jesus. The apostles did not even know Jesus as “the word” (LOGOS) until after he was “manifested” to them by John the baptizer (1 John 1:1-2; John 1:30-31).
Sean … I agree. I think many biblical unitarians try too hard to complicate the simple connotation of EGW EIMI in John 8:58 (i.e. I am the one), especially when they don’t need to do it in any of the many other EGW EIMI texts throughout the 4th Gospel. Moreover, Jesus had already used it unambiguously several other times in the context of the same discourse John 8:18; John 8:23-24; John 8:28.
Mario … I like your consideration that John 8:58a may not be referring to the birth of Abraham (and I agree).
Are you suggesting that Jesus was claiming to exist before Isaac and Jacob were born (as opposed to the time of Abraham’s own birth? What would lead you to think that “becomes” in John 8:58b would have been referring to what happened in Genesis 17:5?
Mario – about the article you linked, note that the title an sentence prominently feature a popular weasel-word: “roots.”
Does this mean that Pagans *explicitly taught* the Trinity?
implicitly taught?
suggested?
hinted at?
or only taught various things which are kind of sort of similar in some way to trinitarian claims?
This last sort of claim may be true, but trivial, and seems irrelevant to objecting to any Trinity theory. Surely the first two claims will be false. And the third and fourth are unclear, and of dubious relevance.
This usage of “roots,” perhaps ironically, is the same as used by trinitarian theologians who don’t want to address the relationship of the creedal Trinity sentences to the books of the Bible. The doctrine, they say, waving their hands, is “rooted in the Bible.”
Note that the author asserts
” Foremost among the pagan ideas was the adoption of the trinity doctrine into the dogma of the church.”
But he gives to information about how any “pagans” taught the Trinity.
This is because they did not teach it. The Platonists did like to speculate about heavenly triads – and this is where I see the influence, in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, through heavily Platonized catholic theologians. But note that this is not a speculation of tripersonal God or ultimate. Rather, there is God, the ultimate, who is one of the posited triad. So, their views were not, properly speaking, trinitarian! But then, neither were the views of Origen or Justin. For them, the one God was the Father.
Hi Aaron,
No – I suggest you ask him over at his Dustin Martyr blog.
Dale,
Does Dr. Smith cover his interpretation of Luke 10:18 anywhere? (Or have you someplace on your blog)? I would be highly interested to hear his/your thoughts and discussions on this verse.
“And He said to them, ‘I saw satan fall like lightning from heaven.'” -Luke 10:18
PP: Potæto – Potâto
“EP: Extension of [sic] Past”
EP actually stands for “Extension from Past” not “Extension of Past”.
For those who are not familiar with esoteric acronyms, this may help:
PPA: Present of Past Action
EP: Extension of Past
One of thescriptures quoted in the above text is Romans 1 v 2
“.. which promised previously through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, the gospel about His Son, descended from David according to the flesh, but eatablished as Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness through resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord”
This doesn’t look like pre-existence to me!
Blessings
John
@Dale,
Dustin Smith’s interpretation really isn’t plausible in light of the grammar and context. I’d still like to know why Socinian-type Unitarians struggle so hard to resist what John 8:58 is clearly saying. Have you read Jason BeDuhn’s chapter on this verse? He doesn’t seem to have any perceivable biases, yet he comes out in favor of the PPA or EP reading.
… or in other words …
“Abraham is not yet [‘father of many nations’], [while] I am [the Messiah, here and now.]”
Howzat?
One of the arguments proposed by Belsham is that of double ellipsis. The key phrase at John 8:58 is:
[Greek] prin abraam genesthai egô eimi
[Lit. Eng.] before Abraham become [,] I am
Neither “become”, nor “I am” are, reasonably, used in an absolute sense. So, there may be an ellipsis associated with each verb.
Unpacking the [double ellipsis], we may have:
“Before Abraham become [father of many nations – Gen 17:5] I am [the Messiah]”
Just a suggestion, as the discussion is rather stagnant … 😉
As biblicalunitarian.com is among the recommended links at trinities.org, maybe it is worth providing the link to the article “Pagan Roots of the Trinity Doctrine” there (biblicalunitarian.com/articles/pagan-roots-of-the-trinity-doctrine-ed-torrence-2002)
Eh…no, I do not know it. Also, I don’t know quite what you mean by “pagan.”
The Trinity is a pagan doctrine. You know it.
In Belsham’s “A Calm Inquiry”, John 8:58 is dealt with at pp. 46:67.
To justify the ample space dedicated to this single verse, Belsham writes:
“In the explanation of this important text it was thought necessary to be thus particular, because it is in a great measure decisive of the whole controversy : for, if this declaration does not establish the pre-existence of Christ, no other passage can.” (“A Calm Inquiry”, p. 66)
“A Calm Inquiry Into the Scripture Doctrine Concerning the Person of Christ”, by Thomas Belsham
Refreshing to see presented here a book by a Unitarian where Arianism (with its “pre-existence”) is sharply distinguished both from Unitarianism itself and from Trinitarianism.
Comments are closed.