HOME | ARTICLES

Yes, Yëshuå did say that he does come before Abraham. Some have interpreted this passage to infer that not only was Yëshuå pre-existent, but that he was also יהוה in the flesh.  The grammar in the King James Version and other translations is far too literal in maintaining the original Aramaic word order found in the Peshitta. This absurd English must first be corrected to begin to derive any sense at all.

Coming (before) is not something you are, but something you do. Therefore the auxillary verb HWA must be translated as does. This correctly answers the question, Who comes in what order? Yëshuå answers, I come before Abraham does.

The typical Christian translation also neglects the problem that the verb tenses do not match e.g. "was" vs. "am". This gets to the core of the real issue - was Yëshuå speaking chronologically (who was older) or hierarchially (who was more important)? The tense, was, suggests chronological, but am suggests hierarchy. Christians believe that "I am" refers to who Yëshuå was. But explaining who you are (ontological) does not answer as to when you were/are (chronological) in relation to someone else i.e. Abraham. The original question posed to Yëshuå a few verses before was not concerning his age, or whether he lived long ago at all, but rather about his rank in comparison to Abraham.

In English, the word "before" can be interpreted as meaning before a certain time, or before in rank. This adequately represents the original Aramaic word עד (ED) since it can be interpreted either way as well. What is going to decide the correct meaning is simply the context. The context here is clearly referring to rank, not time.

But doesn't Yëshuå also say that he met Abraham? No, that is precisely what he did not say. Only Abraham saw something, something that Yëshuå did not see. That something was a "day". Yëshuå is not a day, and when he says that Abraham saw his day, it is referring to a time in the future. Abraham experienced a prophetic vision of the day and time that Yëshuå would come. That is all he saw.

In Hebrew and Aramaic, the word yom can mean "a day" or "a time". The prophets also frequently speak of having visions of a future "day" as it is one of the most common prophetic idioms in the scriptures.

What seems to further confuse readers is how those who were questioning Yëshuå desperately twisted his answer as to his hierarchy into a phenomenal one concerning his time. This was done to make a mockery of him, with hopes to discredit even his sanity (John 8:48-49). Remember that just moments before, Yëshuå calls them "liars" (John 8:55). Their lying tactic is called the Straw man argument. The following description is taken from Wikipedia.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted. Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it. Such a target is, naturally, immobile and does not fight back, and is not as realistic to test skill against compared to a live and armed opponent.

A straw man argument can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choosing quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions.
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender and then refuting that person's arguments, thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical. [Jewish antimissionaries do this by attacking the ficticious Christian Jesus and attributing him as leader of the Nazarenes] 
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version.

Back to verse 58 for moment. Christians assert that when Yëshuå answered "I AM" that he was quoting Shemot (Exodus) 3:14 and claiming to be "I AM THAT I AM". These are both poor translations, but even so, they should be the same words with precisely the same if that were true.

The words recorded in John are	אנא איתי
The words recorded in Exodus are	אהיה אשר אהיה

Not exactly a match. Not even close.

Let's say that both passages did contain the exact same words amounting to "I AM" and that is the Name of the Almighty Creator. How can we explain why this very same verb occurs throughout the entire scriptures dozens of times, but only in one place does it refer to the Almighty Creator? If we apply the same logic as Christians do to John 8:58, then we have many various people claiming to be יהוה. This effectively ends the debate whether simply uttering the words "I AM" offers any theological identification. Surely we all use this conjunction every day of our lives without so much as a fleeting thought that we were claiming to be יהוה.

So why did they pick up stone to throw at him, what was it about Yëshuå's final answer that made them so angry? They had already claimed their father was Abraham, to whom they claim to follow. Yëshuå had just claimed to be greater and more worthy of honour than Abraham, implying they ought to be his disciples. This aroused their contempt so much that they wanted to murder him. Most Christians agree that these accusers and mockers were unrighteous. But if they had wanted to put him to death for blasphemy, claiming to be יהוה, then they would be right to do so, since the Torah commands it. If Yëshuå broke the law, then his blood is upon his own head, and he is a sinner.

יהוה is not in the business of tricking us into committing sin. He clearly stated that He does not appear in the form of a man in Debarim (Deuteronomy) 4:15-19. This is confirmed by John himself as he writes that no man has seen the Almighty at any time (1:18). Surely this is the truth. Yëshuå never claimed to have lived before his time, nor that he was יהוה. These are accusations that those who hated were trying to make stick to him so that they could "legally" have him put to death. If you also join in these false attributions, you too are accusing him of sin, and are calling for his judgment.