Claim: Jesus did not use ‘I am’ as a title for his divinity because
(a) the Hebrew word in Exodus 3:14, ‘Ehyer’ means ‘I will be’ and is almost never translated as ‘Eigo Eimi’ in the Greek old testament (LXX)
(b) The Septuagint (LXX, the Greek old testament) doesn’t refer to God as ‘Eigo eimi’ as a title, ho own is used for God’s title,
(c) “‘Eigo eimi’ is a common and would be meaningless if used. Further, it was never used by anyone.”
(d) “The jews did not know who he was when he said it so it obviously wasn’t an obvious use of a name of God and he clarified that he’d been telling them from the beginning that he is the Son of Man”:
f) The Son of Man, Son of God, and Messiah are synonyms.
MY RESPONSE:
A) ‘EHYER’ IS ALMOST NEVER TRANSLATED AS ‘EIGO EIMI’
Objector:
1) The issue is that God said “ehyeh aser ehyeh” and “ehyeh has sent you” in the Hebrew original, and ehyeh is almost never translated as ego eimi.
My Response: How often ‘ehyeh’ is translated as ‘eigo eimi’ has little to do with rather ‘ehyer’ and ‘eigo eimi’ have the same meaning. This is a non sequitur. More importantly, ‘ehyeh’ is translated both as ‘Eigo eimi’ in the LXX and ‘ho Own’. The phrase ‘ehyeh aser ehyeh’ is translated by ‘eigo eimi ho own’. That is, ehyeh (eigo eimi) aser (ho) ehyeh (own). Thus, we have the Jewish translators of the Hebrew bible into Greek assuming that both words equally express ‘ehyeh’ which is God’s name. So, whether Jesus asserted ‘eigo eimi’ or ‘ho vn’, these terms are synonymous.
B) THE SEPTUAGINT NEVER REFERS TO GOD AS ‘EIGO EIMI’.
Objector:
1) “Second, I know I’m right about Exodus 3:14. Ego eimi is NEVER used as a name in scripture. Therefore the suggestion that John attributes ego eimi to Jesus as a name would be meaningless.”
2) Finally, “I am” (ego eimi) is not ever used as a title.
3) “God did not tell Moses that his name is ego eimi.”
My Response:
i) This is question-begging, especially since this is what you’re supposed to prove. Thus, you must have some reason for thinking this. Your conclusion can’t be a reason for itself. But is it true? I don’t think so. In theThe Septuagint (LXX) actually does refer to God as a ‘eigo eimi’, an it does so in two places. Exodus 3:14 in the LXX has God saying– ‘Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν’ — Eigo eimi are the first two words. And this refers to God in this verse.
Secondly, Isaiah 43:10 in the LXX refers to God as ‘Eigo eimi’–
γένεσθέ μοι μάρτυρες, καὶ ἐγὼ μάρτυς, λέγει Κύριος ὁ θεός, καὶ ὁ παῖς ὃν ἐξελεξάμην, ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ πιστεύσητε καὶ συνῆτε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι· ἔμπροσθέν μου οὐκ ἐγένετο ἄλλος θεός, καὶ μετ᾽ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔσται.
“10 Be ye my witnesses, and I too am a witness, saith the Lord God, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know, and believe, and understand that I am he: before me there was no other God, and after me there shall be none.” LXX, 43:10
ii) Exodus 3:14 uses ‘ὁ ὤν’ as the name. Therefore, ”Ἐγώ εἰμι’ (I AM) is not his name. Both ‘Ἐγώ εἰμι and ὁ ὤν’ are present tense forms of ‘be’ and both are in the verse.
C) ‘EIGO EIMI’ IS COMMON; THEREFORE, IS NOT BEING USED A TITLE FOR GOD.
Objector: “the simple reasons that I’m certain that John wasn’t teaching that Jesus used it as a name is because that would be meaningless, as that name was never used by anyone else before(no, not even God) and it is a common Greek phrase that was already used twice previously in the chapter.”My Response: As I’ve stated previously, it doesn’t follow from the fact that a name or (words) are common that no one can or will use them as a title.Further, the word, ‘ehyer’ is also common in the Hebrew, appearing 43 times, yet ‘ehyer’ as God’s name. But if you’re right, then its not the name of God their either! But it is the name that God ascribes to himself. Thus, this doesn’t disprove that Jesus used ‘eigo eimi’ as a title. This is a redherring. Further, commonality of a word doesn’t make it less meaningful. It has nothing to do with meaning. Meaning is determined by use. If you use a common word differently, then that word would come to have a new meaning. This appears to be what God did in Exodus 3:14.
D) “THE JEWS DID NOT KNOW WHO HE WAS WHEN HE SAID IT SO IT OBVIOUSLY WASN’T AN OBVIOUS USE OF A NAME OF GOD AND HE CLARIFIED THAT HE’D BEEN TELLING THEM FROM THE BEGINNING THAT HE’S THE SON OF MAN:”
My Response: It is clear from verse 59 that the Jews later recognized him to be using the name of God, since they sought to stone him, the consequence of blasphemy.
24 THUS I TOLD YOU THAT YOU WILL DIE IN YOUR SINS. FOR UNLESS YOU BELIEVE THAT I AM HE, YOU WILL DIE IN YOUR SINS.”25 SO THEY SAID TO HIM, “WHO ARE YOU?” JESUS REPLIED, “WHAT I HAVE TOLD YOU FROM THE BEGINNING. 26 I HAVE MANY THINGS TO SAY AND TO JUDGE ABOUT YOU, BUT THE FATHER WHO SENT ME IS TRUTHFUL, AND THE THINGS I HAVE HEARD FROM HIM I SPEAK TO THE WORLD.” 27 (THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT HE WAS TELLING THEM ABOUT HIS FATHER.) 28 THEN JESUS SAID, “WHEN YOU LIFT UP THE SON OF MAN, THEN YOU WILL KNOW THAT I AM HE, AND I DO NOTHING ON MY OWN INITIATIVE, BUT I SPEAK JUST WHAT THE FATHER TAUGHT ME
First, your interpretation that ‘I am’ refers to the Son of man is weak. The son of Man was not believed to be ancient. Scripture doesn’t teach that his life was extended into the past; however, this is the point that Jesus was making. The Jews did recognize that God was eternal (everlasting). Thus, your interpretation fails to support the idea that Jesus was suggesting that he was the Son of man. Second, son of God has a different meaning from the Son of Man title. While the Son of man is said to be given an everlasting kingdom and dominion (Daniel 7:13), it is said of the Son of God that he existed in the beginning with God. Further, the most crucial detail to be explained is Jesus’ use of the present tense when grammatically the imperfect was required. Your explanation cannot explain this. Thus, the hypothesis that Jesus was teaching that he was the Son of God is the most powerful. It explains all of the data in the chapter.Furthermore, verse 27 clearly states that what they didn’t understand was who his father was; namely, God the father. Thus, what they failed to understand was Jesus’ relationship to God. They failed to understand that Jesus was the Son of God.Verse 24 suggests this as well–they would know after Jesus’ crucifixion that a) his teachings were God’s teachings and b)He was the Son.
F) THE SON OF MAN, SON OF GOD, AND MESSIAH ARE SYNONYMS.
Objector: “King of the Jews, son of man, son of God, Christ, messiah are all synonymous.”
My Response: Not only does your interpretation fail to explain the obvious sense of the verses in the book of John, but you’ve made a sweeping claim that Son of man, messiah, and son of God are synonyms. Here, we must make a distinction between different words having the same referent and words having the same meaning. The ‘Son of Man’ and ‘I am’ in verse 24-5 may have the same referent but Jesus explanation was knowledge about the a) origin of his message and b) relationship with God would be what they knew: “…but I speak just what the Father taught me.” The Jews did not recognize these terms to have the same referent. Also, there is no where in John that states that the resurrection confirms that Jesus is the Son of man to the contrary. Your interpretation doesn’t explain this context. The best interpretation is that Jesus alludes to the divine name to explain his superiority to Abraham and eternal essence. Prior to reading any of the church fathers, this seemed to me to be the best explanation for several reasons. First, it explains the grammatical anomaly of an imperfect and present tense verb being used in John 8:58. Your interpretation does nothing to explain this, since the son of Man was not thought to be eternal in the past. Secondly, The aim of John in his gospel was that “may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” John here points to two facts–a) Jesus is the Son of God and b) His name brings life. This central aim of John is most consistent with Jesus suggesting that his essence was divine, but divinity wasn’t attributed to the Son of Man. Thus, your interpretation fails to fit with John’s aim in writing the gospel. But this view and argument isn’t unique to me. It has been held by church fathers, doctors, and modern theologians:As early as 407 ad, St. Chrysostem argued the exact thing that I did, and I had no clue:
“But wherefore said He not, “Before Abraham was, I was,” instead of “I Am”? As the Father useth this expression, “I Am,” so also doth Christ; for it signifieth continuous Being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous. Now if they could not bear the comparison with Abraham, although this was but a trifling one, had He continually made Himself equal to the Father, would they ever have ceased casting stones at Him?” — St. Chrysostem, Homily LV, The gospel of John.
And Augustine, Tractate XLIII:
“17. The angry Jews replied, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?” And the Lord: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was made, I am.”817 Weigh the words, and get a knowledge of the mystery. “Before Abraham was made.” Understand, that “was made” refers to human formation; but “am” to the Divine essence. “He was made,” because Abraham was a creature. He did not say, Before Abraham was, I was; but, “Before Abraham was made,” who was not made save by me, “I am.” Nor did He say this, Before Abraham was made I was made; for “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;”818 and “in the beginning was the Word.”819 “Before Abraham was made, I am.” Recognize the Creator—distinguish the creature. He who spake was made the seed of Abraham; and that Abraham might be made, He Himself was before Abraham.”
Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Ch 6
“But Luke, though he says at the beginning of Acts, “The former treatise did I make about all that Jesus began to do and to teach,” yet leaves to him who lay on Jesus’ breast the greatest and completest discourses about Jesus. For none of these plainly declared His Godhead, as John does when he makes Him say, “I am the light of the world,” “I am the way and the truth and the life,” “I am the resurrection,” “I am the door,” “I am the good shepherd;” and in the Apocalypse, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”
Ignatius, The Epistle to the Tarsians, ch 6:
“Nor is He a mere man, by whom and in whom all things were made; for “all things were made by Him.”1196 “When He made the heaven, I was present with Him; and I was there with Him, forming [the world along with Him], and He rejoiced in me daily.”1197 And how could a mere man be addressed in such words as these: “Sit Thou at My right hand?”1198 And how, again, could such an one declare: “Before Abraham was, I am?”
Aquinas Commentary on John:
” To counteract their ridicule, our Lord answers the Jews by explaining his words, saying, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I am. These words of our Lord mention two things about himself that are noteworthy and efficacious against the Arians.One is that, as Gregory says, he combines words of present and past time, because before signifies the past, and am signifies the present.Therefore, in order to show that he is eternal, and to indicate that his existence is an eternal existence, he does not say, “before Abraham, I was,” but before Abraham, I am. For eternal existence knows neither past nor future time, but embraces all time in one indivisible [instant].Thus it could be said: “He who is, sent me to you,” and “I am who am” (Ex 3:14). Jesus had being both before Abraham and after him, and he could approach him by showing himself in the present and be after him in the course of time.
Modern theologians share this view: Craig Keener:
“Thus they would die in their sins (8:24; see comment on 8:21, 34; cf. 9:41) unless they believed Jesus was “he” (8:24; cf. 3:18; 16:9). Some think Jesus’ use of “I am [he]” in 8:24 (cf. 8:28; 13:19) means “I am the Messiah.”389 More than likely, however, it reflects a theophanic formula from Isaiah 43:10, as 8:58 confirms. If our traditions are accurate, this particular title revealing God’s character was already in use at the festival of Tabernacles.The ambiguity of Jesus’ language (“eigo/ eimi” signifying “I am he” or “I am”) fits the Gospel’s pattern of double entendres inviting misunderstanding from those disinclined to persevere. This ambiguity is fully resolved in 8:58, however.” (Keener, John Commentary, pg 744)
Also,
“Ancient orators sometimes employed ambiguous language to stir (favorable) interest, but Jesus in 8:58 is far more provocative than that. Especially in its predicative form (6:35, 48, 51; 8:12; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5), “I am” is a grammatically normal enough statement (8:18). Even in its absolute form, it does not necessarily imply deity when it contextually implies, “I am (the one in question)” (9:9; cf. 4:26; 6:20). When “I am” lacks even an implied predicate, however, it becomes unintelligible except as an allusion to God’s name in the Hebrew Bible or LXX.” (Ibid, pg 769)
Keener argues that their is a clear parallel to Jesus claim to divinity in Sukka53a and the LXX, Isaiah 43:10
“10 Be ye my witnesses, and I too am a witness, saith the Lord God, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know, and believe, and understand that I am he: before me there was no other God, and after me there shall be none.” LXX, 43:10
“γένεσθέ μοι μάρτυρες, καὶ ἐγὼ μάρτυς, λέγει Κύριος ὁ θεός, καὶ ὁ παῖς ὃν ἐξελεξάμην, ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ πιστεύσητε καὶ συνῆτε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι· ἔμπροσθέν μου οὐκ ἐγένετο ἄλλος θεός, καὶ μετ᾽ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔσται.”
Note, that esomai isn’t used here. God speaks of himself in the present tense, exactly the way we find it in John 8:58
Conclusion: The best textual evidence we have that Jesus applied the name of God as a title comes from the Jewish translation of the Hebrew — ehyeh aser ehyeh — as ‘eigo eimi’ and ‘own’ The translated the same word into two different word forms. Thus, these terms were synonymous to the Jewish translators two centuries before Jesus was born. Jesus could have just as easily claimed to be God by saying ‘ho own’ or ‘eigo eimi’. The fact that Jesus asserted ‘eigo eimi’ without a predicate is unintelligible. This creates two grammatical anomalies. First, the use of the imperfect tense with reference to Abraham requires an imperfect tense with reference to himself, but Jesus violates the grammar to make a point. Secondly, Jesus doesn’t supply a predicate object with his ‘I am’ claim, leaving the ‘I am’ ringing in the ears of the listener.Further, we have several points on our side of interpretation–the tradition of commentators on John 8:58, the specific grammatical anomalies in 8:58, the closer parallels to Isaiah 43:10 in the LXX, and the translation of ‘ehyeh’ as both ‘eigo eimi’ and ‘ho own’ by Jewish translators. In verse 8:58, we see Jesus applying divinity to himself by alluding to the name of God. Furthermore, a part from this evidence within Isaiah, we see that the Church fathers saw this to be a claim of divinity, and the Jews in verse 59 attempted to stone him after this statement. The interpretation that Jesus refers to the Son of God is a minority view, wouldn’t explain the grammatical anomaly in verse 58, wasn’t forbidden by Jewish law and, thus, wouldn’t have been a cause for stoning. The son of man is stated to receive an everlasting kingdom. Scripture says nothing about him being eternal (past and present). However, Jesus being the son of God as John writes in John 1 does: “in the beginning was the word,” does imply eternality. Thus, your hypothesis fails to explains why John would have Jesus say this if it were his view. I stand on firm ground in believing, like many histories of church fathers and Christians before me, that this is John’s way of alluding to Jesus’ divinity, teaching that Jesus applied what was recognized by his on-lookers as a divine name. This explanation better aligns with John’s overall aim in writing his Gospel: “But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31, NET). Your explanation, thus, even falls short of what John claims is his intention in the gospel.