Is Jesus the “I AM?”
October 3rd, 2007 by Sean
I recently received an email from a gentleman in the Philippines who was delighted to hear about the gospel of the kingdom for the first time but really struggled with our understanding of Christ. He asked, “Can you explain to me when Jesus used the tittle I am, Which I am is God tittle.(Ex.3;14 John 18;5-8)?” This is a good question that needs to be asked and answered. Many times in modern translations John 8.58 will look like this.
John 8:58 (NAB)
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.”
Notice the capitalization of the words “I AM” which immediately bring the informed reader to recall that just the same thing was said by God in Exodus 3.14.
Exodus 3:14 (NAB)
God replied, “I am who am.” Then he added, “This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you.”
But is this impression the correct one for the reader? I believe that John 8.58 does not say that Jesus is the “I AM” of Exodus 3.14. The phrase translated “I am” in John 8.58 is ego eimi. This same exact phrase is translated as “I am he” (John 8.18, 24, 28) or “I am the one” (John 9.9). Of course, the words ego eimi may also be translated “I am” or “it’s me” etc. This simple phrase is common and it is certainly not some special divine terminology that only God uses. For example, the blind man uses the same words in reference to himself just 10 verses later.
John 9:8-10 (NASB)
8 Therefore the neighbors, and those who previously saw him as a beggar, were saying, “Is not this the one who used to sit and beg?” 9 Others were saying, “This is he,” still others were saying, “No, but he is like him.” He kept saying, “I am the one.” 10 So they were saying to him, “How then were your eyes opened?”
The words translated “I am the one” are ego eimi, exactly the same words Jesus used. So maybe Jesus is not trying to make us think of the I AM of Exodus 3.14 when he answered the Pharisees. Maybe he is just saying, “I am the one” (i.e. I am the promised Messiah, cf. John 4.26). But, there’s more…
We have a Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint (LXX), which we can use to see exactly how these two verses line up with each other.
John 8.58
ειπεν αυτοις ιησους αμην αμην λεγω υμιν
said he Jesus amen amen I say to youπριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι
before Abraham became I am (he)
Exodus 3.14
και ειπεν ο θεος προς Μωυσην εγω ειμι ο ων
and said the God to Moses I am the beingκαι ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις Ισραηλ
and said he thus speak to sons of Israelο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας
the being sent me to you
So, in the Greek translation of Exodus 3.14 ego eimi is used but not the way one would expect. In fact God says ego eimi o on (εγω ειμι ο ων) which means “I am the being” or “I am the existing one.” Of course on (ων) is closely related to eimi (ειμι) being that it is the verb participle BUT my point is that if John 8.58 wanted us to connect Jesus with the “I AM” of Exodus 3.14, then the text should read ego eimi o on (εγω ειμι ο ων) or simply o on (ο ων) but the text instead says ego eimi (εγω ειμι). Simply put, the Gospel of John is not trying to connect Jesus in 8.58 with God in Exodus 3.14 and to translate it so that there is such an obvious connection is at best careless and at worst deceitful.
The following comments by Jason David BeDuhn are instructive:
Truth in Translation pgs 107-108
Actually, “I am” is a very uncertain rendering of the Hebrew expression in Exodus. But those who promote the significance of the parallel between Exodus 3:14 and the expression “I am” in John say that the correspondence between the two is proven by the exact match in how Exodus 3.14 is translated in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint) that was known to the New Testament authors and the wording used by John. A quick look at the Septuagint, however show this claim to be in error.The Septuagint of Exodus 3:14 has God say ego eimi ho on, “I am the being,” or “I am the one that exists.”…God does not say “I am I AM,” he says “I am the being.” “I am” sets up the title or identification God uses of himself, it is not itself a title. Separating “I am” off as if it were meant to stand alone is an interpretive sleight-of-hand, totally distorting the role the phrase plays in the whole sentence, either in the Greek Septuagint version of Exodus 3:14 or in John 8:58. There is absolutely nothing in the original Greek of John 8:58 to suggest he is quoting the Old Testament here…”
Sean
Thanks for delving into this and explaining it from the Greek. This seems to make sense that Jesus was not trying to quote from Exodus 3:14.
Any ideas why Jesus said that before Abraham was, he (Jesus) is? Is it possible that Jesus existed before Abraham, if not bodily, then perhaps spiritually?
Rich
Rich, you bring up a good point. Now that we see what John 8.58 is NOT saying…what is it saying? I recently looked up some info on the Jewish idea of pre-existence. I came across the following quotation from the Talmud.
Also, I found an interesting note in James Dunn’s book on Paul that quotes J. Klausner, in his book The Messianic Idea in Israel (pg 460) saying,
Perhaps John is writing from a more Jewish perspective, thinking of pre-existence in terms of predestination. In other words, Jesus can say “I existed before Abraham came to be” in the mind of God. In other words, if existence for the messiah begins not at birth but when God conceives of him then certainly we see that at least as early as Genesis 3.15 God is working towards a descendant who will crush the serpent (cp. John 12.31-32; 16.11; 1 John 4.4). Thus, Jesus asserts preeminence beyond even Abraham the greatest of the patriarchs by asserting that he was in God’s mind before Abraham even came on the scene.
Jesus himself actually used the phrase “I am he” twice before in the very same chapter, talking about him being the promised one to come.
John 8:
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.
25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.
27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.
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.
29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
Jesus wasn’t saying he was “the Great I AM” or the “Self-existent One” as God is. He was simply saying “I am he” which he defined in v.25 as “I am who I have been saying I am all along.” He’d been saying all along that he was the Son of God, not God in the flesh. And verse 28 says as plain as can be, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He.”
Sean,
The idea of pre-existence “in the mind of God” is also found in the prophets where God said to Jeremiah “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (1:5).
It’s also in Paul’s writings in 2 Tim 1:9 “This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (and possibly elsewhere).
Adolf von Harnack picks up on the massive change from 1 Peter 1.20 to 2 Clement 9.5.
Do you see the difference? On the one hand (in the 1st century) Jesus is foreknown (he does not yet literally exist) then by the second century Clement may say as a passing remark that Jesus was first a spirit. Harnack has this to say about 2 Clem 9.5
Furthermore, Harnack points out that this 2 Clem 9.5 way of thinking about pre-existence is poles apart from what the Jews thought about pre-existence. He has this to say about the Jewish perspective:
Thus, I reiterate, the Messiah was in the mind of God before Abraham ever came to be, though Abraham literally existed before Jesus was born.
To read an fine synopsis of the History of Dogma, Vol 1 go to our God is 1 not 3 site and click on the article “The Radical Deformation” by Alex Hall.
Thanks to Sean and all for the excellent insight into Biblical foreknowledge and the early corruption of that concept.
The context of why Jesus declared what he did in John 8:58 is interesting: he had emphasized thet Abraham would not have done what these hypocritically self-confident “children of Abraham” were doing, namely, seek to kill the Messiah (v. 40.) In contrast to Abraham’s deeds, these religious leaders were of their father, the devil (as evidenced by their desires and deeds.) When they accused Jesus of blasphemous presumption, he mentioned Abraham’s knowledge and attitude toward the coming Messiah: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad. (v. 56) Of course this statement (like many in the context) was misunderstood and twisted by those who “could not hear his word.” As perhaps evident in Melchizedec’s presenting of bread and wine in Genesis 14 and the lesson involving the sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22 and Hebrews 11: 17-19), Abraham saw what God revealed to him regarding the Messiah. Logically, that Messiah had to have already “been” in God’s foreknoledge.
God certainly does “call to Himself the things that do not exist as though they did.” (Romans 4: 17 – Williams translation)
I find it interesting, and kind of funny, that Jesus says “Abraham saw my day” – and the Pharisees ask a totally different question. “When did you see Abraham”. That wasn’t what Jesus said at all. But Jesus goes along with their misconception to confuse them further. Jesus has a sense of humor
JohnO
An excellent point!
John 8:58 certainly is an example of Jesus’ use of well placed irony to cap off this dialogue with those who had no place for the Messiah’s words in their hearts.
As a recent crossover to the unitarian doctrine of One God…what keeps leaping into my mind is Christ’s great commission, to baptise in the in name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. How are those words explained to those who argue for the Trinity. Haven’t seen it debated here.
Hey Randy,
Great to have you here. Well even biblical unitarians such as ourselves don’t have a problem with Mt 28.19. We don’t deny that God, Jesus, or the holy spirit are involved with all Christian activities such as evangelism and discipleship. Some go so far as to deny the authenticity of this verse, but that isn’t a good case. Eusebius is usually brought in to support this claim, but the problem is that he quotes it the way we have it, and so do many other church fathers before him (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, and the Didache). None of them have alternate versions. Every manuscript we have has the verse as we see it in Mt 28.19.
This verse doesn’t cause problems for us because it doesn’t posit any relationship of oneness (trinitiarian), or indenticalness (holiness / bi-theism). It merely lists three names. If we didn’t know better, we couldn’t say that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are respective fathers and sons. The list doesn’t inherently make any relationship known.
JohnO, a minor correction is that there is one name.
One’s name is everything they stand for, their agenda or cause. Thus to baptize someone in the name of the Father, Son and holy spirit means that this new convert has given up his own agenda and taken on what God has done through his son in the power of the spirit.
I guess I don’t get it… how is three names one name?
In Greek the word for “name” is singular. If three names were meant we would have the plural form in the text.
JohnO—–may I offer this—( keep in mind that the word or name Jesus means “God saves”)
Jesus said I come in my Father’s name (Jn 5:43)- I believe that God is the Holy Spirit– there is only one Holy Spirit– God is Holy and God is Spirit ( the Holy Spirit is a function of God in action)— SO– there is one name shared or given by God and that name is Jesus—
Jesus said — do all that you do in my name–Jn 14:13,14—
If you will notice– ALL of the baptisms that are mentioned in the book of Acts are done in the name of Jesus—–after Pentecost the Apostles were operating under the anointing of the Holy Spirit– and I believe they had a revelation of what Jesus was saying in Matthew 28:19,20—
AND– there IS POWER in the name Jesus— there is no power in the words father– son– or Holy Spirit– as Christians– we don’t rebuke anything by saying– ” I rebuke you in the name of the son”– or “I rebuke you in the name of the father”– we always use the word or NAME that has power– “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus”—