Theocrat: I think that you make some great points and that you are probably partly correct. However, I have several problems with your argument that I’d like to point out.

1) At the level of detail with which you engage the Greek text of the Gospel you implicitly assume the accuracy of the Greek. But did Christ preach in Greek? It seems to me that we must engage with the text of the Gospel in more broad strokes than you do.

2) At the same time, your close reading of the New Testament does not appear to extend to the Hebrew Bible. I presume that in referencing God’s promise to Abraham you refer to Genesis 12:2-3. Literally, God promises to make Abraham into a great nation, to bless him, and to be a blessing to him, to bless those that bless him and to curse those that curse him, and to bless through Abraham all the nations of the Earth.

While you don’t investigate the passage beyond a brief reference, you claim that Jesus is the blessing upon all the nations of the earth promised by God to Abraham. This is a strange if compelling assertion.

The first problem with this assertion is that God sets up his blessing of Abraham in a communal way. God tells Abraham “I will make a great nation of you.” From the Hebrew it seems that all the following blessings are to be realized by that great nation, not by an individual.

The second problem with your assertion of the “straightforward” reference to the Hebrew bible is the context of Jesus’ comments. If Christ is the blessing upon all the nations of the Earth, why then is his argument in John addressed solely to the “Jews” (who you call Pharisees though John is not so specific). If that were Jesus’ counterargument to the Jews, you’d think that the Jew’s argument would be something having to do with Jewish chosenness. But it is not. Rather, they ask about the doctrine of eternal life in Christ. Those Jews likely read the Abrahamic promise in the same communal way that I have outlined above. Why, in addressing Jews’ criticism about his eschatology, would Jesus claim to be the sole seed of Abraham in the way you outline? What is the purpose of that assertion?

3) There is something troubling about saying that Jesus in no way makes a claim to divinity in John 8:58. Even if it is not a reference to Exodus (which it may well be), Jesus claims to have been in existence prior to Abraham’s birth. The way in which the verse is phrased seems to evoke a sense of eternity. Can you point to a theology of eternity in first century Judaism that would allow for an eternal being not to be divine? Seems like a hard sell to me.

4) What is problematic about saying the Jews of John’s Gospel stoned Jesus both for his claim to Abrahamic legitimacy and for his claim to divinity? Why are you bent on proving John’s Jesus did not accept a God-head? I’d believe you if we were talking about Mark’s Jesus, but John’s?

It seems to me that you are trying rather hard to absolve the Jews of John of the act of denying Jesus divinity so that you can bring the Gospel of John into the modern era where we want Jews and Christians to get along. But Jews and Christians did not get along in the first century. Nor did they get along in the second century, when the Gospel of John was likely written. What is wrong with saying that John represents his times well and doesn’t represent ours quite as nicely?