John 8:58, does it make sense grammatically?

[Christian2]

John 8:58
English Standard Version (ESV)
58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

Cross references:
John 8:58 : See Ex. 3:14

Thanks.

[mossrose]

Yes.

[Cow Poke]

Indubitably.

[Christian2]

Yes.

Please explain how it makes sense. Thanks.

[Christian2]

Indubitably.

Please explain how it indubitably makes sense. Thanks.

[mossrose]

God referred to Himself as "I Am" in the old testament. In Exodus 3:14-15

14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.

The usage of "I Am' by God in Exodus is a name, one of the names of God.

When Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I Am", He was indicating that He is God, that He was present at creation, that He pre-exists everything.

[Cow Poke]

Please explain how it indubitably makes sense. Thanks.

Are you wanting it to make sense in a "common usage" grammar kind of way? Mossy did a great job of explaining the "behind the scenes" usage.

[John Reece]

From The Gospel According to John (Pillar: Eerdmans, 1991), page 358:

If he had wanted to claim only that he existed before Abraham, it would have been simpler to say, 'Before Abraham was, I was.' Instead, bringing forward the use of egō eimi found in verses 24, 28, Jesus says, 'Before Abraham was born, I am.' Whatever doubts may attach themselves to whether or not egō eimi should be taken absolutely in verses 24, 28, here there can be none. Moreover, the strong linguistic connections with Isaiah 40-55 are supported by obvious conceptual links: cf. 'I, the LORD ― with the first of them and the last I am he' (Isaiah 41:4); 'Yes, and from ancient days I am he' (Isaiah 43:13). Cf. Psalm 90:2. That the Jews take up stones to kill him presupposes that they understand these words as some kind of blasphemous claim to deity. Nevertheless, as in 1:1, so here: neither the Word nor the Son is so identified with God that there is no remainder.

[sylvius]

From The Gospel According to John (Pillar: Eerdmans, 1991), page 358:

If he had wanted to claim only that he existed before Abraham, it would have been simpler to say, 'Before Abraham was, I was.' Instead, bringing forward the use of egō eimi found in verses 24, 28, Jesus says, 'Before Abraham was born, I am.' Whatever doubts may attach themselves to whether or not egō eimi should be taken absolutely in verses 24, 28, here there can be none. Moreover, the strong linguistic connections with Isaiah 40-55 are supported by obvious conceptual links: cf. 'I, the LORD ― with the first of them and the last I am he' (Isaiah 41:4); 'Yes, and from ancient days I am he' (Isaiah 43:13). Cf. Psalm 90:2. That the Jews take up stones to kill him presupposes that they understand these words as some kind of blasphemous claim to deity. Nevertheless, as in 1:1, so here: neither the Word nor the Son is so identified with God that there is no remainder.

It doesn't read 'Before Abraham was born"

In fact it is a play with the verbs "ginomai", to become, and "einai", to be.
"Before Abraham became I am

Abraham was first called Abram.
Abram had to circumcise himself to become Abraham and father the promised seed.


And "ego eimi" is not a name, but a statement.

[Christian2]

God referred to Himself as "I Am" in the old testament. In Exodus 3:14-15

14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.

The usage of "I Am' by God in Exodus is a name, one of the names of God.

When Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I Am", He was indicating that He is God, that He was present at creation, that He pre-exists everything.

I think I Am in Exodus is not a name, but a statement. Yes?

[Christian2]

Are you wanting it to make sense in a "common usage" grammar kind of way? Mossy did a great job of explaining the "behind the scenes" usage.

Someone else I know said the following:


(1) The present indicative of εἰμί is regularly used in Greek with a present perfect meaning, since there is no present perfect form of the verb.

(2) If it is used this way, it should include a time in the past and statement about the presence of the person speaking. John 8:58 fulfills this condition.

(3) If it says a time in the past and until now, we should expect some phrase like ἀφ᾽ ἧς ("since") in the mix.

The phrase as is in the text of John 8:58:

πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

Literally, we would take this as "Before Abraham coming to be, I have been," if we remember the use of the present perfect in translation of the word εἰμί.

It would make better sense if we had "since before Abraham was born, I have been." But, we have "before Abraham was born, I have been." This doesn't make sense either way.

The only conclusion that I can draw is that it was not supposed to make sense and that he was using ἐγώ εἰμι on purpose as a reference to the phrase used in the Septuagint in Exodus chapter 3. The senselessness in the construction can only be attributed to something that was done on purpose.

Do you happen to know if Daniel Wallace said anything about this verse?

Thanks.

[mossrose]

I think I Am in Exodus is not a name, but a statement. Yes?

It was both. The usage was as a name, and God was making a statement.

[John Reece]

Do you happen to know if Daniel Wallace said anything about this verse?

From Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Zondervan, 1996), by Daniel B. Wallace:

John 8:58 The text reads: πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί ("before Abraham was, I am"). On this text, Dennis Light wrote an article in defense of the New World Translation in the Bible Collector (July-December, 1971). In his article he discusses ἐγὼ εἰμί, which the New World Translation renders, "I have been." Light defends this translation by saying, "The Greek verb eimi, literally present tense, must be viewed as a historical present, because of being preceded by the aorist infinitive clause referring to Abraham's past" (p. 8). This argument has several flaws in it: (1) The fact that the present tense follows an aorist infinitive has nothing to do with how it should be rendered. In fact, historical presents are usually wedged in between aorist (or imperfect) indicatives, not infinitives. (2) If this is a historical present, it is apparently the only historical present in the NT that uses the equative verb εἰμί. The burden of proof, therefore, lies with one who sees εἰμί as ever being used as a historical present. (3) If this is a historical present, it is apparently the only historical present in the NT that is in other than the third person.

The translators of the New World Translation understand the implications of ἐγὼ εἰμί here, for in the footnote to this text in the NWT, they reveal their motive for seeing this as a historical present: "It is not the same as ὁ ὤν (ho ōn, meaning 'The Being' or 'The I Am') at Exodus 3:14, LXX." In effect, this is a negative admission that if ἐγὼ εἰμί is not a historical present, then Jesus is here claiming to be the one who spoke to Moses at the burning bush, the I Am, the eternally existing One, Yahweh (cf. Exod 3:14 in the LXX, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν).

[sylvius]

I is used πρίν and not πρό,

πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί


not: πρὸ Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

There is a difference in meaning,
which might be the same difference as between Hebrew "terem" and "kedem", like explained by Rashi on Genesis 2:5,

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi/true

Every טֶרֶם in Scripture has the meaning of “not yet,” and it does not mean“before,” and it cannot be made into a verb form, to say הִטְרִים, as one says הִקְדִּים

Genesis 2:5,
Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow,

John 8:58,
"When Abraham had not yet become I am"

I am eternal.

In the beforegoing verse, Genesis 2:4, is used "b'hibaram", translated ""when they were created".
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created

"hibaram" is written with the same letters as Abraham.
"b'hibaram" can be read as "with the letter "hey" they were created", same letter that was added to Abram's name, which made him perfect "tamim" (Genesis 17:1), like also the paschal lamb had to be "tamim" (Exodus 12:5).

It is quite possible that John hinted at that..

Even more probable since "b'hibaram" is the 474th word of the Hebrew bible, 474 being gematria of "da'at"= knowledge.
John letting you know his counting-ability with his 153 large fish and with his number 666 that can only be calculated by the ones in the possession of the white pebble (Revelation 2:17)

[RBerman]

It doesn't read 'Before Abraham was born" In fact it is a play with the verbs "ginomai", to become, and "einai", to be. "Before Abraham became I am" Abraham was first called Abram. Abram had to circumcise himself to become Abraham and father the promised seed.

I'm not aware that the Jews described the Abram/Abraham name change as Abram "becoming" Abraham. Can you give references along those lines? It seems more likely that "became" means "came to be" -- that is, began to exist, which would be a reference to his being born, although as you say the text doesn't use the word "born."

And "ego eimi" is not a name, but a statement.

Are the two (name and statement) mutually exclusive? That seems like saying, "Alpha and Omega is not a title, but a pair of letters." But in reality it's a title which is a merism consisting of two letters.