ON OUR LORD'S DECLARATION OF AN EXISTENCE BEFORE ABRAHAM.

The occasion of the assertion made by Jesus Christ.-The question directly refers to coexistence. The signification of the terms.-Their just construction will admit no other sense than that of preexistence.-Objections of Mr. Lindsey and the Calm Inquirer examined and answered.-The Unitarian interpretation examined:-and shown to be destitute of satisfactory proof;-contrary to the reason of the occasion, to the circumstances of the narrative,—and to our Lord's ordinary course of proceeding;-attended with other difficulties ;— inconsistent with the scripture idiom;-inefficient for its purpose ;-not supported, but contradicted, by the phraseology of the prophets;-productive of a nugatory sense.- -Observations on other assertions of the Calm Inquirer.The interpretation invented by Lælius Socinus, and represented by his nephew as probably given by a special revelation.-Reasons against it. *

"Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham existed, "I am.' John viii. 58.

THE general body of Christians have understood this passage as plainly declaring the preexistence of Christ, in a nature of course superior to the human, two thousand years before he was born of Maryarit

Unitarians interpret it as affirming that Jesus might be said to have existed, as the Messiah, in the purpose and decree of God; that is, "that he was designated to his office, before Abraham was born." Eduka

1 Impr. Ver. Note on the place. More fully expressed in the Inquirer's paraphrase: "Before that eminent patriarch was brought into being, my existence and appearance under the character of the Messiah at this period, and in these circumstances, was so com

To judge between these opposite interpretations we must attend to the occasion of our Lord's assertion, and to the proper meaning of the terms in which he expresses it.

The opponents of Jesus, in their virulent cavils against him, had mentioned Abraham their national ancestor; a man so signally favoured of God that his name served as a proverbial example of dignity and honour. They understood our Lord's declarations as involving such assumptions of superiority, that they demanded, "Art thou greater than our "father Abraham?-Whom makest thou thyself?" With his characteristic calmness, he assured them that Abraham had indeed regarded him as a superior; that, guided by supernatural revelation, the patriarch had really enjoyed such a mental prospect of the time when the Messiah should appear, and of the blessings of his reign, as filled him with pleasure and exultation! "Your father Abraham earnestly desired that he might "see my day; and he did see it, and rejoiced." This turned the conversation. The Jews, not understanding, or affecting not to understand, that Jesus spoke of an anticipative vision, exclaimed, "Thou art not yet "fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ?" Now, therefore, the question was brought to the single point of COEXISTENCE. It was necessary for Jesus either to deny the assumption, or to admit and confirm it. He did not do the former: but he gave an answer which his opponents viewed as being either directly or constructively impious and blasphemous, that is, as

pletely arranged, and so irrevocably fixed in the immutable counsels and purposes of God, that in this sense I may be said even then to have existed." P. 85.

66

admitting their imputation. He "said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham 66 existed, I was."-Is it not manifest that he did not take the former part of the alternative, but that he did take the latter; that he admitted himself to have been actually contemporary with Abraham; also that he went farther, and affirmed that he had possessed existence even before Abraham?

Such is the bearing of the argument, as deduced from the occasion. Let us see whether the honest construction of the words will permit us to draw any different conclusion. The precise meaning of yíveolar and its synonymous form yevéolat is to be brought into existence. Whether, therefore, we prefer the received translation, "before Abraham was;" or that here proposed, "before Abraham existed;" or, that of many translators, both ancient and modern," before Abraham was born;" the effect is the same.

The remaining clause is however attended with some difficulty.

2" Hoc enim postulat series orationis. In objectione Judæorum sermo erat de existentiâ; ergo etiam in responsione de existentiâ sermo esse debet. Objectio erat, 'Non potes vidisse Abrahamum, quia nondum es quinquagenarius, nec tum natus eras.' Respondet Jesus, Ego fui, antequam ille fuit.' Sic sensu pari respondetur objectioni.”—“ This interpretation is required by the tenor of the discussion. The objection turned upon existence: therefore the reply must refer to existence also. The objection was, 'Thou canst not have seen Abraham, for thou art not yet fifty years old; thou wast not then born.' Jesus answered, 'I was before he was.' Thus the reply corresponds to the objection." Rosenmüller in loc.

Erasmus, Vatablus, Diodati, Doddridge, Campbell, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, the Improved Version, Stolz, Van Ess. De Wette retains Luther's Ehe denn Abraham war, bin ich; thus showing that, in his judgment, that was the just version. Scholz gives essentially the same.

1. Some suppose that, in using the expression, "I am," our Lord intended a reference to the divine appellation announced to Moses, "I am that which I 66 am."

But it is to be remarked that the words of that passage are in the future tense, "I will be that "which I will be ;" and most probably it was not intended as a name, but as a declaration of the certain fulfilment of all the promises of God, especially those which related to the deliverance of the Israelites. There does not appear, therefore, sufficient ground to sustain the idea of an allusion to this.

2. It may be thought that, in this instance, as in several others of the same form, our Lord purposely suppressed the predicate of his proposition; leaving it to be supplied by the minds of his hearers, under the impression of that evidence by which they might all have been convinced of the justness of his claims, had their dispositions been candid and upright. So, in this very discussion with his opponents, Jesus says, Except ye believe that I AM ;-Ye shall know that "I AM ;"-and to his disciples, "that ye may believe

* Exod. iii. 14.

"By which words God signifies that what he from eternity had been, he for ever would be; the same, in deed and effect, as in his promises." Rosenm. The LXX. renders it 'Ey ɛiμì ô ŵv, I am the existing one. I do not see why the suppressed predicate might not be supplied from this passage, and the tacit allusion rationally maintained, if all other reasons concurred but they do not. To show, however, the fallaciousness of arguing from the mere identity of words, let us observe that, in both the Greek and the Latin idiom, the answer to such a question as, Who has done that? Who is there? (which we make in our language by the third person, 'tis I, c'est moi;) is by this very phrase, I am, ¿yw ɛipì, ego sum. For examples in the N. T. see Matt. xiv. 27; xxvi. 22, 25. Mark vi. 50; xiv. 62. Luke xxiv. 39. John

"that I AM." In his prediction of false Messiahs, as given by the Evangelist Mark, the same use of the phrase occurs: "Many will come in my name, saying, I AM;" the parallel place to which, in Matthew, supplies the omitted predicate, "the Christ.""

According to this interpretation, the passage is read, "Before Abraham existed, I am [the Messiah."] But every one must perceive that, if the notion of the present tense be rigorously insisted on, a solœcism is involved a present event cannot be prior to one past.

3. The present, I am, may be taken in the sense of the past, I was. This is not unusual in the Greek idiom, especially when the action or state of the verb is understood as continued to the present time. This

5 John viii. 24, 28; xiii. 19. Mark xiii. 6. Matt. xxiv. 5.

"This tense is often put for the preterperfect: especially when it is signified that the action is continued." Joh. Frid. Fischeri Animadv. ad Welleri Gramm. Græc. vol. ii. p. 256. Lips. 1798; who has adduced many examples from Xenophon and other authors. "The present tense is very often put so as to have the force of the imperfect especially when the thing which is said to have been at any past time, continues still to be.-E. g. Luke xv. 31. John i. 9, and in the LXX. Ps. lxxxix. (xc.) 2. Prov. viii. 25. Jerem. i. 5.” Kuinöl in Libros N. T. Hist. vol. iii. p. 437. Tittmann adds these rather feeble instances from the Gospel of John; i. 19; ix. 8; xiv. 9; xv. 27. Meletemata Sacra, p. 353. the present tense denotes continuation, as long with you,' i. e. have been and still am, which could not have been both expressed by a past tense. Thus in Latin we say, jam

66

"The use of the verb in

chap. xiv. 9, ‘Am I so

quatuor dies ægrotat.' Castellio in loc. "'Eyw eiμì may indeed be rendered, I was. The present for the imperfect, or even for the preterperfect, is no unusual figure with this writer. However, as an uninterrupted duration from the time spoken of to the time then present, seems to have been suggested, I thought it better to follow the common method [I am]." Campbell. The excellent French Version of De Sacy, and the Genevese of 1805, have I was.