What is Jesus saying here?

Right Divider

Body part
@Lon
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,
I 'am' is a state of existence that encompasses 'will be.'
There are in my understanding two different views on Exodus 3:14. One is the present tense and speaks of God's present existence and possibly could, but especially with God would include his future existence. The other view is not speaking of God's existence, but of course necessitates his existence. This view is speaking of WHAT God will do, achieve according to his purpose with respect to the promises to Abraham and the obscure "I will be WHAT I will be" relates to the fulfilment of these promises. I refer again to Exodus 6:1-8 and the advocates of this second view use this passage as support. I also note you have reactivated my old thread on the Yahweh Name and this is where I have a brief development of this second view.
Not between John 8:58 however. Again the two aren't comparable in grammatical structure.
I was using John 10:7 to compare the use of "I am (the BEING)" as rendered by the LXX.
As covered in thread, the context drives understanding. We had a lot of 'reading comprehension' instruction in school for this reason. It is paramount to understanding texts.
But do you really claim that John 8:28 is speaking about Jesus being Deity?
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.
My impression is that you are saying that "I am" in John 8 can have and has three different meanings.
It wasn't inspired but Jesus nor the Apostles, nor the church fathers spent any great time correcting it.
But Jesus is NOT quoting the LXX of Exodus 3:14, otherwise he would have said "I am the Being". I recommend Barnes' OT Notes on Isaiah where he gives a list of the various places where the NT quotes the Isaiah portion of the OT. He lists where the NT passage is quoting the Hebrew text, or the LXX text and other occurrences where neither are directly quoted and could have been from a different text, or a general adaptation and interpretation of some of the OT passages. A thorough book on the subject is Commentary on the NT use of the OT by editors GK Beale and DA Carson 1239 pages. I found this interesting and helpful on Isaiah 6:9-10, where they talk about the difference between the Hebrew and LXX on this particular passage and how the NT uses both in different contexts, but not endorsing an error in one of the originals.

I am conscious of two other NT usages, where the LXX is quoted or is similar and these are different from the Hebrew. But both of these are important and I consider that both the original Hebrew and the LXX are correct. The LXX in effect widens the range and yet the accuracy of these passages. I suggest that Jesus and the Apostles did not quote or endorse error as Scripture.

The forum article called "The Christadelphian Understanding of the Yahweh Name" was running on another forum 16 years ago, but the forum policy was to start again when they changed servers or format, and did not maintain older posts. This occurred at least three times. It was about 140 posts, and I could send a copy by email. It was mainly a conversation between a Christadelphian and three Trinitarians, two of whom by the conclusion of the discussion seemed to accept at least some aspects of what he was advocating.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,

There are in my understanding two different views on Exodus 3:14. One is the present tense and speaks of God's present existence and possibly could, but especially with God would include his future existence. The other view is not speaking of God's existence, but of course necessitates his existence. This view is speaking of WHAT God will do, achieve according to his purpose with respect to the promises to Abraham and the obscure "I will be WHAT I will be" relates to the fulfilment of these promises. I refer again to Exodus 6:1-8 and the advocates of this second view use this passage as support. I also note you have reactivated my old thread on the Yahweh Name and this is where I have a brief development of this second view.

I was using John 10:7 to compare the use of "I am (the BEING)" as rendered by the LXX.

But do you really claim that John 8:28 is speaking about Jesus being Deity?
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.
My impression is that you are saying that "I am" in John 8 can have and has three different meanings.

But Jesus is NOT quoting the LXX of Exodus 3:14, otherwise he would have said "I am the Being".
:nono: Simply two identical words, importantly, truncated in John 8:58. "I am" IS the meaning of John 8:58. Simply read it, grammatically, for the emphasis and LET it dictate your theology, as I let it do mine. We are on opposite sides theologically, the same side, grammatically. The emphasis is there and it means something. Our job is to follow it, not force it, nor to pull erroneous comparison. The other passages are different in that they specifically tell us how to interpret in those instances as well. We don't, however, pool them together: that's prooftexting and isn't reading comprehension. I'm convinced, as I've said, grammar understanding is the key to grasping scripture truth. We all just need to follow where it leads.
I recommend Barnes' OT Notes on Isaiah where he gives a list of the various places where the NT quotes the Isaiah portion of the OT. He lists where the NT passage is quoting the Hebrew text, or the LXX text and other occurrences where neither are directly quoted and could have been from a different text, or a general adaptation and interpretation of some of the OT passages. A thorough book on the subject is Commentary on the NT use of the OT by editors GK Beale and DA Carson 1239 pages. I found this interesting and helpful on Isaiah 6:9-10, where they talk about the difference between the Hebrew and LXX on this particular passage and how the NT uses both in different contexts, but not endorsing an error in one of the originals.
I have these commentaries.
I am conscious of two other NT usages, where the LXX is quoted or is similar and these are different from the Hebrew. But both of these are important and I consider that both the original Hebrew and the LXX are correct. The LXX in effect widens the range and yet the accuracy of these passages. I suggest that Jesus and the Apostles did not quote or endorse error as Scripture.
Not sure this is a point of contention, other than the particular isn't corrected.
The forum article called "The Christadelphian Understanding of the Yahweh Name" was running on another forum 16 years ago, but the forum policy was to start again when they changed servers or format, and did not maintain older posts. This occurred at least three times. It was about 140 posts, and I could send a copy by email. It was mainly a conversation between a Christadelphian and three Trinitarians, two of whom by the conclusion of the discussion seemed to accept at least some aspects of what he was advocating.

Kind regards
Trevor
If you go to Archive.org and use the "waybackmachine" you might be able to find all the revisions. Happy hunting, hope it works for you (if such serves). -Lon
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,
Simply two identical words, importantly, truncated in John 8:58. "I am" IS the meaning of John 8:58. Simply read it, grammatically, for the emphasis and LET it dictate your theology, as I let it do mine. We are on opposite sides theologically, the same side, grammatically. The emphasis is there and it means something. Our job is to follow it, not force it, nor to pull erroneous comparison. The other passages are different in that they specifically tell us how to interpret in those instances as well. We don't, however, pool them together: that's prooftexting and isn't reading comprehension. I'm convinced, as I've said, grammar understanding is the key to grasping scripture truth. We all just need to follow where it leads.
I disagree as I accept that there is a definite flow of the same idea from John 8:24,28 to John 8:58 and this theme starts in John 1 and ends at John 20:31. Also I do not accept the accents shown in the modern Greek NT texts, as these were not part of the original, and the accent on John 8:58 could have been possibly added by a Trinitarian, or someone who does not understand what Jesus is really saying. The Jews in Jesus’ day did not understand (or pretended that they did not understand) what Jesus was saying concerning Abraham, and also the Trinitarians of today do not understand what Jesus was saying concerning Abraham.

Not sure this is a point of contention, other than the particular isn't corrected.
I suggest that Jesus is NOT quoting the LXX in John 8:58, and part of the proof of this is that the LXX translation of Exodus 3:14 is wrong.

If you go to Archive.org and use the "waybackmachine" you might be able to find all the revisions. Happy hunting, hope it works for you (if such serves)
I will attempt this and send you the link if I find it, but I already have a copy. He used to post in the Languages portion of that Forum, but I have not seen him active since the latest reset of the Forum.

I am not a Hebrew scholar and only use Strongs and word reference books. One of our major pioneers seemed to have good Hebrew skills and his exposition on God Manifestation and the Yahweh Name has been accepted by most Christadelphians since. Two older examples of endorsement of his exposition are JW Thirtle in 1881, he was a Hebrew scholar and wrote concerning the Hebrew titles of the Psalms and John Carter an Editor of The Christadelphian Magazine in 1958-1959 in his series “The Name of Salvation”. Since then many in my fellowship have contributed to the understanding of this topic. One other endorsement of “I will be” is the online series “Learning Biblical Hebrew” by Mark Jacob. I do not know his religious affiliations. In his Intermediate Part 2 episode at about 28 minutes he states that the interpretation of Exodus 3:14 is literally “I will be that I will be”. He also stated that one motivation to accept “I am” is to attach this to John 8:58, but Mark Jacobs did not consider that this is a valid link.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,

I disagree
🤔 Not on grammatical grounds you don't....
as I accept that there is a definite flow of the same idea from John 8:24,28 to John 8:58
There is no 'reason' to think so other than Christadelphian/Unitarian/Arian your whole life. That's a 'theological' construct pressed 'into' (not taken out of) the context. There were modifiers previously, not in the last.
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,
Not on grammatical grounds you don't....
There is no 'reason' to think so other than Christadelphian/Unitarian/Arian your whole life. That's a 'theological' construct pressed 'into' (not taken out of) the context. There were modifiers previously, not in the last.
I suggest that a correct understanding of the whole passage and context including the earlier interaction in John 8 about being children of Abraham and the usage of the same phrase in John 8:24 and John 8:28 helps. Also my impression on how Trinitarians understand John 8:58 is based on not understanding how and when Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Jesus, and saw it, and rejoiced. I suggest that Jesus is referring to the events of Genesis 22, where Abraham saw in type the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the salvation that would come through this event. But Trinitarians claim that it had some reference to a visual acquaintance that Abraham had with the pre-existent Jesus.

One more comment concerning the rendition of John 8:58 and the LXX. I doubt that the majority of the Jewish audience that heard Jesus in Jerusalem on this occasion were familiar with the LXX or understood Greek. Jesus would have spoken in Hebrew or Aramaic, and hence if he was quoting the OT he would have been using the Hebrew text, and not the faulty Greek LXX. The faulty Greek LXX is not a good guide in understanding the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14, because the LXX has "I am the Being". The Hebrew lecturer also stated that if the Angel wanted to use the present tense in Exodus 3:14 he would have used the same Hebrew as in Exodus 3:6 "I am the God of Abraham".

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Last edited:
Top