Did God die on the Cross?

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[darinhouston]

With regard to John 8:58, this is biblicalunitarianism.com response.


John 8:58b

Before Abraham was, I am. (KJV)

1. Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes:

Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.” [1]

2. The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he” or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be”—John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament.

At the Last Supper, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said, literally, “Not I am, Lord” (Matt. 26:22 and 25). No one would say that the disciples were trying to deny that they were God because they were using the phrase “Not I am.” The point is this: “I am” was a common way of designating oneself, and it did not mean you were claiming to be God.

3. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the mind of God as God’s plan for the redemption of man. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Verse 56 is accurately translated in the King James Version, which says: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” This verse says that Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ, which is normally considered by theologians to be the day when Christ conquers the earth and sets up his kingdom. That would fit with what the book of Hebrews says about Abraham: “For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10). Abraham looked for a city that is still future, yet the Bible says Abraham “saw” it. In what sense could Abraham have seen something that was future? Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ because God told him it was coming, and Abraham “saw” it by faith. Although Abraham saw the Day of Christ by faith, that day existed in the mind of God long before Abraham. Thus, in the context of God’s plan existing from the beginning, Christ certainly was “before” Abraham. Christ was the plan of God for man’s redemption long before Abraham lived. We are not the only ones who believe that Jesus’ statement does not make him God:

To say that Jesus is “before” him is not to lift him out of the ranks of humanity but to assert his unconditional precedence. To take such statements at the level of “flesh” so as to infer, as “the Jews” do that, at less than fifty, Jesus is claiming to have lived on this earth before Abraham (8:52 and 57), is to be as crass as Nicodemus who understands rebirth as an old man entering his mother’s womb a second time (3:4). [2]

4. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus’ “I am” statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God’s “I am” statement in Exodus 3:14. However, the two statements are very different. While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.” Thus the “I am” in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said “I am” did not make him God.

5. Trinitarians claim that the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus because he was claiming to be God (John 8:59), but that is an assumption. There is a different explanation that is supported by better evidence: the Jews picked up stones to kill Jesus because they understood he was claiming to be the Messiah. At Jesus’ trial, the High Priest asked, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63). First of all, we should notice that no one at the trial asked Jesus if he were God. However, if they thought he had been claiming to be God, that would have certainly been a question they would have asked. The High Priest asked Jesus in very clear terms if he was the Christ because that is what the Jews knew Jesus was claiming to be. Second, when the Jews heard Jesus’ clear answer (“Yes, it is as you say”), they accused him of blasphemy and said, “He is worthy of death” (Matt. 26:66). They felt he was worthy of death in the record in John 8, but in that record they picked up stones to kill him, while after hearing his “blasphemy” at the trial, they took him to Pilate and got the Romans to execute Jesus.

Buzzard, pp. 93-97

Dana, Letter 21, pp. 169-171

Morgridge, pp. 120-21

Norton, pp. 242-246

Snedeker, pp. 416-418

Back to the list of “Verses Used to Support the Doctrine of the Trinity”

Endnotes:

1. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John (Westminster Press, London, 1978), p. 342. Back to top

2. J. A. T. Robinson, The Priority of John (Meyer Stone Pub., Oak Park, IL, 1985), p. 384. Back to top


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Paidion]

1. Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct.

I agree that with these words, Jesus was not claiming to be the "Great I AM". Nevertheless as I explained in my post above, Jesus did share the name "Yahweh" with His Father. It was He whom Abraham addressed as Yahweh. Genesis 19:24 speaks of a Yahweh who rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah from Yahweh out of heaven. The Yahweh on earth was the means of that destruction; the Yahweh in heaven was the source.

[Paidion]

Could Christ have possibly meant:

"Surely, surely, I say to you, before Abraham is-becoming, I, I am... the Messiah."

I don't think that answer has any contextual strength at all. They would have replied, "Even if you are the Messiah, you still never saw Abraham!"

I agree with you, Dizerner, that that would have been their reply—or something similar.

[Jose]

With regard to John 8:58, this is biblicalunitarianism.com response.

Hi Darin,

I appreciate you posting that page. I wanted to do so myself, but I wasn't sure if that was considered taboo or not.

Jose

[darinhouston]

The problem here is that any exegesis is a bit strange. The problem with the traditional view is its so familiar it doesn't sound as strange to most. But answering the question that way is really weird unless he's merely being oblique as he often is and refusing to answer their question. And instead just telling them what he wants them to know - that all they need to worry about is that he's the One, the Messiah. They MIGHT have asked again about Abraham but they never do quite come back from these exchanges with follow ups. Also, even if they'd assumed the great I Am in his response that would beg even more for a follow up. Instead they stone him, which they would have done in either interpretation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jose]

Jose, according to Jesus, Abraham saw Him, and He existed before Abraham. There's nothing figurative about that.

Paidion, I'm afraid you're overlooking what the text is actually saying. Abraham did not see Jesus; he saw His day. It's not clear what the writer meant by "His day", but he may have been referring to Jesus' exaltation to the Father's right hand, or perhaps to His coming Kingdom - we just can't be sure. Hebrews 11:10 may or may not be relevant, but it does speak of Abraham seeing God's city or kingdom by faith. "For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God." What does seems clear though is that he didn't see Jesus, he saw "His day."

Jesus, although a different person from the Father, shares the name "Yahweh" with the Father. He was the Yahweh who remained behind with Abraham while the other two persons (probably angels) went on to Sodom. Abraham addressed Him as "Yahweh".

I think you are bringing a lot into this text that isn't there. There is nothing in the passage to indicate that Jesus is one of the three men that visited Abraham.

After Yahweh finished speaking with Abraham, He went on to Sodom.

Nothing is said about him going to Sodom: it simply says that he departed with no mention of where he departed to.

Then we come to the amazing verse which indicates that TWO individuals are called "Yahweh", one on earth and the other in heaven. Then the Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven. (Genesis 19:24)
The Yahweh who had spoken to Abraham went on to Sodom and Gomorrah and was the means of the fire which destroyed the cities. The Yahweh in heaven was the source.

Nothing in the verse indicates that there are TWO individuals, and it does not say that one was on earth. It is more probable that ONE individual is mentioned TWICE, so we can understand the verse to mean that 'YHWH rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from himself out of heaven." There is a passage in 1 Kings that may shed some light on this. It states that King Solomon gathered elders to King Solomon. This sounds really strange, but we understand that it is talking about the same person; we would not say that there were two Solomons.

"Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the fathers' households of the sons of Israel, to King Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD from the city of David, which is Zion." 1 Kings 8:1 (NASB)

It is extremely common for angels to be AGENTS of YHWH speaking and acting for Him as though they ARE Him.

In Mark 12:26 it says that YHWH spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, but in Exodus 3:2 it says "the angel of YHWH" appeared to him and then Steven, being full of the Spirit, in Acts 7:30-35, declared “Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. When Moses saw it, he was amazed at the sight, and as he drew near to look, there came the voice of the Lord: ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob.’ And Moses trembled and did not dare to look. Then the Lord said to him, ‘Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground. I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and I have come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send you to Egypt.’ “This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’—this man God sent as both ruler and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush."

The importance of this cannot be overstated...An angel spoke in the first person declaring "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

The terms men, angels and YHWH are, in the Genesis passage, interchangeable because they represent God in the fullest way possible.
With an understanding that angels can speak and act in God's place, we can easily see below, how scripture can state that YHWH destroyed Sodom when it was actually two angels who did so.

Gen 19:1 Two angels came to Sodom
Gen 19:12-13 The two men tell Lot to get his family out of the city because THEY are going to destroy it because YHWH sent THEM to destroy it.
Gen 19:14 Lot tells his sons-in-law to get out because YHWH is going to destroy the city
Gen 19:15 In the morning the angels again urge Lot to leave
Gen 19:16 Lot hesitates so both men grab him and his family and take them out of the city because YHWH had compassion on them
Gen 19:17 One of the men tells them to escape to the mountains
Gen 19:18-20 Lot thanks them for their grace, but pleads for them to allow that he flee to a small town instead of the mountains
Gen 19:20-21 The angel grants the request, exhorting Lot to hurry, because he cannot do anything until Lot arrives there
Gen 19:24 Then YHWH rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from YHWH out of heaven,
Gen 19:25 and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

All this is akin to saying that President George Bush invaded Iraq; he was Commander in Chief, but he didn't fight. Ultimately it is God who destroyed Sodom, but two angels actually did the work.

Peace, Jose

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Paidion]

Those who believe Jesus had no pre-existence argue that the “Word” [or, Logos] here are the words of God expressed from his own thoughts. However, the Greek word PROS suggests someone facing another to receive something. Compare the phrase PROS TON THEON in the Jewish Greek Septuagint at Exodus 3:15, 16 in the example of Aaron facing Moses to receive God’s words.

I was interested in checking this out, Dizerner, since I have a different idea of the use of "PROS" in John 1:1. But it seems you have an incorrect reference. The name "Aaron" doesn't occur in Exodus 3:15 or 3:16. I tried doing a search for "Aaron" and still could not find the verses to which you intended to refer.

Some also argue that the AUTOU is only “it” and not “him” but a consideration of the Greek AUTOU in John 1:1-18 will reveal right there it is often used clearly as “him.”

It is not that "AUTOU" sometimes means "it" and sometimes "him". "Autou" is a masculine genitive pronoun, and must agree with the noun it modifies in gender. If the noun it modifies is masculine and is a male person, it means "of him"; if the noun it modifies is masculine but is impersonal, it should be transated as "of it". So it all depends upon whether the writer of the Greek meant its antecedant to refer to a person or whether he meant it to refer to something impersonal.