now please tell me, why did Jesus intentionally use the present tense here when it would have been gramattically correct to use the past tense? Can you think of somewhere else in the Bible where that kind of apparent error in grammar took place (I'll give you a clue, look in Exodus 3...)?
(Source) Information someone wrote on a forum in 2005
Submitted by Theocrat on 9 September, 2005 - 15:27.
taking the standard line on
John 8:58, that Jesus was claiming to be the God of
Exodus 3:14. This assertion is based on a kind of translation theology, which isnt borne out in the original language.
In the LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible), at
Exodus 3.14, Yahweh declares "
ego eimi o ohn". I am
he that exists. The addition of
o ohn is needed to reflect the fact that it is the word
ehyeh here in the original Hebrew as opposed to
ani hu. In
John 8:58 Jesus only says "
ego eimi" (I am
he). On this basis it isnt really fair to the text to force an unambiguous reference to
Exodus 3:14.
Instead anyone could say I am or I am he without any allusion to a claim of divinity. Current Reebok adverts quote stars saying I am what I am. Another more Biblical example of this is found in
John 9:9 where the man born blind says
ego eimi. I am
he. None of these individuals are claiming to be the Exodus God.
So
ego eimi is neither Gods name nor an exclusively divine title.
But all this begs the question you originally raised:
If Jesus isnt claiming to be God, what was he understood to have said that caused such offence? The answer lies in the dialogue leading up to his statement. In the verses immediately preceding
John 8:45 we see is that this isnt the first time Jesus has said
ego eimi in this exchange. He has already said it in v.24.
(This calls into further question the widely asserted notion that the words
ego eimi were understood by Jesus hearers to be a claim of divinity. Instead of seizing upon this as the long awaited and much sought after grounds to accuse him, they respond by asking who are you? (v.25). Obviously Jesus has not identified himself sufficiently by this statement for them to know what the he referred to is.)
Reading on from v.25, the discourse moves to Abraham. "How can you claim to offer the life of the age to come?" they ask Jesus, "even Abraham himself is dead, surely youre not claiming to be greater than him!" (v.51-53)
Next, they misunderstand Jesus statement in v.56 (Abraham rejoiced to see my day) by reading too much into it, because in v.57 they accuse Jesus of claiming to have seen Abraham! He never said that. Neither did he say that Abraham had seen him. Only that Abraham had rejoiced to see
his day.
Abraham, having believed the gospel preached to him by God (
Gal 3.8) rejoiced in hope, looking forward to the day of Christ in the same way we do.
It is in response to this misunderstanding that Jesus makes his statement "Before Abraham was, I am
he". Notice however that he did not say "I was before Abraham" or "before Abraham was, I was".
The present tense I
am in reference to the past (before Abraham
was) simply does not work as a stand-alone sentence. It only makes sense if Jesus is referring back to some statement he has made previously about his present status with respect to the patriarch. I would suggest that Jesus is expanding on his statement in verse 56 by explaining how, in spite of his not being 50 years old, Abraham could still have rejoiced to see his day.
Bringing the two together what we get is: "Before Abraham was, I am
he
whose day Abraham rejoiced to see".
This is a clear identification by Jesus of himself as the seed promised to Abraham by Yahweh and through whom all the families of the earth would be blessed.
Abrahams greatness was based on his belief in the promise God made to him about his seed and the fact that, in so doing, he became the means through which God would bring his word to pass.
Jesus is greater than Abraham because he is the embodiment of Gods end purpose and the subject of the promise which Abraham rejoiced in. This is the staggering claim which so offended the Jews that they attempted to stone him.
You may not agree but this is how I see it as well. I pasted it because he said it the way I wanted to say it, but I wanted give credit where it is due because I didn't write it.
LOL...So what? Putting "he" at the end of John 8:58 wouldn't change the obvious and intentional grammatical oddity there, nor would it change the meaning.
You may be right. It's perfectly fine to render the verses the way you want them to be rendered, whether you're adding or subtracting words. We should all be able to make the scriptures say what we want them to.
Arguing on the basis of words that aren't there in the original text isn't gonna get you very far here, my friend.
And arguing that Jesus is God or a deity won't get you anywhere with me. Jesus was the one who showed us he wasn't God. Got issues with that? take it up with him. He was the one that said God sent him, he was the one that said he was here to do the will of God, He was the one that said God commanded him of the words he should speak.....
). I appreciate your response but just to be clear these are the qeustions I am asking of Scott.
