I AM That I AM: What Does It Really Mean?

[LeviR]

Well, now that we have what was never in dispute settled----why do you say Jesus used the expression I am within the context of the conversation he was having?

There is no justification for suggesting Jesus was referring to the “I AM” of Exodus.
The words translated as “ I am” are used in other passages with nothing to do with Exodus “I AM”
Plus, the reason it was suggested to refer to Exodus is because of the idea that Jesus was saying that before Abraham was born he existed.
Again, “was”:is an incorrect translation. and so is “was born”.

 

[LeviR]

You are almost there. Now. Why must Jesus be before Abraham is/was? And, how can he be before Abraham?

The word “was” is incorrect. Check the other 37 uses of the Greek word.

First of all, Abraham is dead.
Second, he is heir to the world.
Therefore, Abraham is to be raised from the dead to claim his inheritance.
The inheritance comes through Christ.
Christ must be before Abraham or else Abraham and his spiritual seed can’t inherit the promises.

 

[Mr GLee]

I would offer

I am seems to represent the invisible power of Christ. A work of His labor of love . The law of faith or power ."Let there be" and "it" was good .

I Am The power of life and death .

A parable in John 18 seems to shed some light. Twice he used the power of life and death I Am. The first time I Am power of death they went backward and fell . a metaphor that indicates they were under the the judgment of Christ as false prophets serpents that bring false prophecy the poison of false prophecy .

The tribe Dan the law of judgment is used to reveal false apostles sent with false prophecy

Genesis 49:17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.

Then he exercised the power of life of I Am to let the others go A gospel picture

John 18: 3-9 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.

 

[Arial]

The word “was” is incorrect. Check the other 37 uses of the Greek word.

What should it be? And how do you arrive at whatever you say it should be as being more learned than those who devoted themselves to translation and have full knowledge of what they are translating from and to? Please do not avoid the question. It is the hinge upon which your assertions and therefore arguments turn.

First of all, Abraham is dead.

Yes. Which is what brought up the sarcastic, and in their mind, rhetorical question that was put to Jesus. Something you also seem to be questioning Jesus about.

Second, he is heir to the world.

Abraham is not heir to the world, unless you mean by that that he is the father of those who would inherit the kingdom of God through faith in Christ. Jesus is the heir of the world, and those in him through faith are heirs along with him. Adopted children of God. It is not Abraham who died for sins, who took upon himself the sins of his people. The promised seed of Gen 3, was, so to speak, in Abraham's loins. Those in Christ through faith, as Abraham was, inherit the restored earth (Rev 21:1-7; Is 11). But it is Jesus who restores it and owns it, just as he always has owned it. "The earth is the Lord's, and all that is in it."

Therefore, Abraham is to be raised from the dead to claim his inheritance.

You would need to provide Scripture for that. Jesus was raised from the dead and claimed creation back from the serpent and those who are deceived by the serpent.

John 11:25-25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will still live, even if he dies. Whoever lives and believes in me will never die.

1 Cor 15; Is 11: Rev 21.

The inheritance comes through Christ.

Yes, Not Abraham.

Christ must be before Abraham or else Abraham and his spiritual seed can’t inherit the promises.

Which is exactly what Jesus was saying when he said before Abraham was I am. He was saying that he existed before Abraham. His use of the I am phrase identified himself to the Jews at once as identifying himself as God. Yahweh ----the covenant name of God, who delivers and redeems. He came in the flesh as one of us to be both the covenant mediator and sacrifice. After the resurrection, he returned to the Father as King, Priest (mediator) and Prophet, having accomplished the work of redemption for his people and creation itself, through the redemption of his people. The removal of their sins and sins power to condemn them to death.

If you want to know what Jesus meant when he said before Abraham was I am, you have to find out what it meant to the original hearers of that statement. The ones he said it to and within the context in which it was said. The OP does that work for you, at least in part. It at least places the I AM where it first was and where it always is.

 

[Arial]

There is no justification for suggesting Jesus was referring to the “I AM” of Exodus.
The words translated as “ I am” are used in other passages with nothing to do with Exodus “I AM”
Plus, the reason it was suggested to refer to Exodus is because of the idea that Jesus was saying that before Abraham was born he existed.
Again, “was”:is an incorrect translation. and so is “was born”.

If one were to be able to imagine that they were sitting in front of Jesus when he said that; and as part of the entire conversation and not just that one sentence; there is no other way in which to understand it. If it is not taken as deliberately using I AM to the Jewish audience, it is an utterly nonsense remark. Trying to simply say it is an incorrect translation is ludicrous. Why do you think it made those Jews so angry they wanted to stone him?

The fact that "I am" is used in everyday language and in other places in the Bible that are using everyday language, and that in those places it is not referring to the name of God, has nothing to do with the fact that it was referring to Yahweh in that instance. If nothing else, the reaction those Jews had to Jesus saying it in the context in which he said it, shows us, (or should) that the use of "I am" was intentional and Jesus knew, as a Jew himself, that they would understand exactly what he was saying.

You must remember, to keep all things in proper perspective, that when Moses wrote those words that we now have, about the name of God, his original audience was having something revealed to them that they had never heard before and did not know. After it was written, it was passed from generation to generation among the Jews. The Jews, leaders of the community, steeped in the books Gen through Malachi, and teachers of it knew very well the name of God. That is why Jesus said what he said in the way he said it.

So, present any evidence you may have, that whatever translation you claim is wrong, that yours is superior to that of translators, trained in the discipline of translation and the languages they translate from and to. And please, instead of just saying theirs is wrong, give us the correct translation.

 

[Arial]

It was a suggestion of the meaning. Why? Because the word “was” is an incorrect translation as is proved by the 37 other occurrences of the Greek word.

I am going to ask again. What should it be instead of "was"? Write the sentence "Before Abraham was, I am." the way you think it should be properly written, if "was" were properly translated.

 

[LeviR]

I am going to ask again. What should it be instead of "was"? Write the sentence "Before Abraham was, I am." the way you think it should be properly written, if "was" were properly translated.

like I said, YLT is consistent with the meaning of the Greek.

“Before Abraham’s coming..I am”

The word suggests that something is “to happen”. And that is still how the Greek word is understood today.

To become
Come to pass
Happen

The verse is suggesting that something is to happen that involves Abraham. And that before it happens, Jesus must be.

To say that the word refers to the original birth of Abraham is inconsistent with the meaning of “to become” , “come to pass” or “happen”.
To make it sound as if it refers to Abraham’s original birth is to change the meaning of the word. And to do so is to create a lie.

 

[Arial]

like I said, YLT is consistent with the meaning of the Greek.

“Before Abraham’s coming..I am”

The word suggests that something is “to happen”. And that is still how the Greek word is understood today.

Have you studied the origins and purpose of Young in his literal translation? He was focused on tenses, but holding to that literally with a language that often has no exact translation in English, can greatly distort the intended meaning. Why do you think it was corrected in other translations and all of them consistent? It is still saying the same thing, just not in such an awkward and misleading way. You are evidence of just how misleading it can be.

So where else in the Bible are we ever told that Abraham is coming? That is exactly what your interpretation here suggests. That Jesus must come before Abraham comes again. There will not be a second coming of Abraham. In all other translations "was" is the correct translation. Put it into its surrounding and historical context!!! That is correct hermeneutics. I suspect that you are taking advice not from the YLT, but from the NWT, using in that instance the YLT. In an attempt to deny the I AM who Jesus is.

The verse is suggesting that something is to happen that involves Abraham. And that before it happens, Jesus must be.

To say that the word refers to the original birth of Abraham is inconsistent with the meaning of “to become” , “come to pass” or “happen”.
To make it sound as if it refers to Abraham’s original birth is to change the meaning of the word. And to do so is to create a lie.

If that is what it means, it is the only place in all of Scripture that it is said. Not even in Revelation is Abraham's coming mentioned. And yet, if true, our hope should be resting, not on Christ's return as all of Scripture tells us, but on Abraham's return. To translate the Greek as "was" does not change the meaning. It gives to the passage the only logical meaning, given the whole counsel of God. Context. Abraham is dead, are you greater than he? Jesus: Before Abraham even existed, I AM. Not I was, which would be grammatically correct, or I am becoming, or Abraham is becoming as your interpretation suggests. But I AM.The only reason Abraham ever existed was because of I AM. And he existed for I AM's purpose. Behold: The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. I AM.

What you ought to be doing if you wish to change the meaning of that statement of Christ to not be expressing his deity, is not focus on the word "was" which relates to Abraham, but go find some way or who shot John, that focused on "am" being a mistranslation. That is where the grammar is off, unless he meant, I AM. (Which obviously he did.)

 

[LeviR]

Have you studied the origins and purpose of Young in his literal translation? He was focused on tenses, but holding to that literally with a language that often has no exact translation in English, can greatly distort the intended meaning. Why do you think it was corrected in other translations and all of them consistent? It is still saying the same thing, just not in such an awkward and misleading way. You are evidence of just how misleading it can be.

So where else in the Bible are we ever told that Abraham is coming? That is exactly what your interpretation here suggests. That Jesus must come before Abraham comes again. There will not be a second coming of Abraham. In all other translations "was" is the correct translation. Put it into its surrounding and historical context!!! That is correct hermeneutics. I suspect that you are taking advice not from the YLT, but from the NWT, using in that instance the YLT. In an attempt to deny the I AM who Jesus is.

If that is what it means, it is the only place in all of Scripture that it is said. Not even in Revelation is Abraham's coming mentioned. And yet, if true, our hope should be resting, not on Christ's return as all of Scripture tells us, but on Abraham's return. To translate the Greek as "was" does not change the meaning. It gives to the passage the only logical meaning, given the whole counsel of God. Context. Abraham is dead, are you greater than he? Jesus: Before Abraham even existed, I AM. Not I was, which would be grammatically correct, or I am becoming, or Abraham is becoming as your interpretation suggests. But I AM.The only reason Abraham ever existed was because of I AM. And he existed for I AM's purpose. Behold: The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. I AM.

What you ought to be doing if you wish to change the meaning of that statement of Christ to not be expressing his deity, is not focus on the word "was" which relates to Abraham, but go find some way or who shot John, that focused on "am" being a mistranslation. That is where the grammar is off, unless he meant, I AM. (Which obviously he did.)

Considering the context, it is possible that Jesus was referring to Abraham as to what his name signifies, father of a multitude of nationalities or nations. Rather than simply be a direct descendant of Abraham as the Jews claimed.
The coming of what Abraham’s name signifies, is the opening of the door of salvation to the Gentiles.
I am the door, I am the way, I am the life, I am the resurrection, I am the truth. Etc.

Heb 11:8 - By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

Heb 11:9 - By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling intabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

Heb 11:10 - For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker isGod.

Heb 11:39 - And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

Heb 11:40 - God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Being made perfect refers to being raised immortal from the dead. And the city whose builder and maker is God refers to the New Jerusalem which is the body of Christ (all the faithful).

When Abraham and all of like faith as he are made perfect by resurrection they will come together with Christ as the body of Christ and be the New Jerusalem which is to come.

 

[Arial]

Considering the context, it is possible that Jesus was referring to Abraham as to what his name signifies, father of a multitude of nationalities or nations. Rather than simply be a direct descendant of Abraham as the Jews claimed.
The coming of what Abraham’s name signifies, is the opening of the door of salvation to the Gentiles.
I am the door, I am the way, I am the life, I am the resurrection, I am the truth. Etc.

Heb 11:8 - By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

Heb 11:9 - By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling intabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

Heb 11:10 - For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker isGod.

Heb 11:39 - And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

Heb 11:40 - God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Being made perfect refers to being raised immortal. And the city whose builder and maker is God refers to the New Jerusalem which is the body of Christ.

When Abraham and all of like faith as he are made perfect by resurrection they will come together with Christ as the body of Christ and be the New Jerusalem which is to come.

The problem with all that "who shot John" is that your reason for such wild and unfounded by context speculation, is the purpose you have in it. Which is to deny the deity of Christ. So you simply speculate as to other things Jesus might have been doing.

Read the entire chapter. Pay attention to the conversation and who the conversation is with, and the audience's reaction to Jesus' "I am" declaration. None of what you say will fit even slightly with the conversation.

So how about we go back to the subject of the OP. Which is "I AM' and what it means. You have given your version which is not entirely wrong, is the favored view of modern Christianity, but it is incomplete and misses an important message of I AM as God's name. It not only identifies God as transcendent and self existing, it identifies him as the God of their fathers. The God who enters into our history in a covenant relationship with us. God with us. Jesus is the I AM.

 

[LeviR]

The problem with all that "who shot John" is that your reason for such wild and unfounded by context speculation, is the purpose you have in it. Which is to deny the deity of Christ. So you simply speculate as to other things Jesus might have been doing.

Read the entire chapter. Pay attention to the conversation and who the conversation is with, and the audience's reaction to Jesus' "I am" declaration. None of what you say will fit even slightly with the conversation.

So how about we go back to the subject of the OP. Which is "I AM' and what it means. You have given your version which is not entirely wrong, is the favored view of modern Christianity, but it is incomplete and misses an important message of I AM as God's name. It not only identifies God as transcendent and self existing, it identifies him as the God of their fathers. The God who enters into our history in a covenant relationship with us. God with us. Jesus is the I AM.

You still have the problem of the text NOT referring to before Abraham being born, but rather his coming.
Trinitarians don’t really understand what Jesus means so they changed the meaning of the word to suit their idea. So they say “before Abraham was born”. It’s as simple as that.
They take liberty with the text to suit themselves.

 

[Arial]

You still have the problem of the text NOT referring to before Abraham being born, but rather his coming.
Trinitarians don’t really understand what Jesus means so they changed the meaning of the word to suit their idea. So they say “before Abraham was born”. It’s as simple as that.
They take liberty with the text to suit themselves.

That is funny. Surely even you see that. Audios.

 

[LeviR]

That is funny. Surely even you see that. Audios.

Does the text say “before Abraham was born I AM”?

Where’s the intellectual honesty?

 

[Arial]

Does the text say “before Abraham was born I AM”?

Where’s the intellectual honesty?

It says before Abraham was I am. Jesus existed before Abraham. Using the expression I AM to the Jews meant one thing. And it means the same thing to us. Jesus is the eternal, self existent, I AM, come to dwell with us and one of us to ratify the covenant, of the covenantal I AM. He did the work of substitution for the sinner on the cross, paying their debt. That is, taking upon his own flesh the justice of God against his people, making them justified legally and reconciled to him. He shed the blood of the covenant and with that blood purchased a people for the Father.

All covenants God makes with man have a mediator. Adam the mediator of the covenant with creation, Abraham a covenant mediator. Noah the mediator of the renewed covenant with creation after the flood. But sin was not removed or conquered. Moses the mediator of the Sinai covenant. Sin and death still not conquered. Jesus the mediator of the new covenant. Sin and death conquered, in a right now, not yet, tension.

Created human mediators cannot do what Christ was able to do. He could do it because he is both I AM and man in the flesh.

Before Abraham was, I am.

There is it a speck of intellectual honesty in what you present.

And I am through telling you about it. That means the end of the conversation with you. I do not need or want to hear it again.

 

[Mr GLee]

I Am speaks of the power of God. Jesus the chief apostle moved by Christ pronounced the words of the Father . . I Am..

The son of man jesus dying mankind was not the I Am the power of God

I Am Christ working in the Son of man Jesus

John 3:28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.

The Son of man Jesus the prophet declared the words of the father .Jesus was not before Abraham . I Am Jehovah was

Same with rebuking the Son of man jesus has no power of his own to rebuke

John 8:58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

John 8:58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (power of God)

 

[Arial]

@LeviR
You do know don't you, that Young's translation is not saying anything different than all the other translations. It is just saying it in a very awkward way. The JW's and other Christ deniers are simply jumping on it to undo the deity. Do any of them ever teach anything on Abraham's second coming that they are making it say? Or do they just move on and act like they didn't do that?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Arial and LeviR,

Another view is that it is better translated as I will be who I will be.

He who never changes is “I AM who I Am”.

I endorse the future tense as given by Tyndale and the RV and RSV margins:
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.

God was going to be active to accomplish the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt and bring them into the Promised Land Exodus 6:1-8.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Mr GLee]

I would offer. .

Not a salvation issue more of how can we hear the understanding of a invisible God. If Christ has begun the good teaching work in us he our confidence will continue till our last day

I would offer. .

Scripture resists the idea of a trinity . Three is a crowd .Two walking together in agreement to one Father unseen . The dynamic dual .

Some of the Jews did eulogize the dying flesh of Abraham as some sort of second coming of Christ .

One of the don't even think about it doctrines. Some replaced the meaning of the word Abraham (father of all the nations) using it as a law after the legion of fathers. oral traditons of dying mankind, a succession of dying sinful mankind . .

Same with Peter. Same thing. (we have Peter as our father Christ ) The teaching of the anti -christs. . another teaching authority other than sola scriptura. The book of law.

Trinity violating the loving commandment to call no man on earth Holy Father . can't serve two Holy Fathers.

Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham (Peter) to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

 

[David Lamb]

I would offer. .

Not a salvation issue more of how can we hear the understanding of a invisible God. If Christ has begun the good teaching work in us he our confidence will continue till our last day

I would offer. .

Scripture resists the idea of a trinity . Three is a crowd .Two walking together in agreement to one Father unseen . The dynamic dual .

Some of the Jews did eulogize the dying flesh of Abraham as some sort of second coming of Christ .

One of the don't even think about it doctrines. Some replaced the meaning of the word Abraham (father of all the nations) using it as a law after the legion of fathers. oral traditons of dying mankind, a succession of dying sinful mankind . .

Same with Peter. Same thing. (we have Peter as our father Christ ) The teaching of the anti -christs. . another teaching authority other than sola scriptura. The book of law.

Trinity violating the loving commandment to call no man on earth Holy Father . can't serve two Holy Fathers.

Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham (Peter) to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

"Two is company, three's a crowd" is a proverb, but not a biblical one. The Trinity doesn't violate the command about calling no man on earth you Father, because believers in the Trinity only call one of the three Persons of the Godhead "Father".

 

[makesends]

The word “was” is incorrect. Check the other 37 uses of the Greek word.

First of all, Abraham is dead.
Second, he is heir to the world.
Therefore, Abraham is to be raised from the dead to claim his inheritance.
The inheritance comes through Christ.
Christ must be before Abraham or else Abraham and his spiritual seed can’t inherit the promises.

You sound like you think you know Koine better than the majority of the translators. What's worse, you sound like you think you know the way Jewish people's thinking processes worked back then.

Truth is, you don't seem to understand the middle voice nor the aorist tense, and certainly not the aorist tense in the middle voice. Just how do you think the word γενέσθαι should have been translated, there? The language of Jesus' statement, there, the progression of his argument in the conversation, doesn't suggest any reference to the future. You are forcing something that doesn't fit.

Look through your list of the 37 occurrences there. "Is coming" is not even one of them. "To come" or "to become" only shows up when context demands it. Look at all the differences between them. You have no basis for your vehement claim except to support your thesis.

Strange thing is, even with whatever you want it to say, the word, "before", still places Christ as previous to Abraham. So your noise is all about whether the common Christians' use of I AM is valid, I think.

Greetings Arial and LeviR,


I endorse the future tense as given by Tyndale and the RV and RSV margins:
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.

God was going to be active to accomplish the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt and bring them into the Promised Land Exodus 6:1-8.

Kind regards
Trevor

It changes nothing, Trevor. The point remains that before Abraham existed, Christ IS, or WAS, or WILL BE, or whatever —he is before Abraham.

And the Septuagint doesn't suggest, in Exodus 3:14, any future tense, just as John 8:58 does not.