John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 Part Two

And we continue:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliberCadillac

Whether or not the early Church Fathers “made the connection” is somewhat superfluous.

I am simply pointing out that they were either reading the texts in the original Greek, their native language, or heard them spoken in such fashion. I don’t know for certain that the koine Greek in which the texts were written was the same dialect as that of the Fathers but Greek was the native tongue of the early Fathers.

For us today, it is a dead language so we are learning it less intuitively and much more theologically.

Quote:

We have since had some 2000 years of brilliant (and at times, not so brilliant), scholars examining the Scriptures and discovering things that they may have never even imagined.

Certainly and in many cases for the better. But we have also had 2,000 years of theology by which we read into the texts. More recent doesn’t always equate to better.

Quote:

Secondly it’s an argument from silence. While we have Church Fathers commenting on the passage of John 8:58 itself, (as you provided), we don’t seem to have any that actually comment directly comparing John with Exodus.

I would think that if it was so blatantly obvious, they would have said something. I remain convinced that textually the connection was not there.

Quote:

I will, however, zero in on this particular passage from Irenaeus:

First of all, the brackets are completely yours. Irenaeus does not say “i.e. the Father not Jesus.”

Of course he doesn't. That's why I put the brackets in there. Didn’t mean to imply they were in the original text.

Quote:

Secondly, notice the first sentence that states, “Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God…”

What Irenaeus had ‘already stated’ is found in the preceding paragraph where you will find him declaring,

“Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it:..” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, VI,1)

Quote:

Irenaeus is clearly stating that the name “Lord” and the word “God” (as used in the OT), refers to both the Father and the Son.

That's my point. It is the Father and the Son. The key is that the "He who is" (i.e. the ho on as found in Exodus 3:14 of the LXX) refers to the Father.

Quote:

As I stated before, since they don’t comment directly about a comparison, no conclusions should be made. We don’t know if they ever made the connection or not. If they did, there is nothing extant that has survived.

That too is an argument from silence. What we do have is a pretty strong indication that they did not make the connection.

Quote:

I don’t really buy that they misunderstood him in this context. They certainly rejected him, they certainly felt he posed a threat to their authority, I doubt they ever believed him, but misunderstand him? I think not! While Jesus was at times very misunderstood by everyone, (including his own disciples), John doesn’t tell us this was the case here.

He doesn't say they misunderstood him in other places either but it's pretty evident they do.

Quote:

It does when you understand that the EGO EIMI name literally means the “eternally existing one.”

The ego is for emphasis of eimi. Eimi is the Greek verb "to be." It does not mean 'eternally existing one.' Ho on, not ego eimi, in the LXX, means "he/the one who is".

Quote:

When Moses asked God what his name was, the name given was “the eternally existing one.” (EGO EIMI).

Ho on, not ego eimi. It would read in English something like this: "I, even I, am he who is." The ego eimi is the "I, even I, am" and the ho on is the "he/the one who is" part.

John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14

This was part of a debate. My responses are in blue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliberCadillac

Your argument is based on the Watchtower Bible and Tract Societies objections to the deity of Christ. Are you a Jehovah’s Witness?

My argument is based on the original Greek of both the New Testament and the Septuagint.

I'm not denying that Christians believe in the deity of Jesus. I'm saying that John 8:58 is a tenuous connection to Exodus 3:14 and that this verse was not understood by the early Church Fathers (who were Greek) as Jesus calling himself YHWH.

Quote:

The problem with their argument and yours is two fold. One is that you will never get any biblical language scholar to agree with what you just said...

Why not?

Besides, it would also mean that the Church Fathers didn't understand the original Greek. They do not make the connection:

John 8:58:

"And as He was the son of David, so was He also the Lord of David. And as He was from Abraham, so did He also exist before Abraham." - Irenaeus, Lost Fragments, LII

But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning ("Before Abraham was," He says, "I am") - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, XIII, 4

If, then, those who were conversant with the ancient Scriptures came to newness of hope, expecting the coming of Christ, as the Lord teaches us when He says, “If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me;” and again, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad; for before Abraham was, I am. - Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, IX

Exodus 3:14-15:

Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God, or is called Lord, except Him who is God and Lord of all [i.e. the Father, not Jesus], who also said to Moses, “I am that I am [i.e. the Father, not Jesus]. And thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: He who is, hath sent me unto you;” and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who makes those that believe in His name the sons of God. And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, “I am come down to deliver this people.”

For it is He who descended and ascended for the salvation of men. Therefore God has been declared through the Son, who is in the Father, and has the Father in Himself — He who is, the Father bearing witness to the Son, and the Son announcing the Father. As also Esaias says, “I too am witness,” he declares, “saith the Lord God, and the Son whom I have chosen, that ye may know, and believe, and understand that I am [Isaiah 43:10].” - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, VI, 2

I don't have the original Greek available of Irenaeus or Ignatius but I'm guessing you'll find that the "I am" of Isaiah 43:10 above is ego eimi that parallels John 8:58. The "He who is" in the above passage, used of the Father, will be ho on.

Perhaps talk of Trinitarian language (though the Holy Spirit is absent from mention of Father/Son in the above passage) would come in to play here but the Fathers do not draw a direct connection between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58. From what I can tell the connection isn't made between Isaiah 43:10 and John 8:58 either.

Justin Martyr speaks in great detail of the burning bush incident in chapter LXIII of his First Apology of Justin but no connection to John 8:58 (which, perhaps, he didn't know).

I'm open to hearing thoughts on the above mentioned passages.

Quote:

...and secondly it doesn’t explain why the Jews being in the Temple courtyard “took up stones to stone him.” This reaction by Jewish leaders could only have been justified because they viewed Christ’s statement as blasphemy.(See Leviticus 24).

Maybe they misunderstood him. After all, they misunderstood him everywhere else in John's Gospel.

Quote:

Claiming to be YWVH (which is a Hebrew construction of the Hebrew form of EGO EIMI) would certainly constitute blasphemy. If Jesus was merely stating that he lived before Abraham (as JW’s contend), Jesus would have only been making a ridiculous claim. There is no Levitical Law that justifies the stoning of lunatics.

Again, maybe they misunderstood him. Or perhaps they understood that since only God pre-exists for Jesus to say he pre-existed meant he was making himself equal to God as John says elsewhere. Contextually, that makes a lot more sense then Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was, I am God" which makes no sense.

Quote:

My point to the Al Fatihah was, what Jesus claimed in John 8:58 would be analogous with a Muslim prophet walking into Mecca, and then standing in front of the Kaaba and yelling, “I am Allah!”

Are you saying Jesus said to the Jews, "I am God"?