MICAH THE Messiah, and the Little Town of Bethlehem

 MICAH THE

Messiah, and the Little Town of Bethlehem

ERIC LYONS, M.Min.

DEITY OF CHRISTINSPIRATION OF THE BIBLEPROPHECY

 ARTICLE IN BRIEF

Pieces of the Messianic puzzle had been revealed for thousands of years, but never had a prophet predicted and recorded for all time the precise place in which the Christ would be born. Then, seven centuries before the birth of the Messiah, during dark days in Judah’s history, the prophet Micah revealed with great precision the “little [town] among the thousands of Judah” in which “the One to be Ruler in Israel” would be born. Micah 5:2 is a fascinating passage of Scripture that testifies to both the Bible’s supernatural inspiration as well as the identity and divine nature of Jesus Christ.

Confusion Over the Christ

The crowds murmured while the critics lurked in the shadows. Complaints, compliments, and confusion over the Man from Galilee spread among the Jews at the Feast of Tabernacles like political opinions circulate today on social media during election time.

• “Some said, ‘He is good’; others said, ‘No, on the contrary, He deceives the people’” (John 7:12).
• In response to Jesus’ question, “Why do you seek to kill Me?” The people answered and said, “You have a demon. Who is seeking to kill You?” (7:19-20). Yet others said, “Is this not He whom they seek to kill?” (7:25).
• “[S]ome of them from Jerusalem said… ‘Do the rulers know indeed that this is truly the Christ?’” (7:26).
• The officers (whom the Pharisees and chief priests sent to arrest Jesus) came back empty-handed, saying, “No man ever spoke like this Man.” Yet, the Pharisees arrogantly responded, “Are you also deceived? Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in Him? But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed” (7:46-48). “Search and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee” (7:52, NASB).
• “Some of the people therefore, after they heard these words [of Jesus], were saying, ‘This truly is the Prophet.’ Others were saying, ‘This is the Christ.’ But others were saying, ‘Surely the Christ is not coming from Galilee, is He? Has the Scripture not said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?’ So a dissension occurred in the crowd because of Him” (7:40-43, NASB).

The hard-hearted, egocentric Pharisees and chief priests did not know the Old Testament as well as they professed. They chided the common people for their ignorance of the Law (7:48) and then contemptibly challenged Nicodemus to “[s]earch and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee” (7:52, NASB). Yet, the prophet Jonah was from Gath Hepher of Zebulon (2 Kings 14:25; Joshua 19:10-13), which is in Galilee. Furthermore, in the desperate, dark days of Assyrian dominance in Galilee in the late eighth century B.C. (cf. 2 Kings 15:29), the prophet Isaiah foretold of the everlasting Prince of Peace coming as a “great light” in “the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali…in Galilee of the Gentiles” (Isaiah 9:1-7). Who was this “great light”? Jesus of Nazareth, Who “came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet” (Matthew 4:13-14). Indeed, in one sense, the greatest Prophet of them all, the Messiah, came “out of Galilee.”1

Bethlehem of Judea—“The City of David”

In another real sense, the “commoners”2 were right, too. “Scripture said…that the Christ comes from the seed of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was” (John 7:42). David may have dwelt in Israel’s capital city of Jerusalem once he became king and conquered the Jebusite city (2 Samuel 5:6-7), but it seems most any Jew knew that David’s heritage was in Bethlehem.

This Bethlehem was not the Bethlehem of Zebulon (Joshua 19:15; in Galilee), but the Bethlehem of Judah, also known as Ephrath or Ephrathah.3 People of Bethlehem were known as “Ephrahthites” (Ruth 1:1-2; 1 Samuel 17:12). David’s great grandfather, Boaz, “came from Bethlehem” (Ruth 2:4; 4:11). David’s father, Jesse, was an “Ephrathite of Bethlehem Judah” (1 Samuel 17:12,15; 16:1,4). Prior to his 33-year reign in Jerusalem, which became known as “the city of David” (2 Samuel 5:7-9), David himself referred to Bethlehem as “his city” (1 Samuel 20:6). In this sense, even Luke referred to Bethlehem of Judah as “the city of David” (Luke 2:4).

Why did Joseph and Mary travel all the way from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem of Judea? To be registered in the Roman census (Luke 2:1-2). But why Bethlehem? Because “all went to be registered, everyone to his own city” (Luke 2:3), and Joseph “was of the house and lineage of David,” and Bethlehem was “the city of David” (Luke 2:4,11,15).

The Star of Bethlehem

In about 1,400 B.C. God used a non-Jewish, Mesopotamian soothsayer named Balaam to prophesy to the Moabites about, among other things, how “a Star shall come out of Jacob; a Scepter shall rise out of Israel” (Numbers 24:17). Some 400 years later, this prophecy had an “immediate” application in Israel’s great King David. But 1,400 years later, Balaam’s prophecy would have its remote application and ultimate fulfillment in “the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star” (Revelation 22:16; cf. Isaiah 11:1,10; Revelation 5:5). [And He has the greatest of all scepters—having “all authority…in heaven and on Earth” (Matthew 28:18).]

Amazingly, one of the first signs of the coming of the long-awaited Messiah was the appearance of “His star” (Matthew 2:2,9), which “wise men [or “magi,” NASB] from the East” followed all the way to Judea (Matthew 2:1).4 The wise men stopped in Jerusalem, asking, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him” (Matthew 2:2). But Herod, the ruthless king of Judea, knew nothing about these things and inquired of “all the chief priests and scribes…where the Christ was to be born” (Matthew 2:4). What these men knew was the same thing the crowd knew 30-plus years later in Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7): The Messiah was to be born “[i]n Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet, ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not the least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel” (Matthew 2:5-6).

The Dark days of Micah

What “Scripture” is this that says “the Christ comes from the town of Bethlehem, where David was” (John 7:42)? Who was this prophet who wrote that “a Ruler” will come from “Bethlehem, in the land of Judah” (Matthew 2:5-6)?

His name was Micah and he was from the country town of Moresheth (about 20-25 miles southwest of Jerusalem). Micah himself refers to the town as “Moresheth Gath” (1:14), likely implying that for a time, it “had fallen under the power of the neighboring Philistines of Gath.”5 Micah lived during the same period as other eighth-century prophets, including Amos (1:1) and Hosea (1:1), who prophesied to the Northern Kingdom, and Isaiah (1:1), who prophesied along with Micah in the Southern Kingdom. It was “in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah” that Micah received “the word of the Lord” (Micah 1:1). These three kings reigned a combined 56 years (from about 742-687 B.C.). “Jotham…reigned sixteen years…and did what was right in the sight of the Lord” (2 Chronicles 27:1-2). Hezekiah, though not perfect, was also a great king, one of the greatest in Judah’s long history, serving for 29 years (2 Kings 18:1-20:21; 2 Chronicles 29:1-32:33). Sandwiched between these two rulers was the cowardly, repulsive King Ahaz, one of the worst, most wicked kings in Judah’s history, reigning for 16 dark years. Among other things, he “sacrificed to the gods of Damascus,” “burned his children in the fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel,” “shut up the doors of the house of the Lord,” and overall, “encouraged moral decline in Judah” (28:23,3,24,20).

Sadly, whether during the reigns of wicked or righteous kings, the people of Judah, like their northern counterparts (Micah 1:5-13), mostly “still…acted corruptly” (2 Chronicles 27:2). Repugnantly sinful behavior was especially characteristic of those in positions of authority. But the mighty prophet Micah did not hold back. He was given “[t]he Word of the Lord” (Micah 1:1), and as a good steward of the Divine revelation, he let the “high and mighty” have it.

I am full of power by the Spirit of the Lord, and of justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin. Now hear this, you heads of the house of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel, who abhor justice and pervert all equity, who build up Zion with bloodshed and Jerusalem with iniquity. Her heads judge for a bribe, her priests teach for pay, and her prophets divine for money (Micah 3:8-11).

“[H]er rich men are full of violence” (6:12). Speaking hyperbolically, Micah professed, “The faithful man has perished from the earth, and there is no one upright among men. They all lie in wait for blood; every man hunts his brother with a net. That they may successfully do evil with both hands—the prince asks for gifts, the judge seeks a bribe, and the great man utters his evil desire; so they scheme together” (7:2-3). In short, they “hate good and love evil” (3:2).

Tragically, Jerusalem was a repugnant center of spiritual disease (as was Samaria in the North). The courageous prophet Micah boldly confronted all manner of abusive leaders and prophesied of their eventual demise. “For behold, the Lord is coming…. The mountains will melt under Him…. I will make Samaria a heap of ruins” (Micah 1:3,4,6). And “Zion shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins” (3:12). Indeed, the brutal Assyrians conquered Samaria in 722 B.C. And though Jerusalem was spared for a time following the fearless prophesying of Micah and Isaiah and the righteous reforms of King Hezekiah (cf. Jeremiah 26:18), the capital city of the Jews would fall calamitously at the hands of the Babylonians in 587 B.C., approximately 100 years after Micah pronounced the Lord’s judgments.

Hope…And Honing In on the Hero

But not all is lost. There is Hope from Heaven. A Hero is on the horizon. Yes, God and His faithful prophets have condemned sin from the beginning,6 but the story never ended there. Even as Adam and Eve were lurking in the midst of sinfully-minded blame games (Genesis 3:11-13), God boldly announced to the devil His gracious plans to save humanity through “the Seed” of woman, Who would deal a crushing blow to the head of Satan (Genesis 3:15). “Since the world began,” God “spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets” about the Hope, the “horn of salvation,” Who would save His people from sin and its fatal consequences (Luke 1:67-70).

Remarkably, the Bible writers did not speak in mere broad generalities about the coming Christ. Throughout the Old Testament, God announced that the Deliverer of humankind (and the sinful mess that humanity made) would be a male descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Jesse, and David.7 Notice the spectacular specificity of the prophets! The Messiah, Who would bless “all the families of the earth” (Genesis 12:3), would come from Abraham (not his brothers Nahor or Haran). The Savior would come from Isaac (not Ishmael, and not Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishback, or Shuah, the other sons of Abraham—Genesis 25:2). He would come from Jacob (not Esau, the father of the Edomites). He would come from Judah (and not one of the other 11 sons of Jacob, not even Levi, the father of the Levitical priesthood). The ultimate “anointed One” (i.e., Christ) would come from the anointed King David (and not the other sevens sons of Jesse—1 Samuel 16:1-13; 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Jeremiah 23:5-6). And from where did the greatest king in Israel’s history hail? Not Hebron, Jerusalem, or Jericho. Not Dan, Bethel, or Beersheba. And not Bethlehem of Zebulon (Joshua 19:15). Not anywhere in all of Palestine except from “the little among the thousands of Judah” (Micah 5:2)—the town of Bethlehem of Ephrathah.

Micah’s Messianic Prophecy

Micah chapter 5 begins with a doom-and-gloom statement seemingly about the siege that Sennacherib’s ruthless Assyrian army would lay against Jerusalem and King Hezekiah.8 Hezekiah (the most powerful “judge of Israel”) would be openly insulted by Sennacherib’s spokesman, the Rabshakeh, who would come to the door of Jerusalem, shouting taunting words of mockery in the Hebrew language for all to hear.9 In the words of Micah, Assyria would “strike the judge of Israel with a rod on the cheek” (Micah 5:1).

Though the household of David in Hezekiah’s day would face humiliation,10 “the true Israel will come forth triumphant.”11 How? Because “the One to be Ruler in Israel…shall come forth” (Micah 5:2). The One long-awaited descendant of Abraham and David was coming (Matthew 1:1). And though His presence on Earth would still lie in the future, the Messiah, Micah testified, already had a past!His goings forth are “from of old;” “from long ago” (NASB).12 How long? Micah said, “From the days of eternity” (5:2, NASB).13 But that must mean that the Messiah is…God. Indeed, as Isaiah, Micah’s fellow 8th-century prophet in Judah, said, “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).

According to Micah and Isaiah, God Himself would step out of the splendors of heaven to be the Prince of Peace, the Ruler in Israel.14 And where would He first make His appearance? Centuries before the Messiah’s birth, the prophet Micah gave us one more piece of the puzzle. Micah (and only Micah) precisely revealed the place from which the Messiah would come forth: the little town of Bethlehem in the region of Judea.

The scribes and chief priests in King Herod’s day (Matthew 2:4-6) knew of the Messianic nature of Micah 5:2. The elitist Pharisees, as well as the “commoners,” knew it some 32 years later (in John 7). And yet, though the Messiah stood in their midst, most missed, ignored, or refused to accept the amazing, fulfilled fact that Jesus was born just five miles down the road in Bethlehem of Judea—just as Micah, the proven inspired prophet (cf. Jeremiah 28:9), promised He would 700 years earlier.

Endnotes

1 Jesus grew up in Galilee and remained in this region during much of His ministry.

2 The “crowd” whom the Pharisees claimed did “not know the law” (John 7:49).

3 Which is “the name either of Bethlehem itself or of a district in which Bethlehem was situated” [Ernest Masterman (1996), “Ephrath; Ephrathah,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Electronic Database: Biblesoft)]. Moses wrote that after Jacob’s wife Rachel died, she was “buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem)”—Genesis 35:19; cf. 48:7.

4 From where did these men receive such knowledge? How did they know that one particular “star in the East” indicated the Messiah’s entrance into the world? No one can know for sure, but it seems they had Divine direction, perhaps similar to what they later received in Matthew 2:12.

5 “Moresheth Gath” (1996), Fausset’s Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

6 Genesis 2:17; 3:8-19; 4:5-15; 6:3-8; Luke 11:49-51; 2 Peter 2:5.

7 Genesis 3:15; 12:1-4; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; Isaiah 11:1,10; 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Jeremiah 23:5-6.

8 Cf. 2 Kings 18; 2 Chronicles 32; Isaiah 36-37.

9 “[T]he Rabshakeh said… ‘What confidence is this in which you trust? You speak of having plans of power for war; but they are mere words. And in whom do you trust, that you rebel against me? Now Look! You are trusting in the staff of this broken reed, Egypt…. [G]ive a pledge to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give you two thousand horses—if you are able on your part to put riders on them!… Have I now come up without the Lord against this place to destroy it? The Lord said to me, “Go up against this land, and destroy it!”… Has my master sent me to your master and to you to speak these words, and not to the men who sit on the wall, who will eat and drink their own waste with you?… Do not listen to Hezekiah’” (2 Kings 18:19-31).

10 As well as Babylonian captivity roughly 100 years later.

11 Homer Hailey (1993) A Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Religious Supply), p. 208.

12 The Hebrew term qedem literally means “ancient time, aforetime” [Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (1906), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/06924.html]. It is used of God in Deuteronomy 33:27 and Habakkuk 1:12 where the term is translated “everlasting” or “eternal.”

13 This Hebrew word (olam) often refers to “for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore” (Brown, et al., https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/05769.html). Often it is used in reference to the eternality of God, including in Micah 4:7 where the prophet referenced the Lord’s eternal reign.

14 Cf. John 1:1; 20:28; Philippians 2:5-11.

---

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Who Are the Sons of God in Genesis 6?

 You’ve probably heard someone say, “Everyone interprets the Bible differently. It depends on how you look at it!” Often it does depend on how we look at it; our point of view and assumptions often affect our interpretations. What we assume influences how we see things, and that includes how we see Scripture. This sometimes explains why there are different interpretations of the same Bible passage: conflicting interpretations often result from different assumptions. We can illustrate this by considering the different interpretations of the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4.

Angels View. Some interpreters claim that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels. The phrase is used in Hosea 1:10 to refer to humans, but advocates of the angels view argue that this phrase cannot mean the same thing as it does in Genesis 6 because Hosea used the singular form of the word “God,” El, whereas the writer of Genesis 6 used the plural form, Elohim. The assumption here is that because these passages do not use precisely the same terms, they are not referring to the same thing. This assumption is incorrect, however, because different words are often used to refer to the same thing. The words El and Elohim are frequently used interchangeably in the Old Testament, and there is no doubt that both passages refer to God. It is not the case, therefore, that “sons of God” always refers to angels.

Most advocates of the angels view point to Job 1:6 and 2:1 to support their claim that “sons of God” refers to angels. They argue that since it refers to angels in Job, then it also refers to angels in Genesis 6. In this case the assumption is the opposite of the one above; that is, these passages must refer to the same thing simply because they use the same terms. This is not necessarily true, however. Words or phrases often mean different things or are used differently in different contexts. The phrase “Son of Man,” for example, refers to Ezekiel in the book of Ezekiel, but in the Gospels it refers to Jesus. One must demonstrate from the context of the passages in Genesis and Job that “sons of God” means the same thing in both passages and not simply assume this is the case because the words are the same.

The passages in Job are also used to argue that “sons of God” refers to fallen angels. There is nothing in these passages, however, that indicates that they are fallen angels. Job 1:6, for example, says, “the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.”1 Satan was not one of the sons of God, but came in “among them.” In Job, the reference to the “sons of God” does not include fallen angels such as Satan. Additionally, it seems very unlikely that the expression “sons of God” would be used to refer to fallen angels. This argument incorrectly assumes that the two passages are referring to the same thing simply because they use the same terms.

Other commentators appeal to Jude 6–7 to support their contention that the “sons of God” were unfallen or heavenly angels who then fell because they had sexual relations with female humans. They argue that Jude compared the prideful fallen angels to the sexually immoral people of Sodom and Gomorrah. The problem with this assertion is that it assumes what it must prove. Proponents of this argument use their interpretation of Genesis 6 to understand Jude, and then use their understanding of Jude to support their interpretation of Genesis 6. This is circular reasoning.

The angels view also assumes that angels can have sexual relations with female humans. Bruce Waltke points out, however, “This interpretation…contradicts Jesus’ statement that angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25). It is one thing for angels to eat and drink (see Gen. 19:1–3), but quite another to marry and reproduce.”2 Some interpreters respond that Jesus was referring only to the marriage contract and not to the marriage bed, but this makes Jesus’ statement nonsensical in its own context. Jesus was responding to the question about having a marital relation resulting in children, and He clearly denied that heavenly angels can have sexual relations.

Other defenders respond that Jesus is referring to angels in heaven, whereas Genesis 6 is referring to fallen angels. The problem with this explanation is that prior to having sexual relations with female humans, these fallen angels must have been unfallen, heavenly angels; but Jesus said heavenly angels could not have sexual relations, and, therefore, they could not have committed the very act that is supposed to have caused them to fall. Furthermore, this view not only assumes that unfallen angels can have sexual relations with female humans but also that it is necessarily sinful. No commentator has attempted to prove this assumption.

Tyrants View. This view claims that the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis 6 refers to male humans who were possessed by demons. If the term “sons of God” does not refer to angelic beings (demons), however, then there is no reference to them in the text at all. These interpreters assume the involvement of fallen angelic beings from the angels view and smuggle this assumption into the text while eliminating the only term that could refer to them. This is called “begging the question”: the conclusion is assumed and used as part of the argument.

Line of Seth View. Assumptions are not always detrimental to an interpreter’s argument. Advocates of the line of Seth view assume that the identity of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 should be determined from its context before appealing to Job or Jude. This view holds that the “sons of God” refers to the descendents of Seth, while the “daughters of men” refers to the descendents of Cain. In other words, the righteous line of Seth intermarried with the unrighteous line of Cain resulting in the corruption of society.

Let’s look at some arguments for this interpretation. First, several statements in Genesis about Seth’s descendants indicate that “sons of God” applies to them: they “began to call upon the name of the Lord” (4:26), “walked with God” (5:24), and “found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (6:8).

Second, Genesis 5:1–3 restates that Adam was created in God’s image and that Seth was begotten in Adam’s image. The implication is that the line of Adam through Seth constitutes the sons of God.

Third, the line of Cain is pictured in exactly the opposite light. Cain is driven out from the presence of God. Lamech, a descendent of Cain, takes two wives, contrary to the standard established in the garden. When Cain murders his brother, God confronts him with his deed; yet, when Lamech commits murder, the absence of God is painfully obvious. Cain laments that his punishment is too great to bear, but Lamech boasts that he is able to take care of himself — he doesn’t need God’s protection. The primary characterization of Cain’s line is that they were becoming increasingly separated from God.

Fourth, the writer of Genesis states that the sons of God saw that the daughters of humankind were “beautiful” (Heb. tob). This connects the daughters of humankind in 6:2 with chapter 4. There, in the genealogy of Cain, the sons of Lamech are named and something is said about each one’s impact on society; for example, Tubal-cain was the forger of all implements of bronze and iron. Tubal-cain’s sister, Naamah, is named, but nothing is said about her. This should make the reader wonder why she was mentioned at all, especially since women were viewed as lower-class citizens. Interestingly, her name means “beautiful.” This is not the same word used in 6:2, but we have already seen that passages do not need to use the same terms to be parallel.

The word tob, “beautiful” or “good,” in 6:2 sets up another connection with a statement in 3:6: “The woman saw that the tree was good [tob].” The couple in the garden fell into judgment because they took the prerogative that belongs only to God — deciding what is good. Genesis 6:2, therefore, is presented as a reenactment of the Fall. The godly line, who were supposed to walk with God, see the daughters of humankind from the ungodly line and decide for themselves that they are good.

Finally, both the angels view and the tyrants view try to explain who the “sons of God” are, but neither explains why the story was recorded in Genesis. From the context, the line of Seth view explains who these sons of God were and why the story is here. In Exodus 4:22–23, Moses’ audience, Israel, is identified by God as “My son, My first-born.” These sons of God were about to enter the Promised Land, which was populated with people who were not part of the Abrahamic covenant. God warned Israel not to take foreign wives (Deut. 7:3). This would become a recurring problem for Israel. Moses used this story in Genesis 6 to warn Israel not to abandon God’s instruction. God is the one who determines what is good, and Israel was to be on guard against the enticement of the world that would lead them away from the pure worship and dedication to the God of Israel.

Interpretations and Assumptions. It is undeniably true that there is a correct interpretation of every passage, even if we don’t know yet what it is. It is also true that assumptions affect our interpretations. Assumptions are not always negative, however; sometimes they are necessary for correct interpretation. As interpreters who desire to rightly divide the Word of truth, we must always be considering and reconsidering our interpretations in order to expose and examine any assumptions that are influencing them.

— Thomas A. Howe

 

“I Am He” or “I Am”?

DAVE MILLER, Ph.D.

DEITY OF CHRIST

The Bible plainly teaches that Jesus is divine. When He came to Earth to die on the cross for humanity, He was God in the flesh (John 1:14; Colossians 1:15-19). Jesus unhesitatingly called attention to this fact on several occasions since the acknowledgment of this truth is necessary for salvation (Romans 10:9-10). 

Recall the incident 1,500 years before Jesus came to Earth when Moses was tending livestock in the desert and encountered a bush that was on fire but continued to burn unconsumed. Warning him to keep his distance and remove his shoes, God identified Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Announcing to Moses his mission to return to Egypt to proclaim to Pharaoh God’s demands, Moses proceeded to offer a series of quibbles designed to justify his reluctance to go. One of those excuses was framed in this question: “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” (Exodus 3:13, ESV). God’s response was decisive: “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you’” (vs. 14).

The import of God’s declaration on this occasion pertains to the eternal nature of deity. God is the Eternal Present, i.e., He has always existed and always will because, unlike everyone else, He possesses infinite eternality. Incredibly, the same may be said of Jesus. He is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). He declares: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End…who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8)—precisely the same thing that is said about God (Revelation 4:8). Since the purpose of the Gospel of John is to cause people to believe that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31), it is to be expected that the book should contain multiple allusions to the deity of Christ—and such is certainly the case. In fact, we encounter several instances in John where Jesus applies to Himself the same expression that God used at the burning bush: “I AM.”

For example, on the occasion when Jesus faced the incessant unbelief of the Jews, He forthrightly declared to them: “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). The word “He” is in italics in the NKJV and several other translations,1 indicating the translators’ insertion. However, in keeping with the theme of John, as well as the immediate context, its insertion is unwarranted and obscures the power of Jesus’ statement. He was, in fact, forthrightly declaring His deity to the hard-hearted Jews by identifying Himself with the same Deity that Moses encountered at the burning bush.2 This fact is evident in the context. Three verses later, Jesus again states: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things” (vs. 28). Once again, the NKJV places “He” in italics. And then, for a third time, Jesus pointedly presses the fact to bring closure to His confrontation: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM” (vss. 55-58). The Jews correctly understood that Jesus was making a direct claim to Deity, evidenced by the fact that they prepared to execute Him for the capital crime of blasphemy.3 Jesus stressed this same point to the Samaritan woman with whom He engaged in a conversation regarding His identity. His remarks were such that she first considers Him to be a prophet (John 4:19). But as He continues to speak, she admits that she is aware of the fact that the Messiah/Christ was yet to come. He uses her admission to declare: “I who speak to you am He” (vs. 26).4 Once again, in various translations, the word “He” is in italics to denote its insertion. But I suggest that Jesus was connecting Himself with the “I AM” of the burning bush.

After the feeding of the 5,000, the disciples sought to row back across the Sea of Galilee when there arose a sudden storm. Gripped by fear for their lives, their fear was enhanced by the sudden appearance of Jesus walking on the water toward their boat. “But He said to them, ‘It is I; do not be afraid’” (John 6:20). The English reader would likely never know that the words “It is I” are a translation of the Greek ego eimi—“I am.” The only reason for the disciples not to fear a life-threatening situation is if Jesus was more than a mere man who, in fact, possessed the divine power to still a storm. Undoubtedly, Jesus was again calling attention to His divinity—as indicated by the JUB: “I AM. Be not afraid.”5 

On the occasion when Jesus washed the feet of His disciples, as a predictive prelude to Judas’ betrayal He quoted Psalm 41:9 and declared: “Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He” (John 13:19). Once again, Jesus was deliberately spotlighting His divinity to His disciples by identifying Himself with the burning bush episode. He intended to emphasize to them that they would realize that He is the great “I AM.”

Still another occasion appears to set forth the same realization. When the mob came to arrest Jesus, which consisted of Judas, together with a detachment of troops, and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, carrying lanterns, torches, and weapons, the text states: “Jesus therefore, knowing all things that would come upon Him, went forward and said to them, ‘Whom are you seeking?’ They answered Him, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus said to them, ‘I am He’” (John 18:4-5). Once again, “He” is in italics. Observe the reaction to Jesus’ identification: “Then—when He said to them, ‘I am He,’—they drew back and fell to the ground” (vs. 6). One might assume that they were surprised that Jesus would come forward and identify himself, since one would think that a criminal would try to evade arrest and not give himself up so easily. But surely such surprise would hardly evoke a reaction that included falling to the ground. Remember, that these soldiers were not Romans. They were Jewish soldiers sent by the chief priests and Pharisees. Consequently, they were likely quite aware of the Jewish anticipation of the coming Messiah, as well as the import of the expression “I AM.” They were likely initially stunned by the bold, but presumptuous, affirmation by Jesus, only to recover themselves and dismiss the claim to deity as the rantings of a madman.

The following English translation renderings capture the meaning: CEB: “When he said, ‘I Am,’ they shrank back and fell to the ground.” CJB: “When he said, ‘I AM,’ they went backward from him and fell to the ground.” ISV: “When Jesus told them, ‘I AM,’ they backed away and fell to the ground.” JUB: “And when he said unto them, I AM, they went backward and fell to the ground.” Keep in mind that the words “I am” are also used throughout the Bible simply to refer to any person’s existence—even in John where the blind man identified himself as the one that Jesus had healed (9:9). 

The issue in John, however, is whether Jesus intentionally used the expression to link Himself to God and thereby assert His deity.6 It is equally interesting that Jesus enlisted the use of “I am” in seven additional instances when He offered descriptions of His divine nature, each prefaced by ego eimi: 1. “I am the Bread of Life” (6:35). 2. “I am the Light of the world” (8:12). 3. “I am the Door” (10:9). 4. “I am the Good Shepherd” (10:4). 5. “I am the Resurrection and the Life” (11:25). 6. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (14:6). 7. “I am the Vine” (15:5). In each of these cases, a feature of Jesus’ Person is spotlighted that can only describe deity. No mere human being can rightfully be said to be the Bread of Life, the Light of the world, etc. These glorious affirmations pertain solely to Christ in His divine state.

To summarize, it so happens that the expression “I am He” likewise connotes that Jesus is the divine Messiah Who was to come. So, the import remains the same either way. However, inserting the word “He” was not only unnecessary, its insertion obscures and softens the force of Jesus’ claim explicitly linking Himself directly to the statement spoken by God to Moses at the burning bush. Indeed, the very heart and core of Christianity is Christ as the divine Son of God. One cannot even be a Christian unless that divinity is orally confessed prior to conversion (Romans 10:9-10).

Endnotes

1 ASV, BRG, KJV, LEB, NASB (1995).

2 Several English translations recognize this fact and refrain from inserting “He,” including: CEB, ERV, GNT, ISV, PHILLIPS, JUB, NABRE, NASB, TPT, TLV, WYC.

3 “Believing that He was speaking sheer blasphemy and claiming equality with the great ‘I Am,’ they sought to stone Him”—Marcus Dods (no date), The Gospel According to John in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1:782.

4 Literally: “I am, the one speaking to you.”

5 Also the CEB, TLV, and WYC.

6 For more discussion of the nuances of the Greek, including the issue of the predicate nominative, see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 879-880; Robertson, Word Pictures, 5:68,146,242,284; Alford, 1:801-802; P.B. Harner (1970), The “I AM” of the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress); Raymond Brown (1977), “The EGO EIMI (‘I Am’) Passages In the Fourth Gospel” in A Companion to John: Readings in Johannine Theology, ed. Michael Taylor (New York: Alba House), pp. 117-126; Georg Braumann and Hans-Georg Line (1976), “I Am,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 2:278-283; E.D. Freed (1982), “Ego Eimi in John viii. 24 in the Light of Its Context and Jewish Messianic Belief,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 33, 1:163-167, April.

---

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.