Responding to Aaron Welch (Christ's Preexistence Series, Part VI)

Concerning “A Consideration of Passages thought to Reveal the ‘Preexistence of Christ’: John’s Account, Part Three”

John 8:53-58. I’ve been waiting for this one. In fact, let’s start at verse 48.

The Jews… say to Him, “Are we not saying ideally that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?

Jesus answered and said, “I have no demon, but I am honoring My Father, and you are dishonoring Me. Now I am not seeking My glory. He is the One Who is seeking it and judging. Verily, verily, I am saying to you, If ever anyone should be keeping My word, he should under no circumstances be beholding death for the eon.

The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets, and you are saying, ‘If ever anyone should be keeping my word, he should under no circumstances be tasting death for the eon.’ Not you are greater than our father Abraham who died! And the prophets died. Whom are you making yourself to be?”

Jesus answered, “If I should ever be glorifying Myself, My glory is nothing. It is My Father Who is glorifying Me, of Whom you are saying that He is your God. And you know Him not, yet I am acquainted with Him, and if I should be saying that I am not acquainted with Him, I shall be like you, a liar. But I am acquainted with Him, and I am keeping His word. Abraham, your father, exults that he may become acquainted with My day, and he was acquainted with it and rejoiced.”

The Jews, then, said to Him, “you have not as yet lives fifty years, and you have seen Abraham!”

Jesus said to them, “Verily, verily, I am saying to you, Ere Abraham came into being, I am.” They pick up stones, then, that they should be casting them at Him.

Now, I don’t know how difficult of a passage that may seem to be for you, but it once again seems pretty clear cut to me. Very little room for misunderstanding, here, and seems as though Jesus knew very well what He was talking about.

Anyways, along comes Aaron:

For those who believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the words translated as “I am” (ego eimi) in v. 58 are viewed as implying that, before Abraham existed, Jesus pre-existed as either Yahweh himself or as a celestial being who served as Yahweh’s representative.

I mean, that’s a factor, yes, but I was mainly thinking of the damning context, the whole “Jews not believing He preexisted” and the word “Ere,” which is “before,” with the word “I am,” or, “I am He,” if you’re particular, to drive the point home, but go ahead. Also, Jesus isn’t Yahweh Himself; that’s not a Scripturally sound teaching, as it’s the Trinitarians that teach that, not the A.E. Knochs or Zenders of the world.

However, the expression “ego eimi” was simply a common way of designating oneself; it did not mean one was claiming to be Yahweh or Yahweh’s representative.

You’ve heard it here, folks. Finally, after three books, a couple of accounts on His death, and a number of miracles, we finally have the affirmation that Jesus, indeed, designates Himself, here in John 8:58. “Before Abraham was, I am designated.”

The very same Greek expression is used in the next chapter by the man Jesus healed of blindness.

One minor difference, here – little thing, no biggie… One, the man cured of blindness is not Jesus Christ, our Lord. Don’t give me the ‘you’re changing words because it’s Jesus and that makes no sense’ argument, either, because we’re dealing with radically different context, here. I don’t see that whole conversation about how the man cured of blindness fucking exists before Abraham, and pissed off the Jews for making that very claim, leading me to believe that Jesus’ use of “I am” is not at all the same as Joe Schmo in chapter 9.

The Greek phrase translated in John 8:58 as “I am” occurs many other times in the Greek Scriptures, and is often translated as “I am he” or something equivalent in meaning. Translating ego eimi as “I am” (rather than as “I am he”) in John 8:58 seems to have more to do with the translator having a “theological axe to grind” than anything else, since “I am he” would be both a grammatically valid translation as well as more consistent with how the expression is normally translated.

I don’t understand. So is Aaron trying to prove it’s Him, too? Would saying “Ere Abraham was, I am He” change anything, other than looking weirder in the English? The word “before” is still there, as is the word “Abraham,” as is the word “was.” With “I am” or “I am He,” the context of the sentence itself is clear; I doubt this is a ‘theological axe’ and more ‘A.E. Knoch’ didn’t want to give English readers a headache. This makes sense when you consider that every use of ‘he’ in the CLNT is in lightface type, which signifies added words by the translator for easier rendering.

Aaron then proves that Christ isn’t Yahweh, with the Septuagint sublinear. This is the only natural conclusion we in Christ should reach, as the context for all passages requires this to be true. He quotes passages where Elohim also says “I am,” which just… I dunno, if the Joe Schmo can say it in chapter 9, right after Jesus said it, I’m pretty sure anyone could say it, and the context would justify its use. Aaron then drops a fantastic line, here, in disproving the Trinity:

Moreover, we can clearly see that the Jews didn’t consider the words “I am (he)” to be the name of God because they weren’t bothered by Jesus using it earlier in the chapter (John 8:24, 28). 

Get ‘em, Aaron. They certainly would have tried to stone Him sooner, if they’d perceived it that way. They clearly try to stone Him for a different reason, then, namely that He said He exists before Abraham was.

So who was Christ claiming to be in John 8:58?

I just told y-

The exact claim that Jesus was making here must be inferred by the listener/reader – and, I submit, this is done by taking into account Jesus’ words in verse 56.

Alright, I’m gonna let him speak, and I’m only nitpicking, but please don’t ever ask the reader to infer something in Scripture, because it’s very unwise to do so. If you aren’t sure, as Aaron seems to be unsure on what Jesus means when He says, “Ere Abraham was…” then you should not be doing anything aside from either seeking historical context, or studying the words of those who do know better on the passage in question. E.W. Bullinger comes to mind, or John Essex, or Knoch, or Dean Hough. These very mature believers will give you the same answer, from similar study. Inference leads to man’s reasoning, when Scripture, either internally or through simple historical fact, can clarify itself.

In v. 56, we read that Jesus told the unbelieving Jews, “Abraham, your father, exults that he may become acquainted with My day, and he was acquainted with it and rejoiced.” How did Abraham “see” (or become “acquainted with”) the day of Christ?

I believe Paul has the answer for us, in Romans 4:3. Observe:

Now ‘Abraham believes God, and it is reckoned to him for righteousness.’

This is also a quote from Genesis. See, Abraham grew acquainted with the day of Christ because he believed God’s words. He didn’t accomplish works, how the Jews believed he did, but in believing God, became acquainted with Him, thus acquainted with the Lord’s Day, in which He is glorified.

Aaron affirms this as well, and then says,

In light of John 8:56 (off of which Jesus is clearly building in v. 58), it is evident that the implication in Jesus’ words in v. 58 is the Messianic claim to be the one who had been promised by God before Abraham was born.

No! Because you’re missing the crucial verse 57, which matters just as much, and again, compares the words of the Pharisees. Here they say, “You have not as yet lived 50 years, and you have seen Abraham!” Once again, they presumed that, because He ‘wasn’t alive’ then, that He couldn’t have actually known what was going on with Abraham. Their own logic barred them from apprehending the wisdom of Jesus’ words. He replies, clearly, with, “Ere Abraham was, I am.” Reading it, again, with Aaron’s suppositions:

Jesus said to them, “Verily, verily, I am saying to you, Ere Abraham’s promise, I am He.”

I will kindly ask Aaron and all parties involved to stop adding words where they don’t belong. Abraham’s faith doesn’t make the last verse metaphorical, for kicks and giggles. The passage remains sound, apart from adding words to it. Seriously, this is a major issue that should be dealt with. It’s still not this complicated! If you find yourself having to go through an entire account to try and disprove something it claims right at the start, you’re not being very faithful to that account. If anything, you should be proving the points, not upending them. I hate to sound harsh, again, but you all do believe in the word of God, do you not? The words written – do you trust them? I know I’m sarcastic and goofy, but seriously – this is a question worth thinking about, if you have to work so hard to remove something that is written by adding more to it, apart from context. Aaron does it himself, in his own article:

Putting it all together, that which was implied in Christ’s words in verse 58 (when he said “I am he”) may be understood as follows: “Before Abraham came into being, I am he (who was promised/spoken of by God).”

I await the Authorized Aaron Companion Bible with baited breath.

*   *   *

John 17:1-5:

These things speaks Jesus, and lifting His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, come has the hour. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son should be glorifying You, according as You give Him authority over all flesh, that everything which You have given to Him, He should be giving it to them, even life eonian. Now it is eonian life that they may know You, the only true God, and Him Whom You do commission, Jesus Christ. I glorify You on the earth, finishing the work which You have given Me, that I should be doing it. And now glorify Thou Me, Father, with Yourself, with the glory which I had before the world is with You."

When Christ prayed that the Father would glorify him, he was referring to the post-resurrection glory that he received because of his sacrificial death. The sense in which Christ had this glory “before the world [was] with [the Father]” is the same sense in which Christ was “slain from the disruption of the world” (Rev. 13:8) and believers were given grace in Christ Jesus “before times eonian” (2 Tim. 1:9). It was, in other words, in God’s foreknowledge that Christ possessed his post-resurrection glory. That which was foreknown by God to take place and central to his redemptive purpose could be spoken of as having occurred long before actually taking place.

Beeeeelieve it or not, I’m inclined to take Aaron’s side on this one. Certainly doesn’t prove Christ’s nonexistence or anything, but as we know, the Old Testament makes a show of proclaiming the coming Messiah, not the Savior of all mankind. The glory He receives is fully displayed in His death and resurrection, through which He conquers the world (John 16:33.) The glory is the subject, here, not Christ Himself. This is indeed similar to us being designated beforehand, or Christ’s sacrifice being foreknown by God (1 Pet. 1:19-20.) Using this verse to ‘try and prove’ that Christ existed beforehand, while understandable (admittedly, I’ve done it myself,) isn’t going to do you any favors if you’re seeking explicit verbiage to prove your point.

Thank you to Mr. Andrew Christ for enlightening me on that passage. Again, does it prove Christ didn’t pre-exist? No. John proved it in chapter 1. But the focus is indeed different throughout this chapter, as again, we are covering Christ’s words the night before His death. As such, I generally agree with Aaron’s assertions, minus his reaffirmation that somehow, 1 Peter was discussing Christ Himself, and of course, his conclusion that because Christ’s glory is referenced here, that we cannot understand that Christ existed beforehand, per the clear train of thought explicitly running through John’s account.

(to be continued)

- GerudoKing