302
‘Lam’ in John’s Gospel
ByYK. L. McKay, MA,
FORMERLY OF THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
+
It has become fashionable among some preachers and
writers to relate Jesus’s use’of the words ‘I am’ in. the
Gospel according to John, in all, or most, of their
contexts, to God's declaration to Moses in Exodus 3:14,
and to expound the passages concemed as if the words
themselves have some kind of magic in them. Some who
have no more than a smattering of Greek attribute the
‘magic’ to the Greek words egd eimi.' I wish briefly to
draw attention to the normality of the Greek in all such
passages, and the unlikelihood of the words eg6 eimi
being intended to suggest any special significance of this
kind,
It is, of course, perfectly reasonable to draw attention to
Jesus's claims about himself by noting the ‘Iam’ element
common to them: ‘I am the bread of life’ (6:35), ‘I am the
light of the world” (8:12), ‘I am the gate/door’ (1
am the good shepherd’ (10:11), ‘I am the resurrection and
the life’ (11:25), ‘I am the way, the truth and the life”
(14:6), ‘Lam the true vine’ (15:1). These statements give
important insights into the identity and work of Jesus, and
we can be challenged to decide whether the words ‘I am’
in them convey truth, delusion, deceit, or something else.
In each case the Greck words used are egd eimi, the
pronoun being emphatic (as is usually appropriate in
beginning a startling fresh statement, answering a
question of identity or personal activity, and in some
other circumstances), and the verb, also slightly
emphatic? being the normail use of the verb ‘to be’ as a
copula, the means of linking the subject with the
significant words, ‘bread’, ‘light’, etc., which occur as
noun complements. The same principle applies when the
complement is an adjective or an adverb or adverbial
phrase used adjectivally.
With variations of context the degree of emphasis may
vary, and either the pronoun or the verb may be omitted,
In the parallelism of 8:23 pronoun and verb are separated:
humeis ek tin kato este, egd ek tan and eimi, but in the
immediately following parallel statement the introduction
of a negative brings the verb forward (thus also giving
extra emphasis to foutou): gd ouk eimi ek tou kosmou
foutou. In 14:10 the verb is omitted, because it is
* have seen one such speaker try to impress his audience by
‘writing the words on a blackboard, only to demonstrate that he
‘Was ignorant of even the simplest details of Greek.
2 Its position is unemphatic, but the degree of emphasis could
be reduced by its omission, which would make no difference to
the meaning. The omission of the copula is quite common in
Greek, especially, but not exclusively, in the third person,
THE EXPOSITORY TIMES
understood froin the rest of the sentence: egd en 15())
atri kai ho patér en emoi estin? In 14:20 a development
from the same statcment, also in a hoti clause, omits the
copula entirely: egé en 16(i) patri mou kai humeis en
emoi kago en humin. In 10:36 the personal pronoun is
not needed for emphasis, and is omitted: huios tou theou
eimi. In 7:34 and 7:36 the clause structure- demands the
postposition of the subject: hopou eimi eg6 huineis ou
dunasthe elthein,
Although the natural English translations differ, there
are two contexts of this kid in which Jesus uses the
words eg6 eimi alone to identify himself: in 6:20, where
the discipies are afraid of the apparition they see walking
on the water, and Jesus reassures them by identifying
himself, quite naturally, with these words, which translate
into English as ‘It.is [’; and in 18:5, where Jesus
acknowledges that he is Jesus of Nazareth by speaking the
same words, which are naturally translated into English as
‘Lam he’. The syntactic difference between them is that in
the former egd is, the complement, the unexpressed
subject being something equivalent to “what you sec’, and
jin the fatter ego is the subject, ‘the unexpressed
complement being ‘Jesus of Nazarcth’. In both: these
passages egd eimi is the natural Greek response’ in the
Circumstances, as may be seen in 9:9, where the man
cured of blindness uses exactly the’ same words to
acknowledge his identity. The dramatic reaction of the
arresting party in 18:6 is readily explained if we note that
the confident authority of Jesus's presence was such that
he defeated the merchants in the temple (2:15), and he
simply walked away when the crowd was intent on
throwing him over the brow of the hill near Nazareth
(Luke 4:28-30).
The verb ‘to be’ is used differently, in what is
presumably its basic meaning of ‘be in existence’, in John
8:58: prin Abram genesthai eg6 eimi; which would be
most naturally translated ‘I have been in existence since
before Abraham was bom’,* if it were not for the
obsession with the simple words ‘I am’. If we take the
Greek words in their natural meaning, as we surely
should, the claim fo have been in existence for so long is,
in itself a staggering one, quite cnough to provoke the
crowd’s violent reaction.
For the emphasis on the words ‘I am’ we need to look
back to God's words to Moses in Exodus 3:14, ‘Iam who
Tam. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: “I am_
has sent me to you”.’ The passage in its Hebrew form has
5 ‘The fact that this is = reported statement, in a hod! clause,
docs not affect the grammar, but only the degree of emphasis.
4 In translation, if, as is likely, the original reply was the
equivalent in Aramaic.
Notc that with this meaning the verb is differently accented
in Greck (ya eit instead of éy6 eins),
For the construction see K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the
Verb in New Testament Greek: An aspectual approach (Peter
Lang, 1994), §4.2.4THE EXPOSITO!
been discussed by many commentators as something of a
problem, with possibilities that the verb could mean “I
am’, ‘I will be’, ‘I become’, or ‘I will become’, and the
pronoun ‘that’, “who’, ‘what’, or even ‘because’. Some
see a need to emend the text, and some stress various
critical principles as basic to its interpretation, A few refer
to the Septuagint translation of the passage as relevant for
understanding.it.?
‘Now the Septuagint was the translation done for the
benefit of the increasing number of Greek-speaking Jews
couple of centuries cartier, so naturally itis the version
of the Old Testament that is normally referred to in the
New Testament, and certainly the one most likely to be
known to the early readers of John’s Gospel. Its
translation of Exodus 3:14 follows the sense (as
understood by the Jewish translators) rather than the exact,
form of the Hebrew: eg6 eimi ho on... Ho én apestalke
me, which translates into English literally as ‘I am the
being one’,® and ‘the being one has sent me’. Now the
words: ego eimi here are the emphatic pronoun and the
copula, as in most of the passages cited above; and ho dn
represents a relative clause which in its first occurrence
would be hos eimi and in its second occurrence would be
‘hos esti? but the most natural translation into English of
both would be ‘the one who is (who really exists), the
verb having its basic meaning (and being so accented),
and not being a mere copula. In neither is there any
possibility of inserting an emphatic eg6, So the emphatic
‘words used by Jesus in the passages referred to above are
perfectly natural in their contexts, and they do not echo
the words of Exodus 3:14 in the normally quoted Greck
version. Thus they are quite unlikely to have been used in
the New Testament to convey that significance, however
much the modem English versions of the relevant
passages, following the form of the Hebrew words, may
suggest it,
7 For extensive modem discussion of the problems of
interpretation see Brevard S. Childs, Exodus: A Commentary
(OTL, SCM, 1974) and John I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3, Word,
1987). See ‘also Martin Noth, Exodus (OTL, SCM, 2nd ed.
1966); U. Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Magnes
Press), J. P. Hyatt, Exodus (NCB, Oliphants, 1971); Alan Cole,
Exodus (TC, IVP, 1973); 1. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text
of Bxodus (Scholars Press, 1990),
‘As Noth mentions in a footnote.
° Cf. the Vulgate translation of 145: Qui est misit me ad vos.
10 English has lost the full range of inflections, andthe relative
pronoun is now treated as if it were always third person.