What is Jesus saying here?

Bradley D

Well-known member
Christ's divine side came from the God the Father. "I AM" was God's telling of Moses of who He was. So when Christ told that to the Jews who asked who He was they got very upset.
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings Bright Raven and Bradley D,
”What is Jesus saying here?”
John 8:58 New King James Version Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
Christ's divine side came from the God the Father. "I AM" was God's telling of Moses of who He was. So when Christ told that to the Jews who asked who He was they got very upset.
Looking at “I AM” portion of this verse, please note the expression translated “I AM” in John 8:58 is the same as in John 8:24,28 in the immediate context where even the KJV translates this as “I am he”:

John 8:24,28 (KJV): 24 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. 28 Then said Jesus unto them, 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.
One reason why the KJV did not translate the above as “I AM” here also could be fairly evident from verse 28 where it is clear that Jesus is not claiming to be Deity, but rather emphasises He was The Son of Man, and that he was completely dependent on God His Father.

Despite this context, the question arises is John 8:58 quoting or alluding to Exodus 3:14, where the KJV has a similar expression:
Exodus 3:14 (KJV): And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

I suggest that the KJV is a wrong translation and the correct translation is found in the RV and RSV margins “I will be” and also Tyndale correctly translated this with the future tense “I wilbe”:
Exodus 3:14 (Tyndale): Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.
Thus John 8:58 is not a direct quotation or allusion to Exodus 3:14.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

DAN P

New member
Greetings Bright Raven and Bradley D,
Looking at “I AM” portion of this verse, please note the expression translated “I AM” in John 8:58 is the same as in John 8:24,28 in the immediate context where even the KJV translates this as “I am he”:
John 8:24,28 (KJV): 24 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. 28 Then said Jesus unto them, 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.
One reason why the KJV did not translate the above as “I AM” here also could be fairly evident from verse 28 where it is clear that Jesus is not claiming to be Deity, but rather emphasises He was The Son of Man, and that he was completely dependent on God His Father.

Despite this context, the question arises is John 8:58 quoting or alluding to Exodus 3:14, where the KJV has a similar expression:
Exodus 3:14 (KJV): And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

I suggest that the KJV is a wrong translation and the correct translation is found in the RV and RSV margins “I will be” and also Tyndale correctly translated this with the future tense “I wilbe”:
Exodus 3:14 (Tyndale): Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.
Thus John 8:58 is not a direct quotation or allusion to Exodus 3:14.

Kind regards
Trevor

Hi and Ex 3:14 reads , And God said unto Moses , I AM THAT I AM !!

And 1 Cor 15:10 The Holy Spirit has Paul write , But by God's grace I AM WHAT I AM !!

The Greek word WHAT / HOS can be translated by the English words , by Who , Which , What OR BY THAT !!

So the Holy Spirit says that Paul can Be called the IAM and in 2 Cor 2:10 Paul did FORGIVE in the PERSON OF CHRIST !!

dan p
 
Last edited:

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings DAN P,
Hi and Ex 3:14 reads , And God said unto Moses , I AM THAT I AM !!
I disagree with the KJV rendition of Exodus 3:14, but I agree with Tyndale and the RV and RSV marginal renditions. Evidently many modern scholars, and even some of these are Trinitarians, agree with the future tense here. The following is further support for the future tense rendition, showing that God is not speaking about the fact that He Exists, but that God was going to be active in delivering Israel out of Egypt, and that He would be with Moses to accomplish this difficult task.


The word “ehyeh” is in Exodus 3:14 is the same in the earlier statement in v12, and here the translators give the future tense:
Exodus 3:12 (KJV): And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.
Not only does this fix the tense, it also introduces the concept that the Name of God is also associated with some future activity.

This future tense and future activity was to be God acting to deliver Israel out of Egypt, so that Israel would become a people for His Name. They would be a living witness to the purpose of God, and a witness to the existence of God. The following passage emphasises this future work in delivering Israel with the future aspect of the Name:
Exodus 6:1-8 (KJV): 1 Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land. 2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH (or Yahweh) was I not known to them. 4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. 5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. 6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: 7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD.

Kind regards

Trevor
 

DAN P

New member
Greetings DAN P, I disagree with the KJV rendition of Exodus 3:14, but I agree with Tyndale and the RV and RSV marginal renditions. Evidently many modern scholars, and even some of these are Trinitarians, agree with the future tense here. The following is further support for the future tense rendition, showing that God is not speaking about the fact that He Exists, but that God was going to be active in delivering Israel out of Egypt, and that He would be with Moses to accomplish this difficult task.

The word “ehyeh” is in Exodus 3:14 is the same in the earlier statement in v12, and here the translators give the future tense:
Exodus 3:12 (KJV): And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.
Not only does this fix the tense, it also introduces the concept that the Name of God is also associated with some future activity.

This future tense and future activity was to be God acting to deliver Israel out of Egypt, so that Israel would become a people for His Name. They would be a living witness to the purpose of God, and a witness to the existence of God. The following passage emphasises this future work in delivering Israel with the future aspect of the Name:
Exodus 6:1-8 (KJV): 1 Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land. 2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH (or Yahweh) was I not known to them. 4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. 5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. 6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: 7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD.

Kind regards

Trevor

Hi and I did check Ex 3:14 and I just found 4 IMPERFECT TENSES and one PERFECT TENSE !!

I ALSO CHECKED Ex 6:1-8 and most all the tenses were of the IMPERFECT and PERFECT TENSE and some Participles , and INFINATIVES , so what verse did you see the FUTURE TENSE ??

The verses that I checked were the right ones ??

dan p
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again DAN P,
Hi and I did check Ex 3:14 and I just found 4 IMPERFECT TENSES and one PERFECT TENSE !!
I ALSO CHECKED Ex 6:1-8 and most all the tenses were of the IMPERFECT and PERFECT TENSE and some Participles , and INFINATIVES , so what verse did you see the FUTURE TENSE ??
The verses that I checked were the right ones ??
I quoted and emphasised the imperfect tenses, speaking of what God would accomplish, in that the Yahweh Name is associated with delivering Israel out of Egypt and bringing them into the land. Thus the Name is speaking of what Yahweh would do, accomplish, not the concept of the present tense, of the idea that God exists “I AM”.


When Israel was delivered out of Egypt the Name of God remains the same, but the particular activity has been accomplished:
Exodus 15:1-3 (KJV): 1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. 2 The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him. 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
The future tense of God’s Name
He will be or become” has been accomplished, and Yahweh had become Israel’s salvation. The pattern established regarding the salvation of Israel from Egypt foreshadows the salvation that would be revealed and accomplished in Jesus, “Yah’s salvation” or the “Salvation of Yah”.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings musterion,
Christ is God.
Referring to the context of John 8:58, I suggest that Jesus is not claiming to be God in this passage:

John 8:28 (KJV): Then said Jesus unto them, 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.
As stated earlier the expression here “I am he” is exactly the same expression translated “I am” in John 8:58, and to adjust the KJV rendition please consider:
John 8:58 (KJV adjusted): Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am he.

This translation agrees with John’s summary of his purpose in writing his Gospel record:
John 20:30–31 (KJV): 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

This is also consistent with Peter’s confession:
Matthew 16:15–17 (KJV): 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
In summary, there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is The Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

musterion

Well-known member
Greetings musterion, Referring to the context of John 8:58, I suggest that Jesus is not claiming to be God in this passage:
John 8:28 (KJV): Then said Jesus unto them, 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.
As stated earlier the expression here “I am he” is exactly the same expression translated “I am” in John 8:58, and to adjust the KJV rendition please consider:
John 8:58 (KJV adjusted): Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am he.

This translation agrees with John’s summary of his purpose in writing his Gospel record:
John 20:30–31 (KJV): 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

This is also consistent with Peter’s confession:
Matthew 16:15–17 (KJV): 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
In summary, there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is The Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor


Christ is God.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
John 8:58
New King James Version

Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

Briefly

Jesus Christ is simply stating that he is the Redeemer

Abraham is not

It is Jesus Christ that was spoken of in Genesis 3:15 not Abraham
 
Last edited:

Caino

Well-known member
It means the incarnate Creator Son has existed from eternity with his Father in heaven. God had an amazing way of maintaining his anonymity while standing right in front of us.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Briefly

Jesus Christ is simply stating that he is the Redeemer

Abraham is not

It is Jesus Christ that was spoken of in Genesis 3:15 not Abraham
That seems pretty contorted, oatmeal.

Even without the connection to the name of God here, there is something about Jesus that makes him greater than Abraham, his ancestor, just as he is called David's lord (master), though he is descended from David.

If he was only before Abraham (and David), it would make him greater but would also confirm some kind of reincarnation. Instead, "I am" when coupled with "before Abraham" confirms an extended existence that stretches from before the time of Abraham to the present (in the passage), at a minimum.

Who could make such a claim? Angels, perhaps. Enoch, perhaps. The Jews knew: "So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple."

And how did Jesus hide himself from angry stone throwers where he had just been teaching publicly, not just in the temple, but in the treasury of the temple? Magic or miracle?
 

Derf

Well-known member
It has to be two-fold simply by the statement. 1) That God is not bound to time constraints (else it have been "I was"), and 2) that He is God in the flesh.
I don’t think #1 is necessary if #2 is true. If He is who was and is and is to come, then He is able to function within time, or at least “was” is applicable.
 

Lon

Well-known member
I don’t think #1 is necessary if #2 is true. If He is who was and is and is to come, then He is able to function within time, or at least “was” is applicable.
A lot of people agree with you BUT I believe God's words stand as true on both levels. When God first gave that name to Moses, it truly was 'Am.' Any use of it after shows timelessness. Importantly, Jesus qualified it Himself: "Before Abraham was." While I never want the Name lost as definitely true in the passage, a claim to being "I AM," there is and can be no question what He meant when HE qualified that with "Before Abraham was." We NEED to entertain His words, His meaning over and above our preferred theologies, else it is just "Us-ologies." I don't WANT 'me-ology!' When the time comes to Open Theology, I will come without kicking or screaming because it'll come clearly from God. Until then, I don't see that He conveys Openness as much as He conveys He is God Alone James 4:6-17, 15 Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.”

As to other conjecture against the second?? :nono: Jews took up stones to kill Him! The Pharisees, at least, knew exactly what Jesus was claiming.
Unitarians? :nono: They are so committed to odd theology, they cannot read scripture any more for 'what it actually says' just what they decide they want it to mean. How on earth can anyone read the text and actually think they were picking up stones just because He was as old as Abraham? 💫 Unitarians make these very blatant mistakes. Why don't they see them as mistakes???? Because they are committed to themselves, thier idea, not God, and won't be corrected. :amr: They are therefore under a powerful delusion similar to Jews then and today: 2 Thessalonians 2:11 There is no way to say that they were going to stone Him for any other reason, without doing drastic harm to the text and meaning. No. No in fact, they did not pick up stones to stone Him for simply saying He is old nor 'blaspheming Abraham.' : Plain:
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
A lot of people agree with you BUT I believe God's words stand as true on both levels. When God first gave that name to Moses, it truly was 'Am.' Any use of it after shows timelessness. Importantly, Jesus qualified it Himself: "Before Abraham was." While I never want the Name lost as definitely true in the passage, a claim to being "I AM," there is and can be no question what He meant when HE qualified that with "Before Abraham was." We NEED to entertain His words, His meaning over and above our preferred theologies, else it is just "Us-ologies." I don't WANT 'me-ology!' When the time comes to Open Theology, I will come without kicking or screaming because it'll come clearly from God. Until then, I don't see that He conveys Openness as much as He conveys He is God Alone James 4:6-17, 15 Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.”

As to other conjecture against the second?? :nono: Jews took up stones to kill Him! The Pharisees, at least, knew exactly what Jesus was claiming.
Unitarians? :nono: They are so committed to odd theology, they cannot read scripture any more for 'what it actually says' just what they decide they want it to mean. How on earth can anyone read the text and actually think they were picking up stones just because He was as old as Abraham? 💫 Unitarians make these very blatant mistakes. Why don't they see them as mistakes???? Because they are committed to themselves, thier idea, not God, and won't be corrected. :amr: They are therefore under a powerful delusion similar to Jews then and today: 2 Thessalonians 2:11 There is no way to say that they were going to stone Him for any other reason, without doing drastic harm to the text and meaning. No. No in fact, they did not pick up stones to stone Him for simply saying He is old nor 'blaspheming Abraham.' : Plain:
I'm in agreement with pretty much everything you say, but your number 2 is all that's needed to say it. "I am" was a shortened form of "I am that I am", or the self-existing one. Jesus made the same claim.

I'm just saying that if Jesus defines Himself in terms of time in a passage, it seems like we shouldn't use His words beyond what He meant them for. The connection to God is apparent, but the description of timelessness isn't, imho, as He uses time to express it.
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
I don’t think Abraham was foretold. But I don’t see why anything I wrote would suggest it either.

Jesus wasn’t just commenting on a foretelling when He said He was before Abraham.
 
Top