Sullivan church of Christ – Sullivan, MO
Date: February 5, 2006
JESUS CHRIST: THE GREAT “I AM” (Part 2)
Ben Justice
The appellation “I am” is used two other times in John 8. In v. 24, Jesus said to
the Jews, “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not
that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.” One will notice that the word “he” is
italicized in the KJV, which means it was added by the translators with the
intent of completing the thought in English. However, the translators did an
injustice by inserting the term “he” in connection with “I am.” It is not “I am
he.” Literally, Jesus said, “I am,” the same as in v. 58. A person must believe in
whom Jesus claimed to be — “I am.” In other words, a person must believe in
the deity of Jesus, or else, he will die in his sins.
John 8:28 states, “Then said Jesus unto them (Jews), When ye have lifted up the Son
of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and that I do nothing of myself; but as my
Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” This statement grew out the question
of the Jews in v. 25, when they asked Jesus, “Who art thou?” This question was
in response to Jesus’ claim in v. 24. In v. 26, Jesus declared that he was sent
and the one who sent him was true. Jesus spoke those things which he had
heard from the one who sent him. Verse 27 says, “They (Jews) understood not
that he spake to them of the Father.” These Jews couldn’t seem to grasp the true
identity of Jesus. They certainly knew that he claimed to speak for God, but
were unwilling to acknowledge that he really came from God and that he was
really the Son of God — Deity. However, as v. 28 tells us, there was coming a
time when the Jews would know the identity of Jesus. Again, in v. 28, Jesus
said to these Jews, “When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I
am [he] . . .” Again, the word “he” is italicized in the KJV. Just as in v. 24, the
word does not belong to express the meaning. Jesus would be “lifted up,” an
obvious allusion to his crucifixion (cf. John 3:14; 12:32). The phrase “ye shall
know” means “you shall have proof or evidence.” Proof or evidence of what?
Jesus said, “I am.” In other words, the Lord’s crucifixion (and all the
surrounding events of it) would serve as proof of Jesus’ Deity. Some of the Jews
on Pentecost and thereafter did indeed turn to him and acknowledged that he
was the Son of God (cf. Acts 2:22-47; 6:7).
Again, the three passages are:
Verse 24 — “I am”
Verse 28 — “I am”
Verse 58 — “I am”
When Jesus claimed to be “I am,” in v. 58, note the reaction of the Jews in the
following verse. John records, “Then took they (Jews) up stones to cast at him: . . .”
The Jews understood the full import of who Jesus was claiming to be. They
understood Jesus to be claiming that not only was he before Abraham, but also
claiming to be a timeless, eternal being — hence Deity. To them, this was utter
blasphemy. Hence, they sought to stone Jesus.
What Jesus claimed for himself is grounded in the Old Testament in whom God
claimed to be. Without going into detail, the student in admonished to read and
study Exodus 3:14, Isaiah 41:4, 43:10-13, 25, 46:4, 47:8, and 48:12.
In the New World Translation (as used exclusively by Jehovah’s Witnesses), it
translates John 8:58 as, “Jesus said to them: Most truly I say to you, Before
Abraham came into existence, I have been.” So, instead of “I am,” this translation
has “I have been,” thus flying in the face of the world’s scholarship. However,
even in the Watchtower Interlinear they correctly translate it as “I am.” One
author wrote the following concerning the extreme prejudice of this translation:
Consider one example which exposes the inconsistency of the NWT on ego eimi
(translated “I am” — BJ). If its authors had translated this expression in John 8:12 as
they did in John 8:58, the former would read, “. . . I have been the light of the world”
instead of “I am the light of the world.” They rendered the expression with “I am”
everywhere except the one place it is used to show the eternal nature of Jesus. Such
extreme prejudice is shameful (Tyler Young, “A Review of The New World
Translation of the Holy Scripture,” 2002 Spring Bible Institute Lectureship
— Jehovah’s Witnesses, David P. Brown — Editor, Pg. 206).
This glaring error from the NWT is analogous of their rendering of John 1:1. In
the KJV, the verse reads, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God.” However, the NWT states, “In the beginning the Word
was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Hence, they have
changed the correct rendering “was God” (as used in the KJV) to “a god.”
Jesus’ claims are clear. He is Deity — the Son of the Living God. We must
believe and accept this truth if we would be saved now and eternally.
SCRIPTURAL YOUTH DIRECTORS
Dub McClish
What about the practice of churches that have a “youth director”? Is the practice
authorized by Scripture? I suppose the answer would be affected by what his
duties and responsibilities are. If he spends all of his time in teaching, training,
and otherwise assisting young people in their spiritual development, perhaps
spiritual justification can be built for him. However, I would be hard-pressed to
name one in my personal acquaintance who does not spend far more time
planning and supervising recreational and “fun” activities (ski trips, Six Flag
excursions, ball games, picnics, bowling and skating jaunts, etc) than he does on
spiritual activities. In my experience, even when he may try diligently to get
young people to come to a special class or to take part in distributing brochures
or visiting the elderly, etc., he will have the same handful each time. However,
when he plans one of the above-named recreational activities, he can’t get them
all on the church bus; there are so many! I do not think that all of the “youth
directors” want it that way, but that is apparently what most parents and young
people expect of him. Thus, even those who truly want to do their work entirely
for the spiritual maturing of young people, find themselves trapped in a system
that will not allow them to!
There is a general attitude observable in the brotherhood that equates having a
“youth director” with a successful and wide-awake church and not having one
with a less-than-desirable church (to put it mildly). Some members who move in
from other places don’t bother to get beyond the question, “Do you have a ‘youth
director’?” A large congregation in Texas City found itself without a “youth
director” a while back. The preacher reassured the church in a statement in the
church bulletin that a diligent search was being made for another one because
their “. . . elders care about our young people.” I strongly reject the implications
of such a statement, namely, that elders who do not see fit to hire a “youth
director” don’t care about young people. In fact, some wise elders do not hire a
“youth director” because they do care about the young people, their parents and
the Scriptures!
I know for sure that there are such things as Scriptural “youth directors.”
Another name for them is “parents.” Until fifteen (or, at the most, twenty) years
ago one would find “youth directors” only among the denominations. Christian
parents rightly assumed and discharged the Scriptural command toward their
child to “nurture them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).
Thank God for elders and parents who still believe in the wisdom of God’s plan!
— via the weekly bulletin of the Curry Street church of Christ of West
Plains, MO, Dec. 18, 2005