John 8:58

[NobodyYouKnow]

I am just curious as to how Christian people interpret this passage:

"Jesus told them, "Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, before there was an Abraham, I AM!" John 8:58

 

[Brickjectivity]

Oh, Ma'am. That is, like, the mother of all Christian debates. It enters into discussions about Trinity, about predestination and also about atonement. There are several major points of view and here is a rough sketch:

• For mainstream protestants such as S. Baptists and the newer type churches it simply is Jesus claiming to be God
• Many non-trinitarian modern churches believe it means Jesus, the man, is claiming supremacy in importance above Abraham. In other words Abraham's purpose was fulfilled in Jesus, so Jesus could say he was before Abraham in the sense of planning. Abraham was a means to an end in that sense, the end being Jesus.
• Some non-trinitarian modern churches could believe Jesus was literally pre-existant and was not exactly a human being but also not God.
• I don't know what the Mormons think about it, but they probably have a unique point of view.
• R. Catholics, Greek Orth., East Orth, Russian Orth. and other Byzantine derived churches have multiple observations to make involving the 'Logos' which existed with God; but there are different levels of meaning to this verse.

 

[james2ko]

I am just curious as to how Christian people interpret this passage:

"Jesus told them, "Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, before there was an Abraham, I AM!" John 8:58

The context would dictate the correct phrasing should be "I was" or "I have been" instead of "I am"." This is confirmed by its Strong’s definition:

G1510-εἰμίeimi i-mee'--First person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic): -am, have been, X it is I, was. See also G1488, G1498, G1511, G1527, G2258, G2071,G2070, G2075, G2076, G2771, G2468, G5600

​

Although the verb "am" is assigned the present tense, it is in what scholars call the historical present. It is a controversial form of the present tense that extends from the general past. Even if one rejects the historical present tense, the context dictates how the term "I AM" should be translated.

Our context is found in verse 57 where the question to which Jesus replied was about the length of his existence--not his identity. This creates a major disconnect with the "I AM" of Exo 3:14 where identity was being discussed. Thus suggesting "I am" in Joh 8:58 is an unfortunate mistranslation and should have been more accurately rendered "I was" or "I have been" to reflect its chronological context.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't know what the Mormons think about it, but they probably have a unique point of view.

Hey, good guess!

Mormons believe that the individual known as Jesus Christ in the New Testament is the same individual as the individual known as Jehovah in the Old Testament. In other words, in Exodus 3:14, which reads, "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," Jehovah was speaking. And in John 8:58, when we read, "Jesus said unto them, Verily,verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," the speaker is clearly Jesus Christ. So we believe that the pre-mortal Jesus was known as Jehovah to the people of the Old Testament, was born to Mary and became known as Jesus.

Don't misunderstand me, though. We do not believe that Jesus is the same individual as God the Father, and we don't believe that God the Father was the individual spoken of in the Old Testament as Jehovah. When we call Him anything other than "God" or "our Father in Heaven," we would use the term "Elohim."

There are actually numerous examples I could give of there Jehovah and Jesus are described in exactly the same way, but because of all the verses implying that they are two physically distinct individuals, we see these many similarities between Jehovah and Jesus as evidence that they were the same person, rather than as evidence that the Father and the Son are somehow two different manifestations of the same substance.

 

[outhouse]

I am just curious as to how Christian people interpret this passage:

"Jesus told them, "Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, before there was an Abraham, I AM!" John 8:58

The unknown authors in John were building divinity in my opinion.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

The unknown authors in John were building divinity in my opinion.

That's what I was thinking and I was also wondering about the contradiction in tense and whether that would be Jesus claiming he was the 'I Am' in the 'I Am that I Am'...whether it was Jesus' way of saying 'there is one infinite, permanent reality that existed before Abraham and I am that or I 'was there'.

I don't know how much difference it makes between Jesus saying 'I Am' or 'I was'...how would that change the whole context?

I thank everybody for their very thoughtful replies. I have read them, but they need more than just a brief once-over, I need to study those, so I shall do so and reply more later.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hey, good guess!

Mormons believe that the individual known as Jesus Christ in the New Testament is the same individual as the individual known as Jehovah in the Old Testament. In other words, in Exodus 3:14, which reads, "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," Jehovah was speaking. And in John 8:58, we read, "Jesus said unto them, Verily,verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," the speaker is clearly Jesus Christ. So we believe that the pre-mortal Jesus was known as Jehovah to the people of the Old Testament, was born to Mary and became known as Jesus.

Don't misunderstand me, though. We do not believe that Jesus is the same individual as God the Father, and we don't believe that God the Father was the individual spoken of in the Old Testament as Jehovah. When we call Him anything other than "God" or "our Father in Heaven," we would use the term "Elohim."

There are actually numerous examples I could give of there Jehovah and Jesus are described in exactly the same way, but because of all the verses implying that they are two physically distinct individuals, we see these many similarities between Jehovah and Jesus as evidence that they were the same person, rather than as evidence that the Father and the Son are somehow two different manifestations of the same substance.

Thank you for taking the time to clarify that.

 

[outhouse]

That's what I was thinking and I was also wondering about the contradiction in tense and whether that would be Jesus claiming he was the 'I Am' in the 'I Am that I Am'...whether it was Jesus' way of saying 'there is one infinite, permanent reality that existed before Abraham and I am that or I 'was there'.

I don't know how much difference it makes between Jesus saying 'I Am' or 'I was'...how would that change the whole context?

I thank everybody for their very thoughtful replies. I have read them, but they need more than just a brief once-over, I need to study those, so I shall do so and reply more later.

The odds of that statement coming from oral tradition from Jesus, are almost zero.

John is more mythological and theological in nature, and it fits the authors style to a T, who like the other unknown authors, used the OT as their foundation.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

The odds of that statement coming from oral tradition from Jesus, are almost zero.

Yeah, I thought it may have been to much to accept such a comment from Jesus. It's worth a think about though.

 

[outhouse]

Yeah, I thought it may have been to much to accept such a comment from Jesus. It's worth a think about though.

Our best knowledge is that a Johannine community wrote and or collected writings over a long period of time, and that there were possibly 3 stages not being finished until somewhere around the end of the first century.

 

[Pegg]

I am just curious as to how Christian people interpret this passage:

"Jesus told them, "Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, before there was an Abraham, I AM!" John 8:58

Some bible translators correctly use the expression "I have been" rather then 'I Am"


4/5th century: “before Abraham was,I have been” Syriac—Edition:


5th century “before ever Abraham came to be, I was” Curetonian Syriac—Edition:


5th Century “before Abraham existed, I was” Syriac Pe****ta—Edition:



5th Century “before Abraham came to be, I was” Georgian—Edition:



6th Century “before Abraham was born, I was” Ethiopic—Edition:



Basically, the action expressed in Joh 8:58 started “before Abraham came into existence” and was still in progress. This means that what Jesus was really saying was the before Abraham was even born, Jesus had existed and after Abraham died Jesus continued to exist....right up to when he spoke those words he had been living.

So its a reference to his 'pre-human' existence.....his life as an angel before he was sent to earth to be born as a human.

 

[Pegg]

Hey, good guess!

Mormons believe that the individual known as Jesus Christ in the New Testament is the same individual as the individual known as Jehovah in the Old Testament. In other words, in Exodus 3:14, which reads, "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," Jehovah was speaking. And in John 8:58, when we read, "Jesus said unto them, Verily,verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," the speaker is clearly Jesus Christ. So we believe that the pre-mortal Jesus was known as Jehovah to the people of the Old Testament, was born to Mary and became known as Jesus.

Don't misunderstand me, though. We do not believe that Jesus is the same individual as God the Father, and we don't believe that God the Father was the individual spoken of in the Old Testament as Jehovah. When we call Him anything other than "God" or "our Father in Heaven," we would use the term "Elohim."

There are actually numerous examples I could give of there Jehovah and Jesus are described in exactly the same way, but because of all the verses implying that they are two physically distinct individuals, we see these many similarities between Jehovah and Jesus as evidence that they were the same person, rather than as evidence that the Father and the Son are somehow two different manifestations of the same substance.

the issue there is that the two expressions are different.

The Exodus expression is E·go′ ei·mi ho on, meaning “I am The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One”

But in Joh 8:58 it is e·go′ ei·mi′ Jesus is only saying he is 'existing'.... he's not identifying who he is. But in exodus, God is identifying himself as 'The One'

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am just curious as to how Christian people interpret this passage:

"Jesus told them, "Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, before there was an Abraham, I AM!" John 8:58

In the Old Testament, God identified Himself as "I AM" and Jesus is revealing His Divinity in that verse. It's typically used as one of the proofs for the Holy Trinity. That's why you usually see the Greek letters that spell "I AM" in traditional iconography of Christ, such as here (in His halo):

 

[Katzpur]

the issue there is that the two expressions are different.

The Exodus expression is E·go′ ei·mi ho on, meaning “I am The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One”

But in Joh 8:58 it is e·go′ ei·mi′ Jesus is only saying he is 'existing'.... he's not identifying who he is. But in exodus, God is identifying himself as 'The One'

I could give you a whole lot of other examples, Pegg, but it wouldn't change anything.

 

[Pegg]

That's what I was thinking and I was also wondering about the contradiction in tense and whether that would be Jesus claiming he was the 'I Am' in the 'I Am that I Am'...whether it was Jesus' way of saying 'there is one infinite, permanent reality that existed before Abraham and I am that or I 'was there'.

I don't know how much difference it makes between Jesus saying 'I Am' or 'I was'...how would that change the whole context?

I thank everybody for their very thoughtful replies. I have read them, but they need more than just a brief once-over, I need to study those, so I shall do so and reply more later.

A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p.*267, says: “Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues,—a state in its duration...'

A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p.*62, says: “The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress

 

[Pegg]

I could give you a whole lot of other examples, Pegg, but it wouldn't change anything.

if there is evidence in the text that it should be taken to mean that Jesus is Jehovah, and the Jesus was saying he is the 'existing one'

then the text should prove it.

Im happy to look at the texts which you believe prove the point. But i dont think this particular text proves it at all.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

[*] R. Catholics, Greek Orth., East Orth, Russian Orth. and other Byzantine derived churches have multiple observations to make involving the 'Logos' which existed with God; but there are different levels of meaning to this verse.
[/LIST]

This is what I am starting to believe too, as a result of this thread.

Now, to reacquaint myself with this 'Logos' thing - it has been a while:
Logos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting...interesting...

*goes and contemplates.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

the issue there is that the two expressions are different.

The Exodus expression is E·go′ ei·mi ho on, meaning “I am The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One”

But in Joh 8:58 it is e·go′ ei·mi′ Jesus is only saying he is 'existing'.... he's not identifying who he is. But in exodus, God is identifying himself as 'The One'

Thank you! Frubal.

Now that's the stuff this thread is all about. I shall read on, but a great piece of intel there.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

In the Old Testament, God identified Himself as "I AM" and Jesus is revealing His Divinity in that verse. It's typically used as one of the proofs for the Holy Trinity. That's why you usually see the Greek letters that spell "I AM" in traditional iconography of Christ, such as here (in His halo):

Oh wow!! *another frubal.

The 'I Am' appearing in the halo of Jesus...that is amazing.

You do know how much this thrills me as a Hindu Vedantin, right? lol

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oh wow!! *another frubal.

The 'I Am' appearing in the halo of Jesus...that is amazing.

You do know how much this thrills me as a Hindu Vedantin, right? lol

Hahaha. Thanks. Yes, the tradition of depicting Christ in such a way goes back to the earliest representations of Christ in art. If you look at His hand, He is making the Sign of the Cross (with His first two fingers) and the Sign of the Trinity with the other three. Orthodox Christians typically one or the other hand gestures when crossing themselves.

I know about the Hindu teaching of the Trimurti and the unity of all things.