u/Sure-Wishbone-4293

Sorry, you imagine that the term “Spirit of Christ” means what you want it to mean as if Christ was living when he wasn’t born yet. The term itself “The Spirit of Christ” never appears in the OT just like your term “God the Son” doesn’t appear in scripture anywhere either. But the term “Son of God” appears over 50 times, now why would those invert and pervert the term “Son of God”, how odd to pervert and invert which comes from below. The term “Spirit of the Lord” and “the Spirit of God” appears over and over but never the term “Spirit of Christ”.

There are many terms used to define this, YHWH gives it different names as a function, if it is wisdom:

1. ⁠It is called the “Spirit of Wisdom” (Exodus 28:3; Deuteronomy 34:9; Ephesians 1:17)

2. ⁠When functioning as Grace, it is the “Spirit of Grace” (Zechariah 12:10; Hebrews 10:29)

3. ⁠When functioning as glory, it is the “Spirit of Glory” (1 Peter 4:14)

4. ⁠When functioning as adoption, or eternal life, it is the “Spirit of Adoption” (Romans 8:15) Also listed in some bibles as “Spirit of Sonship”.

5. ⁠When functioning as truth, it is called “The Spirit of Truth” (John 14:17, John 16:13)

6. ⁠When is was brought to Elijah, it was the “Spirit of Elijah” (2 Kings 2:15)

There aren’t many spirits, those are demons. There is only one spirit, the holy spirit, which has never been a third “person” of the trinity nonsense, it has no throne in Heaven and the holy spirit is the power and force of the Father alone, YHWH, the Shema shall prevail forever. Imagination is not law.

There is one spirit and that is the Father’s gift of the holy spirit (Ephesians 4:4).

When Kefa mentions the “Spirit of Christ” was upon prophets as they predicted the sufferings of Yeshua and the glory that would follow, Kefa mentions the “Spirit of Christ” because it is associated with Christ and foretold of Christ, NOT because Christ is actually alive during the OT, imagination is not law.

You see and look but you are blind, you imagine that no response was given initially about 1 Peter 11,12 so you just imagine it means what it means in the thoughts of your head to conform to a doctrine associated with HaSatan. Here now is the response to 1 Peter 1:11 of the King James Version, written by trinitarians but you don’t care, you will just move into something else and live in constant imagination.

Yeshua never pre-existed his existence and instead of seeing this, you look to Bible passages that you imagine says that Yeshua pre-existed his existence. Yeshua never pre-existed his existence. Imagine away to below!

Here is a blessed man, listen to what he says and don’t get caught with him, rather, listen to his words!

Where is the evidence that Yeshua or his disciples believed in the trinity? If they did believe it, where is the evidence they taught it? If the trinity is so sacrosanct, why it is so elusive?

View Poll

Those who believe in the trinity, which is 90% of all Christian churches in the world, don’t believe Yeshua died even though he told you he was dead (Revelation 1:18). You decide all on your own, with your imagination, how Yeshua died. You redefine his death and falsely claim and lie that only his flesh died. You don’t know what you are texting about. Yeshua died! “I was dead” (Revelation 1:18). You redefining his death is you committing evil. 😈 You don’t get to decide differently than Yeshua how he died.

He was dead. He said it himself “I was dead” (Revelation 1:18) flesh does not die for anybody’s sin, Yeshua did! That flesh you claim died, how did it miraculously reattach itself to Yeshua after he was resurrected? You practice evil and don’t notice because at the moment, you feel no pain. You practice evil and today you must stop 🛑 doing that!

The Trinitarian Problems

Trinitarians believe that this verse is the "cure all" to Christology. Often, they read John 1:1 and 14 as if verses 2-13 do not matter at all. If John wished for verse 14 to be verse 2, there was nothing stopping him (not that he had verse divisions anyway). Trinitarians often fail to see how much they are reading into the words: "the word was God... and the word became flesh." From these words, they extrapolate that Jesus was and is this word, he is God, and he became flesh, but in this incarnation he did not cease to be God. As I have already explained in detail in another post , John 1:1 uses an imperfect tense verb, which signifies a continuous past action which has stopped. The word "was" God. There was a change in the word from what it was to what it is. But according to Trinitarians, God cannot change and the Word, the divine Logos, the second person of the Trinity, did not change in the hypostatic union, he added a second nature to his first, they did not mix or mingle but they were distinct, and the Word never ceased to be God. The verb tense here tells you this can't be true.

The word is not a person. We have covered the problem of modern translations using the incorrect pronouns in John 1:2-4 . We have covered the explanation of the logos as well, but we will repeat some aspects of it here. We have discussed that "in the beginning" is not a statement of what happened in Genesis creation, but is a reference to it, to compare it to the new creation. And yes, we have dealt with the assumption that John 1:3 must be a statement of Genesis creation, because it is not. We discussed that "the word was God" does not mean that the word was the second person of the Trinity, but is, uncontroversially, a qualitative statement meaning that the word was in quality, God.

For the Trinitarian assumption of the Incarnation to be true, all of these facts must be ignored. "In the beginning" must refer to a time before the conception of Jesus, the word must be a title for the prehuman Son, the word "was God" must not imply a change to the word being God, it must not assume that the word ever ceased to be God in the same way that it was before, and it must be some statement by which we can assert that the word is God as the Father is, but yet, not the Father, and the phrase "the word became flesh" must mean that this person became flesh, and yet, it must mean that this word still retained its deity by means of a hypostatic union.

A Trinitarian will not be put off by all of this eisegetical presuppositionalism, they imagine that they can justify it by a scrapbooking of various verses and early church fathers who attest to their views. However, even an honest trinitarian will admit that the Incarnation is only ever directly mentioned in scripture two times. Once here, and once in Philippians 2:6-8, which is by far, the most currently debated passage in all of the NT. It has a verb tense which causes difficulty, there are words used which are rarely used in the Bible, never used, or only used in different forms. It has a double article (articular infinitive) that can't be expressed in translation, and scholars debate on why it is even there. There's a question on one of the words and how it is being used, and it can have opposite usages. There are questions on how it relates to the context by particular readings. And even in this passage, it never says Jesus was flesh. It simply says that he was in "appearance" and in "likeness" as a man. It does not say Jesus was God. It says he was "in the form of God." It also uses a present tense participle, "who is in the form of God." If we only have two verses that directly refer to the Incarnation, neither seem to really be talking about the same thing, one is extremely debated and controversial, and the other consists of only 4 words to make the point, we are admittedly off to a very rocky start in proving the Incarnation.

The number 1 rule of Biblical hermeneutics is to let light interpret dark. We don't start with the difficult passages and use them to interpret the easier passages. We let the clear, help us to understand the obscure. Yet, Trinitarians have grounded their Christology in two of the most controversial passages of the NT. They will often suppose that these passages are only debated because, "the people who can't accept the deity of Christ have tried to make them difficult." But this objection is easily refuted by anyone who has taken 5 minutes to do their homework, as we can very easily see that even Trinitarian scholars are debating amongst themselves on both of these passages. John's gospel is difficult for many, because John tells us in his gospel that there is spiritual language in which the Spirit is needed to understand him. John expects his readers to be familiar with certain concepts as well, which he references. John shows familiarity with the synoptics, Paul, and the letter to the Hebrews. His concepts are not so different, though many read him as if he is completely revolutionary, giving us a new piece of the puzzle. Is it not strange that the ones who wrote the gospels which speak of the conception and birth of Jesus (Matthew and Luke) just so happened to forget to mention the Incarnation of God?

The word came to God's prophets by the Spirit

Why is it that when we read Luke 3:2, "the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness," we know exactly what it means, but when we read "the word became flesh," we suddenly think it means something so completely different? Of course there are differences. But just how many? Trinitarians know that the word of God which came to John the Baptist was not Jesus. Jesus was a man in his 20's, presumably, when this occurs. We know what the word of God is. It's that which made John a prophet. He received his ministry, he is told what to do, and he listens to the voice of God. He speaks that which he hears from God and by speaking these words, he is a prophet. We also know that this is not something exclusive to John.

Ezekiel 1:3: the word of the LORD came to Ezekiel the priest... and the hand of the LORD was upon him there.

Hosea 1:1: The word of the LORD that came to Hosea.

Joel 1:1: The word of the LORD that came to Joel

Jonah 1:1: Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah

Micah 1:1: The word of the LORD that came to Micah

Zephaniah 1:1: The word of the LORD that came to Zephaniah

Haggai 1:1: the word of the LORD came by the hand of Haggai

Zechariah 1:1: the word of the LORD came to the prophet Zechariah

Malachi 1:1: The oracle of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi

Why is it that we understand exactly what this means in all of these places and yet struggle to understand the true meaning of John 1:14? When the word of God comes to John, it is his revelation as a prophet which he receives, does, and speaks. When the word becomes flesh, the word is a preexistent person who incarnated into human flesh in the womb of a virgin? Jesus was a prophet, he says so himself (Deuteronomy 18:18, compare Acts 3:22, Matthew 21:11, Luke 4:24, 7:16, 24:19, John 4:19, 6:14, 7:40, 9:17). Jesus, just like every other prophet, received the word of God to become a prophet and begin his ministry. He received this word at the beginning of his ministry, not at birth. Every prophet must speak the words of God to be a prophet. Jesus tells us repeatedly the the words he speaks are not his, but the Father's (John 14:24).

The OT prophets received the word of God by the Spirit of God. 2 Samuel 23:2, "The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; His word was on my tongue." Note the synonymous parallelism (a common hebraism, or literary device). The second half of the verse repeats the first half. The Spirit of God speaking through him, is the same as God's word being on his tongue. Psalm 33:6 makes a similar parallel: "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host." The "word of the LORD" and "the breath of his mouth" are synonymous. Remember that breath and Spirit are the same word in Hebrew. The Spirit of his mouth. Breath and spirit are very similar concepts in Hebrew thought. You will see the breath of man going out, or the spirit of man going out, meaning the same thing (see Psalm 146:4). Jesus himself says: "It is the Spirit giving life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are Spirit and they are life" (John 6:63). The words are Spirit. The Spirit that gives life. 2 Peter 1:21 says: "For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." Prophecy was spoken as the prophets were carried by Holy Spirit. Mark 12:36 says: David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: “’The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."’ Here, David is speaking "by the Holy Spirit." Compare this to Acts 2:29-35, in which Peter repeats this same prophecy (quoting Psalm 110:1) and says, "concerning the Patriarch David... being therefore a prophet..." Peter is confirming that David stated these words about a future prophecy, speaking as a prophet. Jesus confirms that David spoke these words by the Spirit. It should be very clear to us that prophets received the word of God by the Spirit of prophecy.

Notice the context of John 1:14. "There came a man having been sent from God. His name was John" (verse 6). "John witnesses concerning Him, and he cried out, saying, “'This was He of whom I was saying, ‘The One coming after me has precedence over me, because He was before me’” (verse 15). The context is the ministry of John the Baptist, both before and after this verse. "He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to his own, and his own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, He gave to them authority to be children of God—to those believing in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of will of flesh, nor of will of man, but of God" (verses 10-13). He was in the world. He came to his own. As many as received him. He gave them authority to be children of God. When did all of these things happen? At the birth of Jesus? At his conception and Incarnation? No. This is the ministry of Christ. John does not bother to give us a birth narrative. He does not even mention a virgin birth, Mary, Joseph, or a miraculous conception in this prologue, or even when he begins his gospel in verse 19. He begins with the ministry of John, leading into the ministry of Christ. The context of "the word became flesh" has nothing to do with an Incarnation into the womb of a woman, or a birth narrative at all. Does it not seem strange that John would begin his gospel with new creation concepts, the ministry of John and Jesus, and then go back into a narrative about the ontological change of the Logos into Jesus at his conception? "He was in the world.... and the word became flesh?" Think about what the Trinitarian must assume.

The word became flesh at the baptism of Jesus, by John the Baptist. This is why the ministry is the central theme of the context (another basic hermeneutic principle that Trinitarians ignore for the sake of their doctrine here). As we have seen, the word of God comes by the Spirit of God. Jesus received the Spirit of God at his baptism. “I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and it remained upon him" (John 1:32). Remained on him. The Spirit did not just fly about as a dove to prove the modalists wrong, by showing the Spirit is over here flying around and the Father is speaking from heaven and Jesus is coming up out of the water. It isn't flying to just be seen by men. It descended to be upon Jesus for the rest of his ministry. This is why immediately after his baptism, the Spirit led him into the wilderness to be tested (Luke 4:1). And his final words of his ministry, when "it was finished" at his death on the cross, were: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46). He gave up his spirit. Jesus' entire ministry was the result of the Spirit of God in him, moving him to speak and do the words of God. When the Spirit descended on him at the Jordan, so also did God's word through the Spirit. "The words I speak are Spirit."

He tabernacled among us

John 1:14a: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Some commentators have rightly pointed out that this can be understood to mean, "and he pitched his tent among us," or, "he tabernacled among us" (compare Revelation 7:15). The tabernacle in the OT was the dwelling place of God. His presence resided in the tabernacle (Exodus 40:34). Curiously enough, God's Holy Spirit is stated to be synonymous to his presence as well. Psalm 51:11, in a Psalm of David when he is grieving over his sin with Bathsheba, says: "Cast me not away from Your presence; take not Your Holy Spirit from me." Note again the synonymous parallelism. Being in God's presence is to have his Spirit. Compare this to what Jesus says, when speaking to his disciples about receiving the Spirit in John 14, "Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them." How will he and the Father 'make their home' in them? By giving of their Spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit. "The word became flesh and tabernacled among us." Is this not the presence of God, the Holy Spirit, making its home in the body of Jesus? That is precisely what it is. The tabernacle essentially became the temple. The tabernacle was moble in ancient Israel in the wilderness before they entered the promised land. The temple became the result of David's desire to "build a house for God." While God denied David this request, he granted it to his son Solomon. The temple of God is where God's presence then began to dwell. Notice how Jesus speaks of his body in John 2: "'Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days...' But the temple he had spoken of was his body." His body was the temple of God because this is where God's Spirit now dwells. In John 4, Jesus has a conversation with a Samaritan woman at the well. They begin to talk about the place of worship, referring to the temple. Listen to what Jesus says in response: "A time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem... A time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” What is Jesus saying in response to her? That the worship place is no longer in temples built with human hands, but the temple is now the body of true believers, because the presence of God is within them. We worship in Spirit, not in the temple. "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?" (1 Corinthians 6:19, see also 1 Corinthians 3:16, and 2 Corinthians 6:16) This is the temple we now worship in. This is now where the Spirit of God lives. God's house is not what Solomon built, but our bodies.

"The word was God... and dwelt among us." Was God in Christ? Absolutely. Jesus says so himself (John 10:38, 14:9-11, 20). God was in Christ by his Spirit. This shouldn't be a surprise to a born again child of God. That Spirit should be in you, and God should be your own Father. You should know how this works. God was dwelling among us in Jesus Christ. "He was in the world... the world was made by him... but they did not know him... He came to his own... but they did not receive him..." That is the Father. He came to his own nation of Israel in his Son, and they rejected him. They declared that the works were of demons. They said that the words of God were the words of a madman. They put God to death. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (Colossians 1:20) and the world killed him by nailing him to a cross. They hated Jesus, not for who Jesus was, but for what God did in him (Acts 2:22). The nation of Israel rejected their God and broke their covenant with him. As a result, the law was nullified. But a new covenant was made in Christ through his resurrection. God was dwelling in Christ. Jesus was the tabernacle in Israel, the tent of meeting.

This explains how the word of God comes by the Spirit of God, and how God was in Christ by his Spirit. The word of God was in the flesh, the flesh is Jesus. But we still need to answer the question of why the text says, "the word became flesh."

The word became flesh

The word of God is that which came to the prophets and Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of every prophecy. Jonah was a prophet who was going to Nineveh to warn them of God's coming judgement on them. This seems to have nothing to do with Jesus on the surface, but yet, did not Jesus warn us of the coming wrath of God? Is Jesus not telling us that we need to be his followers to flee the coming judgement of the Father? "No sign will be given to them but the sign of Jonah" (Matthew 12:39). Jonah went under the sea in the belly of a fish, and came out three days later. Jesus was buried under the earth to come out three days later. The sign of Jonah. The point is about fulfillment. Jesus is the word God spoke of in the OT whether we realize it or not. In John 3:14 Jesus says: "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up." Jesus is making a not so subtle reference to his being the fulfillment, or antitype, of the bronze serpent that Israel lifted up and looked to for salvation from the pains of their sins. The word became flesh because the words of the prophets and the OT writers, are all fulfilled in Christ. He is the scarlet cord of Rahab which saved her, by his red blood which poured from the cross. He is Joseph, who was betrayed by his own brothers and handed over to his enemies. Who was the lowest prisoner, but came to be seated on the throne of the ruler. Jesus is the second Adam, who succeeded where the first Adam failed. He is the flood of Noah, which washed away sin and evil from the earth through baptism, and preserved the righteous. He is Isaac, who was not born of natural union, but by a miracle of God's opening the closed womb of his mother. He is Jacob who wrestled with an angel, through his temptations in the wilderness. He is the ram that was sacrificed in replacement of Isaac on the mountain. He is Isaac who carried the wood of his own sacrificial alter. He is the angel of the lord who stopped Abraham from paying the price. He is Moses who preached the commandments of God from the mountain top, Sinai, and the sermon on the mount. He is the one who leads us in our wanderings outside of the promised land. He is Joshua who leads us into the land of promise and restores the land. He is David, king of Israel and anointed by God. He is the wisdom of Solomon. He is the sign to Ahaz that God had not abandoned his people. He is the seed promised to Eve, to Abraham, and to David, who would crush the serpent and bless all nations. He is the temple of Solomon. He is the ark of the covenant. He is the staff of Aaron, the high priest. He is the commandments written in stone. He is the bread from above, the mana. He is the light of the world when God begins his new creation. Jesus is the entirety of the OT in the flesh. He is the true fulfillment of everything written. "Do not think I came to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them." The law and the prophets are a way of speaking of the OT books.

Jesus is the embodiment of the commandments of God. Everything he said and did is just what the heart of the law was about. "Man must not live on bread alone but on every word from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4). James tells us "do not be hearers of the word only, but doers" (James 1:22). Jesus did not just hear the words of God. The word of God is what he did. When God commanded that he go to the cross he said "not my will be done, but yours Father" (Luke 22:42). When God said "you must love your neighbour," Jesus is the embodiment of this love. "Greater love has no one than this, that one should lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). When the command of God is to "love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength," this is exactly what Jesus did. When you read the law of the covenant, and you look at Jesus, he is that law in the flesh in what he did in his ministry. He is the flesh of everything God commanded.

The word of God is the gospel message. Luke 8:11 says "the seed is the word (logos) of God." This is the seed of the parable he's just told. The seeds will land on a hardened heart, be eaten up by demons, take root and be choked out by the worries of life, or it will grow. The word of God is the gospel message which is with us (Galatians 2:5, note the same word used for the gospel being with us [pros], is the same word in John 1:1b for the word which was pros ton theon, with God). The word is that which Jesus proclaimed. "The words I speak are not mine, but his who sent me" (John 7:16, 8:28, 12:49, 14:10, 24). When Jesus begins his ministry, he says: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because of which He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim deliverance to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to send forth in deliverance the oppressed" (Luke 4:18). Notice that he begins with the Spirit of the Lord being upon him, and in verse 24, he calls himself "a prophet." He has "been anointed to preach the good news." Gospel literally means good news, and Jesus says he was anointed to preach this gospel. The gospel came by the Spirit of God. Jesus did not just preach the gospel, he did it. He demonstrated it. The good news of the kingdom is that God will be reconciled to man, we can be his children, we partake in his spirit, the dead are raised, the hungry are fed, all are taught by God, and mankind will have love for each other. Jesus demonstrated forgiveness for sins, commanded that we become born again of God, breathed the Spirit onto his apostles, raised Lazarus and the daughter of the Centurion among others, fed thousands with a few loaves of bread and small fish, taught as one having authority and gave us a new commandment, and demonstrated unconditional love for those of us not even yet born, by dying for us. Jesus was showing us a sample of the future kingdom which he preached. The kingdom that will be "as it is in heaven, also upon the earth." Jesus is the gospel of the kingdom in the flesh. Some have said, "if everyone did as Jesus did, the kingdom would already be here." This is precisely the point. Jesus was the word, the seed of God, in the flesh.

The word that became from was something, not someone

"The word became flesh" is not the language of a (capital I) "Incarnation" of someone in one form to someone in another form. The "becoming flesh" is the incarnation of what God has spoken becoming more than just commandments, but a person. Something becomes someone. Many Trinitarians will read about "the word" in John 1:1, and assume that it must be Jesus. When you ask them, "how do you know the word here is Jesus before the word becomes flesh?" They will give you one of two responses:

"The word must be Jesus because the word became flesh, and we know the flesh is Jesus."

Yes, we know the flesh is a person, but this doesn't tell us the word was a person before it became a person. Michael Servetus said, "if the word was a person before becoming a person, then the word must also have flesh before becoming flesh." His point is simple and clear; it is an anachronistic fallacy to read that the word becomes a person, and therefore, it was a person. The second response you will get is similar:

"Jesus is called the word of God in Revelation 19:13."

No one denies that he is. But this doesn't mean that this was always his name. If Jesus is a man of flesh, and the word becomes flesh, then, why can't this be when he received that name? Why do we assume he must have had that name before? Revelation 19:13 doesn't say that the prehuman Jesus was the word. Specifically, it says that the man standing with a robe of blood is named the word of God. That is, the resurrected Jesus. We know that Jesus receives new names at resurrection (Acts 2:36, Philippians 2:8-11, Hebrews 1:4). For more info on Revelation 19:13, see this post

For the objection that "pros ton theon" must mean the word was a person, or, "a face to face relationship," see this post

There's no evidence for the assertion that the word must have been Jesus before becoming Jesus. Jesus is what the word of God became. The seed of the woman, became Jesus. The promise to Abraham, became Jesus. The law and the prophets, became Jesus. The commandments of God, became Jesus. Someone will inevitably ask, "well how can a mere man be all of these things?" As we have seen, these are the works of God through Christ by his Spirit. With man, this would be impossible, but with God, all things are possible (Mark 10:27). There should be no question as to how God can do this with a man. If you believe that God can become a man and die while being immortal, why is it so strange to believe that God can use a man to accomplish his work? This was God's plan for the very first man. To subdue the whole earth and all of that which is on and over it. God will make us the judges of even the angels (1 Corinthians 6:3). How should we doubt what God can do with his own creation? What are the limits of God with what he can do with a man?

Summary

John 1:14 is the embodiment of God's word in a flesh and blood man, Jesus, at his baptism, when he receives the word through the Spirit of God. This man of flesh was the dwelling place of God, and he humbled himself and allowed God to do whatever he wished with his flesh, by means of his Spirit. The word of God is that which God has commanded for every man, and Jesus did everything God told him to do. The flesh was the word that God spoke. The word of God was in him, as he said, his word is not his own. Jesus was not just a hearer of the word, but a doer, and he did the words of God. The word of God was not a person before it became embodied by a person. It was that which God had been speaking from the beginning of creation, his plan for mankind to be united to him, fulfilled. This man of flesh became the fulfillment of God's prophetic words through the ages when he was baptized, and through his ministry until his death on the cross. God's tabernacle was the flesh, his glory was in him. "And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father." Begotten by the Spirit of the Father at his baptism.

John 8:58: Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

Question 1: What is this verse about?

Answer 1: Jesus is the promised Messiah before Abraham.

Question 2: What is this passage about?

Answer 2: John 8:12-59 is a long passage which records an extended discussion with the Pharisees, which begins by Jesus making a Messianic declaration, "I am the light of the world." The Pharisees accuse him of bearing false witness (if only one person makes a testimony, this is unlawful, two or more must bear witness) and Jesus explains to them that if he testifies of himself, there are two witness, himself and the Father. The Father testifies through the works he does in Jesus (see Acts 2:22). The Pharisees question Jesus on who he is, and Jesus explains that he is who he has said from the beginning, the anointed one of God, the light of the world. As they debate, Jesus exposes that the Pharisees do not understand his words, because they are the words of the Father speaking (John 14:24), and they do not recognize the Father at work in him because they do not know the Father (John 8:42-47). The debate is also over being children of Abraham, which the Pharisees held to for salvation (Matthew 3:9). Jesus explains that if Abraham were their father, they would be like their father. Abraham rejoiced to see the day of the Messiah, and they try to kill him for it. This is when Jesus makes this pronouncement (or more accurately, the Father makes this claim through Jesus), "before Abraham was, I am." I am what? The promised Messiah, the light of the world.

Question 3: Isn't "I AM" the divine name of God in Exodus 3:14, and Jesus is invoking the name foe himself, declaring to be God/YHWH?

Answer 3: No. Jesus uses a simple statement of self expression identical to that which the blind man uses in John 9:9. Jesus also uses this phrase several times in this passage alone (verses 12, 24, and 28) and yet no one accused or assumed he called himself YHWH in any of these cases. In Exodus 3:14, the LXX reads:

“εγώ ειμι ο ων."(I am the being) This is what you are to say to the Israelites: "ο ων" (the being) has sent me to you.

In John 8:58, Jesus says: Before Abraham was ἐγὼ εἰμί (I am)

In Exodus 3:14, "I am" simply predicates what's to come. You must always have an answer to what "I am" is referring to. This is why it is usually translated "I am he" in English. "I am" predicates "the being" or "the one who is" in Exodus 3:14, and if Jesus were invoking this title for himself in John 8:58, he would have used the latter portion of the phrase, not the former. Further, given that the divine name of God is never used in any NT literature, it seems rather strange that Jesus should use it here, and only here. Based purely on consistency, it should seem unlikely that Jesus would assume this divine name only this one time. And lastly, if Jesus had used the divine name here, why do these same Pharisees ask him to "tell us if you are the Messiah" later in John 10:24, if Jesus already told them he is more than Messiah, he is God?

Question(s) 4: So why, then, do the Pharisees pick up stones to stone him in verse 59? What about Jesus' statement made them so angry?

Answer 4: The text does not say why they tried to stone Jesus. It is often just assumed that they try to stone him for blasphemy, because they later try to stone him, supposedly, for blasphemy (John 10:33). However, the Jews attempted to kill Jesus in Luke 4, when the most he said is that he is "anointed by the Spirit of God." It does not follow that the Pharisees would only try to stone Jesus if he blasphemed. They themselves admit at Jesus' trial that they have no legal authority to kill anyone, so they would have been in error anyway by their own admission (John 18:31). Jesus exposes them for trying to stone him for his good works (John 10:32) and Pilate knows that they sought to kill him out of jealousy and self interest (Matthew 27:18). In this passage, Jesus tells the Pharisees that they do not know the Father (verse 55), that the Father is not their God (verse 42), that Abraham is not their father (verse 39), that they are slaves of sin (verse 34), and that they are lying, murderous children of the devil (verse 44). This would be enough to drive them into anger alone. But beyond this, Jesus exposes their bad arguments, takes their crowds and attention away, shows that they lack the spirit of God, and proves that he is the Messiah anointed one of God. They do the works of their father, the devil, and the devil wanted Jesus to die. Is it any wonder why they might have stoned him? Could it be that the devil in them was at work? Their response came after Jesus' statement about Abraham, which, as Jesus just explained, the Pharisees cannot hear his words or understand his message. So they misunderstood what Jesus said about Abraham, but possibly assumed they could pass it off to the crowds as blasphemy against God's prophet and friend to justify their stoning him.

To assume they must have acted because Jesus called himself "God" is to be as deaf as the Pharisees themselves to Jesus.

Question 5: Can Jesus not be saying something like, "before Abraham was, I existed?"

Answer 5: No. "Existed" would be the past tense while Jesus uses a present tense verb. The Greek word "eimi" can mean something like "exist," but it has far less ontological and metaphysical connotations to it than our English word "exist" has, so this would be to confuse the reader. It would be better translated, if we insisted on the past tense: "before Abraham was, I was." However, this misses the point of what Jesus is saying. Jesus is explaining what he presently is, not a statement about what he was. He "is" the seed of the woman that "was" promised before Abraham in Genesis 3:15. This seed was revealed to come through the line of Abraham in Genesis 12, 13, and 18, and this is "the day of the Messiah." When Jesus says "Abraham rejoiced to see my day," he is referring to when Abraham received the Messianic promise of "through your seed, all nations will be blessed." This is the day of the Messiah Abraham rejoiced to see and saw by faith (Hebrews 11:13). Jesus is stating, not that he existed before Abraham, as if this has to do with the context, but that he is the promised seed that came through Abraham. Jesus' point being that the Pharisees are not children of Abraham, because Abraham rejoiced to see this day, and they want to kill him.

Question(s) 6: Why did the Pharisees ask, "you are not 50 years old and yet you've seen Abraham?" Did they not understand that Jesus was talking about his age and seeing Abraham, and Jesus' response to them was about his age?

Answer 6: Jesus just finished explaining that the Pharisees cannot hear his words or understand him. It would be unreasonable to assume the Pharisees understood Jesus in verses 56 and 58, and their actions reflect accurately what Jesus said. Their actions always reflect that they misunderstood Jesus. Jesus never said he saw Abraham (though some manuscripts vary, "Abraham saw you," but this is unlikely to be original). He said Abraham rejoiced to see "the day" of his seed. Compare this to "many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it" (Matthew 13:17). The Pharisees are meant to be sons of these kings and prophets, and yet their actions are in disharmony with what their fathers would do if they saw the day of the Messiah fully, rather than in prospect. Jesus is not responding to their misunderstanding question (which is a common literary device in John's gospel to illustrate messages by people asking questions which misunderstand the answer). If Jesus wished to speak of his Trinitarian or Arian preexistence, why would he simply say that he was before "Abraham" rather than "before all creation?"

For more info:

Is "I am" a reference to Exodus 3:14 in more detail

The blasphemy argument in more detail

When Jesus says "I am he," what does this "he" refer to? More detail