Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The Jehovah's witness' version of the bible the NWT translates these verses as:

58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid and went out of the temple. (emphasis added)

KJV,ESV,NIV,NRSV,NASB all translate the bold section in v58 as "I am", (source) which on the surface, seems to be a direct reference to the way God revealed himself to Moses at the burning bush:

13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” - Ex 3:14-15 NIV (emphasis added, cf. v14 in different version)

As such, it would seem logical for the Jews to want to stone Jesus for (in their eyes) blasphemy.

This Q&A on the biblical hermeneutics site addresses which translation of those particular words is preferable, so I don't wish to re-hash that ground, but to ask, given the sense imparted by the following verse (i.e. that the Jews regarded what Jesus was saying as blasphemous) how can it be logically maintained that Jesus was not referencing the name (or title, or description - that particular distinction should be irrelevant) of God as revealed to Moses at the burning bush and applying it to himself?

share|improve this question
    
Not by any means an answer, just a quibble: Jehovah doesn't translate to "I am." God calling himself "Jehovah" and referring to himself as "I am what I am" in the burning bush episode are two different things. Related, sure, but not equivalent. –  david brainerd Jun 29 at 6:53
    
@davidbrainerd hopefully my edit sufficiently addresses your quibble ;) –  bruised reed Jul 7 at 8:13

2 Answers 2

I actually do not see a problem here. The Jehovah's Witness group teaches that God the Father created Jesus first (source), then Jesus created everything else (source). So they do believe that Jesus existed before his incarnation.

To the Jews, this is an irrelevant distinction. It is blasphemous either way.

  1. "Jesus is God" = blasphemy - stone him
  2. "Jesus was created by God before everything else" = blasphemy - stone him.

Anything about "I am" being in reference to God the Father, explicitly, is simply denied and translated accordingly in their New World Translation. Whether their translation is valid or not is a question for the Hermeneutics site.

share|improve this answer
    
I know 2. is JW doctrine, but can you explain a little more clearly: a) how the Jews would have got that exact sense from what was said and b) why they would have regarded it as blasphemous rather than just crazy - I just don't see how that follows. –  bruised reed Jun 30 at 23:01
    
@bruisedreed The JW's don't need to explain that. Whether you equated yourself with God the Father, just called yourself a god (as the JW's would submit that Jesus did here), or called another human a god (as was the case with the newly founded Roman Imperial Cult) is irrelevant, really, because they are all blasphemy. You cannot tell how the Jews understood the statement by their actions to stone him. All scenarios would lead to that. –  fredsbend Jul 1 at 4:08
    
2. would be like the "two powers in heaven" heresy that got rabbi Elisha ben Abuyah renamed to Acher (the other guy). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_ben_Abuyah –  david brainerd Jul 9 at 3:45

It can be so easy to misinterpret things in the Bible therefore it is best not to make assumptions. Sticking to what the Bible actually says rather than one's own logical conclusions is paramount. This means making a clear distinction between what we know and what we conclude.

What we know:

God told Moses that his name is Jehovah.

Exodus 6:3 reads: "And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but with regard to my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them."

This verse reads the same in the King James Version, American Standard, Byington and many other Bibles.

Since God has only ever identified himself with the name Jehovah, (Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isa. 12:2; 26:4) "I Am" is clearly a title.

How can we be sure that Exodus 6:3 is not connected to Jesus' statement at John 8:58?

The context involving this scripture bears a very important point that must be considered. Please read John 8:57: 'Then the Jews said to him: “You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham?”'

The Jews are asking a question related to age, not identity. Jesus logically replied to the question by stating the length of his existence.

The New Living Translation (NLT) says: "Jesus answered, "The truth is, I EXISTED BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS EVEN BORN!"

(NWT) John 8:58 reads: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

Or

King James Version Joh 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

This is in harmony with other information Jesus gave about existing before even the world was created.

Here is one example: "So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was." John 17:5.

For more, please visit Jw.org.

share|improve this answer
1  
Welcome to the site. We are glad you decided to participate. I'm having trouble seeing an actual answer here. I think the question is asking "How do JW's explain that the Jews interpreted Jesus' statement as blasphemous?" –  fredsbend Jun 30 at 21:28

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.