John 8 brought to life

Rivers,

I am glad that, at long last, you have eventually acknowledged your “error” (“I do think that Jesus was referring to heaven in John 8:23” – Rivers). Certainly, otherwise, there would have been a blatant inconsistency between Rivers #1 and Rivers #2.

So, now, your answer to my question …

Where is the (allegedly resurrected) Abraham, so that he can see (or “see”?) the resurrected Jesus Christ?

… should be obvious: the (allegedly resurrected) Abraham, can see (or “see”?) the resurrected Jesus Christ in heaven. Right? 🙂

And, presumably, since Abraham was (allegedly) resurrected, several other people are (allegedly) resurrected and see (or “see”?) the resurrected Jesus Christ in heaven. Right? 🙂

Rivers,

in your emphasis, it obvioulsy escaped you that it is Rivers #1 and Rivers #2 that I find hard to reconcile.

Now, that you have repeatedly implied that the “place” of the resurrection (the “heavenly city”, the “heavenly Jerusalem”) are “not of this world”, cane you please explain to me (and to us all) why you wrote …

[Rivers #1 – December 23, 2014 at 10:26 pm]
Jesus was talking about resurrection throughout the entire context of John 8:12-58 and said nothing about “heaven.” The Jews didn’t ask Jesus anything about “heaven” either.

… the above? Thanks 🙂

[Rivers #1 – December 23, 2014 at 10:26 pm]
Jesus was talking about resurrection throughout the entire context of John 8:12-58 and said nothing about “heaven.” The Jews didn’t ask Jesus anything about “heaven” either.

[Mario – December 25, 2014 at 2:38 pm] As you are so convinced that Jesus was speaking about Abraham being resurrected, can you please enlighten us all? We know from the NT that Jesus is resurrected and “sitting at the right of the Power” [Matthew 26:64]. Where is the (allegedly resurrected) Abraham, so that he can see (or “see”?) the resurrected Jesus Christ?

[Rivers #2 – December 25, 2014 at 7:44 pm] According to the writer of Hebrews, Abraham was “looking for a city whose architect and builder is God” (Hebrews 11:10). He called it “the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Hebrews 12:22-28). Hence, I would conclude that this is where they expected Abraham to go to be with Jesus and the other saints “in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 8:11) on “the last day” (John 6:39).

Rivers,

I am not aware that something called “heavenly Jerusalem” is present here on earth. So, can you help me understand where it would be? I have some problem reconciling Rivers #1 and Rivers #2. 🙁

Thanks … 🙂

Mario,

According to the writer of Hebrews, Abraham was “looking for a city whose architect and builder is God” (Hebrews 11:10). He called it “the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Hebrews 12:22-28). Hence, I would conclude that this is where they expected Abraham to go to be with Jesus and the other saints “in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 8:11) on “the last day” (John 6:39).

Or

RRPPC = Rejector of the Real Personal Preexistence of Christ

Anyone want to vote? I like this one best. So no more “Socinians”; from now on, I’ll say things like:

“IMO, RRPPCs become contortionists in their determination to deny what John 8:58 is clearly telling us.”

Think that’ll make it into the Zeitgeist? 😉

~Sean

“Next time I visit maybe I’ll just call you PRs”

I wonder if the check of the “ever-pleasant chap” has anything to do with the “P” … 😉

… somehow, acronyms like Public Relations, Performance Reviews, Psychopathic Records, Patent Rules, Pakistan Railways, Per Rectals or Pompous Rivers seem less suitable … 😉

Rivers,

“I’d suggest that using a term like “biblical unitarian” would be a better way of generally referring to people who are not Trinitarians. Calling it “Socinianism” makes it sound like you are only informed about one minority perspective on the issues (like other Trinitarians who think everybody else is an “Arian” because they don’t know anything else).”

But my purpose isn’t just to refer to people who are not Trinitarians; it’s to describe those who reject the real personal preexistence of Jesus. “Biblical Unitarian” is too broad, as it doesn’t distinguish between Unitarians who deny the preexistence of Christ vs those who affirm it, while most people who engage in these discussions probably know that Socianians reject Christ’s preexistence. Also, it just so happens that if you deny Jesus’ preexistence, than “biblical” is a misnomer, as far as I’m concerned, so I’d be less than honest every time I use the appellation. As we’ve seen in this very dialogue, you have to become a contortionists to try and escape what GJohn’s Jesus is clearly saying. I could perhaps put “biblical” in quotations when doing so, to make it clear that this is your description, not mine, but then Mario would no doubt start whining about scare quotes, ever-pleasant chap that he is (sarcasm alert).

Probably best that I just concentrate on my blog and my work for now. Next time I visit maybe I’ll just call you PRs:-) Hard to get offended over that, don’t you think? Ditto on the dialoguing part.

~Sean

John,

Thank you.

The benefit of having these dialogues is so that every one can consider the evidence for himself and make up his own mind. I think it’s especially good when we have the opportunity to discuss perspectives that are as far apart as possible (e.g. I don’t see any evidence of preexistence or incarnation and another believes in the preexistence and incarnation of an eternal being).

From my perspective, it must be the evidence in the apostolic testimony that is the deciding factor if one or the other is going to change his mind. It’s not my responsibility to convince a Trinitarian that the apostles didn’t conceive of preexistence or incarnation. Likewise, a Trinitarian isn’t going to convince me that there is preexistence or incarnation unless I can see it for myself in the texts.

Dale, Mario, Sean & Rivers
Thank you all for what was for me, a ‘sparkling’ debate.
I really appreciate your sharp intellects and have a lot of material to mull over!
Sean, I’m sorry that I couldn’t be ‘pulled’ into the ‘pre-existence camp’ . Your thinking in other areas has had considerable impact on me.
Dale, thanks for providing the means whereby we can enjoy this kind of discussion!
May you all have a wonderful Christmas and every blessing to you and yours in 2015.

God Bless
John
Zimbabwe

Mario,

Here’s the response to your “check” questions that you requested earlier:

1. No, I don’t think there’s any evidence that the apostles believed that Jesus preexisted his human birth in any form. I also don’t think there is any evidence that they believed in the “incarnation” of anything (personal or impersonal) occurring when he was born. The post-apostolic concepts of preexistence and incarnation were contrived from a misunderstanding the Prologue and a few other texts in the 4th Gospel and Philippians.

2. Yes, I think it’s evident that LOGOS was a name given to Jesus Christ by the apostles after they knew him (Revelation 19:13). They came to understand that Jesus Christ literally embodied the message of eternal life that came to them from God the Father after he was “manifested” to them when he began his public ministry among them (1 John 1:1-2).

3. Yes, I think it’s evident that Jesus was teaching that the resurrection of the dead was pending during his own era (“the house is coming, and now is”, John 5:25-28) and that some of those who believed in him would never die (John 11:25-26). I think the most likely interpretation of PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI is that it referred to the impending resurrection of Abraham on “the last day.”

4. Yes, I would be considered a Preterist in the fullest sense because I take all the statements of Jesus and the apostles to be immediately relevant to the historical circumstances of the apostolic era. I use the same hermeneutic consistently when interpreting all of the New Testament books.

… you [Rivers] assume that the Jews misunderstood Jesus, but their inference is a legitimate one in light of what Jesus said in verse 56. So even IF it were true that they misunderstood him, their misunderstanding was an understandable one in light of what Jesus said. As it turns out, however, in this case they inferred correctly, as Jesus confirms by telling them that he had been in existence since before Abraham was born.

That the “inference [that ‘the Jews’ made at John 8:57] is a legitimate one” does NOT imply that it is right. In John 8:56 Jesus did NOT speak of himself existing when Abraham was alive, BUT ONLY of Abraham “seeing” him (“Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad”). That, for instance, makes it legitimate to consider Abraham’s “seeing” as a reference to a prophetic vision granted to Abraham by the Lord.

So no, they did NOT “infer correctly”, and the claim that “Jesus confirms” their inference is pure projection of the prejudice on his “personal pre-existence”.

Rivers,

let me check.

1. You deny that someone (or something: a “he” or an “it”) divine in Jesus pre-existed Jesus’ birth.

2. You affirm that logos is a “name” that the apostles gave Jesus “when Jesus was ‘dwelling among’ them during the time of his public ministry”.

3. You claim that prin abraam genesthai refers to Abraham being resurrected within Jesus’ lifetime (or, perhaps, within the generation of the apostles).

Are the above points accurate?

If they are, can I ask you a question: do you subscribe to preterism?

If the are not, can you please indicate where they are not?

Thanks 🙂

Rephrase:

“No, they’re not elipses. EIMI is used there existentially, not elliptically. “I have been in existence since before Abraham was born” represents, in English, what Jesus said in Greek.

To:

“No, it’s not an ellipsis. EIMI at John 8:58 is being used existentially, not elliptically. ‘I have been in existence since before Abraham was born’ represents in English what Jesus said in Greek.”

If I were ever to find myself in a conversation with someone who chose to offer a non sequitur to the most important think I said, I’d quickly excuse myself, and I’d probably ask others “What’s wrong with that guy?”

“How could you, a man not yet 50 years old, have seen Abraham?”

“Before Abraham is resurrected, I am!”

What in the world does that response have to do with the price of eggs? Nothing, and it’s clearly not what Jesus meant.

~Sean

Sean,

The reason we used paraphrasing to help elucidate that meaning of John 8:58 is because “before Abraham becomes” and “I am” are ellipses. Thus, they must be paraphrased based upon the context of the discussion in which Jesus made the statement.

Your suggestion that Jesus made a statement “allowing for Jesus to have seen Abraham” is contrary to the evidence. Both Jesus and the Jews understood that Abraham had “died” (John 8:52-53). To try to force an inference of “preexistence” into the common Greek expression EGW EIMI is completely unwarranted.

I think you are misreading the answer the Jews gave as well. Jesus said only that Abraham rejoiced to see HIS (Jesus’) day” (John 8:57). The only way a dead person could have actually been present to “see” Jesus in his day would have been by resurrection (John 8:33-36, 51). Throughout the entire context of the discussion, these Jews did not understand that Jesus was speaking about resurrection life (John 8:13-14; 21-25; 33-36; 51-53). That is why Jesus corrected their remark in John 8:57 by telling them that his presence (EIMI) was the reason that Abraham was going to “come to be again”(GENESTHAI).

Unfortunately, it doesn’t logically follow that, because “there was a know Greek idiom called Extension From Past Idiom”, it is what was intended by the writer in this context. Identifying an idiomatic expression is an interpretation. Some speculate that the elements of such an idiom are present in John 8:58, but all the elements of a normal ellipsis (which is far more common) are also present. Thus, it’s forced at best to insist that an “idiom” is necessary here. When the highly unusual idiom is unnecessary here, it’s probably wrong.

I’m not a Socinian either, but I’m “scratching my head” wondering where you get the bizarre idea that John 8:58 infers anything about “preexistence in heaven.” There is simply nothing in the context of the Jews question, or Jesus’ answer, that requires any such inference about preexistence or heaven.

Jesus was talking about resurrection throughout the entire context of John 8:12-58 and said nothing about “heaven.” The Jews didn’t ask Jesus anything about “heaven” either. 🙂

Mario,

I don’t think my suggestion that John 8:58 is resurrection text is based upon any presuppositions about “preexistence” (in any sense).

The verb GENESQAI simply meant that Abraham was going to come to exist again (i.e. resurrection) as a result of Jesus himself being present (EIMI) at the time he was conversing with the Jews. Jesus claimed to be “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25) and as such he was going raised the dead (John 5:25-29) where they could be with “Abraham” in the kingdom (Matthew 8:11).

This interpretation avoids all the unnecessary debate about “preexistence” and doesn’t require any manipulation of the verb forms. We all understand and agree that Jesus was going to come before the resurrection of the dead (regardless of whether one believes in “preexstience” or not).

Mario,

I don’t need to appeal to other scholars. The grammatical and contextual evidence I’ve provided for the understanding of John 8;58 as a resurrection text can speak for itself.

As with any scholarly opinion that is offered, you should evaluate its merit based upon the exegesis. If you don’t think it’s reasonable, then you should continue to hold a different opinion. Everyone needs to consider the evidence for himself and make up his own mind. I’m just offering a different perspective that I think is more plausible than other scholarly opinions.

Rivers
I am most grateful to you for being so explicit regarding ‘I am”.

Regarding the ‘before Abraham’ aspect of your answer, I had always assumed that
Christ was saying that before Abraham was born, He had always been part of Gods plan.

I’m looking forward to seeing how you and Mario resolve the issue.

God Bless You!
John

John,

With that said … I don’t think the occurrence of EGW EIMI in John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 is anything but coincidental for a couple of reasons.

First, EGW EIMI is really nothing more than the simple expression of “I am [the someone or something]” in biblical Greek. It is used this way numerous times in the 4th Gospel, as well as the rest of the NT scriptures without any implication of “deity” or being “name” of any sort in any other context. Thus, seems unlikely that it would be used an exceptional way in this one occurrence.

Second, there’s no indication in the context of John 8:58 that any allusion to Exodus 3:14 would have been intended or necessary (especially when considering that Jesus and the Jews were probably speaking the native Hebrew language and not Greek when they had the conversation). Jesus and the Jews were talking about Abraham (not Moses) and they weren’t discussing anything about the name of God Himself.

Throughout the context of John 8:12-58, even though the Jews were asking Jesus to identify who he was (John 8:25), Jesus always distinguished himself from his “Father” (John 8:16-18) and the Jews also understood that he was referring to someone else when they spoke of the “Father” (John 8:19, 41). By the time the conversation comes to the immediate context of John 8:51-58, the conversation has become about Abraham (and not God the Father).

The other issue (as we’ve been discussing on the Zarley thread) is how we should take the previous clause “before Abraham …” Many interpreters take this to be referring to the time of the birth of Abraham and thus they conclude that Jesus was saying “I was [existing]” before, or “I have been [existing]” since, Abraham’s birth (which is construed to be a claim to preexistence or deity).

On the other hand, others interpret “before Abraham …” to be referring to the resurrection of Abraham which had not taken place before the conversation that Jesus was having with the Jews in John 8, and thus Jesus would have simply been saying “I am [existing]” before Abraham is resurrected on the last day. This interpretation preserves the simple meaning of EGW EIMI that is consistent with how it was used everywhere else in the NT.

Mario/ Rivers
Is it correct to saythat “I am that I am” is a designation rather than a name.
In all cases the concordances show that the word hyh or hwh is a verb.

Similarly the use of ‘eimi’ in John 8v58?

Blessings
John

John

I notice that
-the verb ‘hyh’ means ‘to be’
-but ‘hwh’ is also an acceptable form as Rivers suggests.

Actually, grammarians agree that hwh is the original root, and hyh derivative, trough vav conversion.

so we get y a H W e H after inserting the vowels and prefixing with ‘y’ to denote that the third person masculine singular is being discussed.

This is all rather speculative.

Hi John,

There’s really no need to insert any vowels. The Hebrew vowels sounds were already present in the consants.

Alef (A) = a vowel sound

Hei (H) = e vowel sound

Yod (Y) = i vowel sound

Ayin (O) = o vowel sound

Vav (V) = u vowel sound

There is also another automatic vowel sound because some Hebrew words do not have any of these vowel letters but only consonants. However, whenever the human voice attempts to pronounce certain consecutive consonant sounds (without a vowel in between), there is an automatic “uh” sound that occurs. For example, try pronouncing a word like “woman” as WMN and you’ll hear it.

Some have argued for a middle -oh- sound in a tri-syllabical Name. Vestiges of the middle -oh- sound are found in theophoric names like Jehoshaphat and Jonathan.

Rivers,

thank you for your interesting “simple explanation” on the origin, meaning and pronunciation on the proper name of God, YHWH.

P.S. I wonder why the Masoretes bothered at all with niqqûd, not to mention d’geshim, te’amim …

P.P.S. You may benefit from checking your explanation with this: http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/YahwehNotes.pdf

Rivers,

you may find this a useful introduction: michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/yhwh/

Rivers

God’s Proper Name, YHWH is certainly mysterious, for various reasons: by Jesus’ day, the Hebrews didn’t know how to pronounce it, didn’t know for sure from which root it comes from, and, of course, didn’t know its meaning (if it has any “meaning” at all).

OTOH, I have suggested that YHWH probably derives from the Semitic root “hwy” (from the verb hava’, NOT hayah) may mean something like: “He who makes things happen”.

Can you please provide the source of your claim that “The Hebrew name YHWH can be derived from contracting all of the different forms (aspects) of the Hebrew verb meaning ‘to be’”? Thanks.

Hi Mario,

The meaning of YHWH may not be as “mysterious” as you suggest in your article (which I enjoyed reading).

The Hebrew name YHWH can be derived from contracting all of the different forms (aspects) of the Hebrew verb meaning “to be” (and assuming that the duplicate letters would be dropped). Thus, the name probably meant “who is, who was, who will be.” By implication, the Almighty one.

It’s interesting to consider that this may be what John the Revelator was roughly translated into Greek in Revelation 1:8 where he said “the [one who] is, the [one who] was, and [the one] coming, the Almighty.”

Hi John

To access my Beliefnet post, do the following:

1. Copy the URL (community.beliefnet.com/miguel_de_servet/blog/2009/10/26/whats_really_being_said_in_exodus_31315)
2. Paste it in the URL “box”
3. Click refresh, and “hey presto” you have it! (just tested)

Actually, “I AM THA I AM” AND “I AM” (in the LXX, respectively “I AM THE BEING” and “THE BEING”) are at Exodus 3:14.

“However one chooses to understand Ex. 3, the fact is that EIMI is acting as an existential verb at John 8, so there doesn’t appear to be any reason to assume a connection between the two accounts.”

There is only one proper way to understand Exodus 3:13-15. It is a mere “optical illusion” to associate the I AM found in the Gospel of John (John 8:58) with the I AM of Exodus 3:14: those who do project onto it the wrong assumption (to a large extent, derived from the infidel “translation”, by the Septuagint”, of the Hebrew I AM [hayah] with the Greek expression THE BEING [ho ôn]) that it is the same thing as the I AM of Exodus 3:14 and consequently, by totally illogical and totally unwarranted association, the same as the mysterious name of God, YHWH.

Whoever wants to clear his/her mind on the subject, is invited to read “What’s really being said in Exodus 3:13-15” (community.beliefnet.com/miguel_de_servet/blog/2009/10/26/whats_really_being_said_in_exodus_31315)

Sean
Are there any cases where ‘eimi’ functions as a name?
Strongs Greek Concordance reference 1510 shows ‘eimi’ as a verb ‘v p-1 -A -!S’

Blessings
John

That’s all right, Dale. I forgive you for your horrible taste in movies 😉 Just kidding. I agree with you in regards to the Passion. The overindulgence in the violence completely destroyed the movie for me. It could have had potential, which is also witnessed to by the several bloodless scene .e.g the Lord’s supper… No wait, scratch that, for Gibson is Catholic so that scene would not be without blood afterall 😉 But in the end it turned into a blood fest wherein the audience was expected to glory in the drawn out uber-execution of Christ. Not very tasteful in my opinion.

I will get back to you whenever I have gained more insight into the intepretation history of John 8. I am yet to find a single author ante-Nicaean father making the connection between the tetragrammaton wordplay of Exodus and John 8. Heck, I cannot even think of any father even post-Nicaea… However, I am not as well read as I would need to be, so I might very well be proven wrong on this issue.

Interesting. I’ve never been a fan of this movie. I stopped watching around John chapter 5-6ish. I like the concept though. Redo the movie with the tone and atmosphere of Passion of the Christ, and I would be completly sold.

I am curious to know which early ecclesial writer was the first to make a connection between Jesus’ “I am” and the divine name. For everytime John 8 comes up in the fathers, it is always in support of preexistence; never is the deity claim made.