Before Abraham was, I am A. Perry Introduction John 8:58 has been given a variety of explanations by commentators which can be set out in a series of alternative bullet points:  Jesus is saying that o before Abraham (was) (born)  he existed  he is timeless and eternal  he is God/divine o before Abraham was called ‘Abraham’  he bore the divine name o before Abraham was in God’s purpose  he existed in God’s purpose And, o before Abraham is raised to life  he has life in himself now …using I AM from Exodus 3 and/or …using I am He from Isaiah 43 These suggestions can be mixed and matched (and perhaps we could add a few more nuanced choices) but they all have well-known problems which are worth rehearsing before we present our reading. So, (1) had Jesus been saying he existed before Abraham, he would have said ‘Before Abraham was (born), I was’. (2) Although many translations render the Hebrew of Exod 3:14 as ‘I AM that I AM’, this is more down to theology than Hebrew linguistics1 (the theological giveaway is the capitalization). The LXX has God say, ‘I am the Being’ and the Hebrew has ‘I will be who I will be’ (on which, see the margins or footnotes in translations). (3) The immediate preceding point in the conversation is about Jesus not being old enough to have seen Abraham, which requires, it would seem, a riposte from Jesus placing himself before Abraham. (4) Jesus could be referring to the naming of Abraham, but if so, he puts it in a rather oblique way and naming hasn’t been part of the conversation up to that point. (5) Further, no doubt Jesus is more important than Abraham in God’s purpose and before him in this respect, but if he was saying this this he would have said ‘I was’, (6) Theologians do wax lyrical about John 8:58 and assert that Jesus is claiming to be timeless and eternal and even God or a manifestation of God, but this theology is disconnected from the text; it is less exegesis and more systematic elaboration. Such theology is dependent on the thesis that Jesus is using either ‘I AM’ from Exodus 3 or ‘I am He’ from Isaiah 43, but it is not clear how this usage works,2 nor how it addresses the Jews’ arguments. Finally, (7), it is not obvious that Jesus is talking about Abraham coming to pass (being raised in the future), since the conversation/dialogue/exchange (vv. 12-58) hasn’t really covered the resurrection up to this point. The oldest theologizing here is that of Philo and the Targums, which in various ways develop readings of Exod 3:14 that relate to existence. In the context of John’s ‘I am’ sayings, these are discussed in M. M. Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 89-91. The Hebrew linguistics are set out in B. Albrektson, “On the Syntax of ’ehyeh ’asher ’ehyeh in Exodus 3:14” in Words and Meanings (eds., P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 15-28. 2 If Jesus had said ‘I am the I AM’ or ‘I am he – the Father’ we would have had a clear usage of expressions from Exodus 3 and Isaiah 43, the semantics and pragmatics of which would have been clear, but in standard commentaries the semantics and pragmatics of ‘I am’ are unexplained. 1 What we want to do in this article is keep the exegesis mundane and as close to the text as possible, rather than stray into the world of theology. There is doctrine to be had in Jesus’ utterance (to do with Exodus 3 and God-manifestation), but this is a deeper layer to an understanding of how the dialogue in John 8 works. There is a much simpler layer to do with the Abrahamic promises, ellipsis and typology. Our criticism of commentaries and their theology, whether on the Internet, in books, or in papers and articles, is that they leave the text behind and get on and talk about things like Christ’s position in the purpose of God, or perhaps his bearing the divine name, or perhaps his pre-existence as a divine being and/or as part of the Godhead, or as a manifestation of God. These kinds of commentary don’t explain the conversational dynamics nor the typology of John 8:58; moreover, they ignore the Abrahamic promises. Ellipsis in Conversation A well-documented phenomenon is ellipsis in conversation.3 As conversations flow, speakers will miss out words and phrases because they assume what has gone before in the conversation. Equally, they may also substitute words and phrases for previous ones relying on the hearers picking up the substitution. Misunderstandings and failure to follow the conversation leads to correction. An idiom such as ‘I am’ is used in self-identifying ellipsis in English. ‘Are you the king of France?’ and ‘I am’ work as question and answer because of ellipsis. Ellipsis is primarily a conversational phenomenon but then John 8 is a written record of a conversation and so we should expect ellipsis; ‘I am’ could well be elliptical. In formal terms, ellipsis is a reduction in what is uttered/written without affecting what is understood. As readers of a written record of a conversation, we can recover what has been left out (or assumed) by examining the potential connections across the conversation. One of the problems with much scholarly commentary on John 8:58 is that ‘I am’ has been analysed without regard to the phenomenon of ellipsis. Hence, analysis has been theological and involved notions like pre-existence, manifestation, eternal timelessness and deity. Inter-textual connections within a conversation help to make the conversation a coherent whole. In written discourse, a textual element will mark the ellipsis and direct the reader to what has been elided. It’s an empirical investigation and any ellipsis should be recoverable. In ‘Before Abraham was, I am’ we have a candidate for ellipsis in the use of ‘I am’. With ‘I am’ spoken by Jesus, we need to determine whether it is disambiguated elsewhere in the conversation by Jesus (‘I am who/what’). The ‘I am’ might well be carrying an ellipsis rather than being an assertion of existence (or something more metaphysical). Most scholars have seen an assertion of existence, pre-existence or eternal existence; this overlooks the possibilities of ellipsis. The candidate ellipses for John 8:58 would be a referring expression or a predicate element. For example, “ ‘You should join the Pharisees’, ‘I am’ ” is an ellipsis involving ‘I am’, one supplied by the immediate context – ‘(I am) joining the Pharisees’. Or again, ‘I am the promised Messiah, and unless you believe I am he, you will die in your sins’ is an ellipsis that would use the Greek ‘I am’. How much conversation intervenes between the ellipsis and the prior element can prevent readers seeing the connections (which seems to be what has happened in the case of John 8 – see below). Before Abraham was Commentators look at the expression ‘Before Abraham was’ and think of the past; they see the person Abraham in the past and they position Jesus before him in time. They might talk about pre-existence and/or eternal existence. The aorist infinitive verb form underlying ‘was’ is not so cut and dried; instead of ‘was’ it could equally be prospective and something like ‘comes to be’ – it depends on how we read the context. For example, Your father rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad…Before (pri.n) Abraham was (gene,sqai), I am. John 8:56-58 (KJV) G. Yuile, Pragmatics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 23; A. Georgakopoulou and D. Goutsos, Discourse Analysis: An Introduction (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004), 13. 3 And now I have told you before (pri.n) it come to pass (gene,sqai), that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. John 14:29 (KJV) …telling beforehand the latter events before (pri.n) they come to pass (gene,sqai) … Isa 46:10 (LXE) John 14:29 and Isa 46:10 use the same construction of (pri.n) + (gene,sqai) as John 8:58 and they show how it can have a prospective sense. If we widen the list of examples to cover all the verses with the form (gene,sqai) in John’s Gospel (1:12; 3:9; 5:6; 9:27; 13:19), they all happen to be about what will be or what will become or what will come to pass. The key argument, however, is that the context of v. 58 suggests that we should read before Abraham ‘comes to be’ as the sense of the verb. However, if we focus on the person Abraham and think of the resurrection, we won’t have a closing statement by Jesus that fits the argument he has been having with the Jews. Rather, we should ask what Abraham can be or become and the answer to this question is given in the promises God made to him: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing Gen 12:2 (KJV) And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. Gen 17:2 (KJV) And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. Gen 17:6 (KJV) There is a difference to mark here between the promise to make nations of Abraham and the promise to make him exceedingly fruitful. The point for us is that we have in John 8:58 a statement about what Abraham will be/become – a fruitful seed. Jesus’ closing assertion is in effect ‘Before Abraham becomes a fruitful seed, I am he’. This fits the flow of his conflict with the Jews in which they have claimed to be Abraham’s seed (vv. 33, 37); we will see below that it forms a fitting closure to what he wanted to say to them. Your father rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad…Before (pri.n) Abraham comes to be (gene,sqai),4 I am he. John 8:56-58 The allusion here is to the promise of Genesis 17, which records Abraham being glad at the prospect of being a father (Gen 17:17; 21:35) and where we find him re-named. Jesus makes a twofold allusion: he says Abraham rejoiced to see his day and this alludes to the promise of Genesis 17; he then says that he saw it and this second seeing alludes to the events on Mount Moriah.6 Self-Identifying The ‘absolute’7 ‘I am’ is defined by scholars as a usage where there is no predicate and/or no clear selfidentifying idiomatic ellipsis.8 Some scholars only use the criterion of there being no predicate to define an This means that readings based on ‘was’ are wrong, e.g. Before Abraham was born, was your father, was called ‘Abraham’, etc. 5 The ‘laughter’ is his joy which is then commemorated in the name ‘Isaac’. 6 Commentators can mistakenly collapse the two seeing’s into one and make a connection only with Mount Moriah. 7 This is the common scholarly description; see S. Smalley, John – Evangelist and Interpreter (Exeter: Paternoster, 1978), 187. C. H. Williams, “ ‘I Am’ or ‘I Am He’? Self-Declaratory Pronouncements in the Fourth Gospel and Rabbinic Tradition” in Jesus in Johannine Tradition (eds. R. T. Fortana and T. Thatcher; Louisville; WJK Press, 2001), 343-352; Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John, 88. 8 We use the concept of ‘idiom’ in a broad not a narrow sense; one illustrated in C. F. D. Moule’s title ‘An Idiom Book of the New Testament’. 4 absolute use, but this is an error because, if we have a self-identifying idiom ‘I am he’, this equally does not facilitate the theologizing that usually goes with ‘I AM’. Seeing the idiom is a matter of how you read a conversation. Some examples are clear uses of the selfidentifying idiom. This is best seen in cases which have not become theologically controversial; there are also clear examples with the corresponding Hebrew idiom which is ‘I am he’. Interestingly, the Greek idiom (egō eimi) has no formal third person pronoun ‘he’ and the Hebrew idiom (’ani hu’) has no formal verb ‘am’. Nevertheless, the translators of the LXX match the two idioms. A natural translation of the self-identifying Greek idiom in English is ‘I am he’ with ‘he’ in italics to indicate that it is not formally present in the original Greek (or ‘I am he’ for the corresponding Hebrew), but ‘I am’ also works as the translation – it depends on the sentence. Hebrew expressions for identifying are ’ani hu’ (‘I am he’9), and ’atāh hu’ (‘You are he’10); they are verbless but in all cases a present tense verb needs to be supplied in English to capture the sense – ‘I am he’ or ‘You are he’. A corresponding expression in Greek for ’ani hu’ is egō eimi, literally, ‘I, I am’ but translated in various ways. For example, Some said, ‘This is he’: others, ‘He is like him’: he said, ‘I am=I am he’. John 9:9 (KJV revised) But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, ‘Be of good cheer; It is I=I am; be not afraid’. Matt 14:27 (KJV) There are other places where the expression is translated ‘It is I’, where an idiomatic sense is implied equivalent to answering the question, ‘Who are you?’ - see Matt 14:27; 26:22, 25; Mark 6:50; 14:62; Luke 22:70; 24:39; John 4:26; 6:20;11 and 18:5, 6, 8. In some cases the idiom is part of a rhetorical question; in other places the questioning is implied by circumstances in a conversational situation. In two other examples, translators have inserted a proper name to make, ‘I am [Christ]’ (Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8). These last two cases are interesting because they are part of Jesus’ prophecy that false teachers would come in his name saying, ‘I am’. Translators could have rendered the expression ‘I am he’ in these cases also, since it is used in a self-identifying way and dependent upon a use of Christ’s name. Discussion of whether there are any examples of an absolute use of ‘I am’ centres on John 8:24, 28, 58 and 13:19.12 We will look at the John 8 texts below, but as for John 13:19, it is a clear self-identifying ellipsis for ‘Lord and Master’, although often mistakenly taken as an absolute use: Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am (eimi). If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, the servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he (ego eimi). John 13:13-19 (KJV) An example in Biblical Hebrew is 1 Chron 21:17, ‘I am he (’ani hu’) that has sinned’. An example in Biblical Aramaic is Dan 4:22 – ‘You are he (‘ant hû), O king’. 11 Williams, “ ‘I Am’ or ‘I Am He’? Self-Declaratory Pronouncements in the Fourth Gospel and Rabbinic Tradition”, 346, rejects this text as a self-identification text, but she is misled by a mistaken reading of John 6:19 which is a narrator’s identification of who they see and not the disciples’ recognising it is Jesus. The Synoptics make it clear that they disciples thought they saw a ghost. 12 An absolute use of egō eimi is not just a matter of a predicate being absent, or the absence of a participle construction (e.g. ‘I am the one bearing witness’). It also has to be shown that we do not have a selfidentifying use, i.e. ‘I am he’. This is why commentators may have more candidate texts – they fail to see how some of their list are self-identifying uses – see W. Carter, John (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006), 123, 203-204 for this mistake. 9 10 As an ordinary idiom of common Greek, there are of course examples of the self-identifying ‘I am’ outside the New Testament, for example, (1) Apocalypse of Moses 17.2 (1c. BCE – 2 c. CE) And bending over the wall, I saw him, like an angel. And he says to me: ‘Are you Eve?’ And I said to him: ‘I am (egō eimi).’ (2) 2 Samuel 2:20 (LXX) Then Abner looked behind him, and said, ‘Art thou Asahel?’ And he answered, ‘I am (egō eimi)’. (3) Testament of Job 29:4 (cf. 31:6) (1c. BCE – 2 c. CE) Still generally doubting, Eliphaz the king of the Temanites, having turned to me, said: ‘Are you Job, our fellow king?’ And I, having wept, sprinkling earth upon my head and shaking it, declared to them: ‘I am (egō eimi).’ The self-identifying idiom ‘I am’ is elliptical because we have to look to the context to determine who is the ‘I’. The presumption should be, going into John 8, is that its uses of ‘I am’ are self-identifying. The absolute use of ‘I am’ may well be a theological fiction. And, (4) Apocalypse of Abraham 8:3 (Late 1c. – 2c. CE) And he said, ‘You are searching for the God of gods, the Creator, in the understanding of your heart. I am He. This Apocalypse exists in a Slavonic translation of what is thought to be a Hebrew original of Palestinian provenance.13 What is interesting is that the self-identifying use of ‘I am He’ is clear and that the Apocalypse features an angel communicating with Abraham. Isaiah 43 One background14 to Jesus’ self-identifying language in John 8 is Isaiah 43. As well as NT usage of the expression egō eimi for self-identification, it is used in the LXX for ’ani hu’.15 Yahweh makes an identification of himself with ‘I am he’ in Isaiah 43. It is an identification of himself as the God who had brought the people out of Egypt: For I am Yahweh thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee…Ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am Yahweh; and beside me there is no saviour. Isa 43:3, 1011 (KJV revised) The ‘he’ in ‘I am he’ is not simply a reference to Yahweh himself; it is a reference to Yahweh’s identification of himself as ‘thy God’, ‘the Holy One of Israel’ and ‘thy Saviour’. This is how the third person anaphoric reference of the ‘he’ is secured. The answer we should give to the question ‘Who is the ‘he’ here?’ is all four components of Yahweh’s identification of himself. R. Rubinkiewicz “A New Translation and Introduction” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; 2 vols; New York: Doubleday, 1983-1985), 681-705 (683). 14 Scholars bring different backgrounds to bear on John 8, but we will only develop the scriptural one. For an example of bringing a Jewish text to bear as a background (in this case the Apocalypse of Abraham) see J. Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 85-91. 15 This is not to say that the NT quotes the LXX but rather that both the LXX and the NT are textual evidence of an idiomatic use of evgw. eivmi equivalent to the idiomatic use of ’ani hu’. 13 In Isa 43:8-13, we have another gathering of nations like that documented in Isaiah 41, but the course of events has moved on from that confrontation. The challenge to the nations is to produce temple and/or palace oracle records to the effect that their gods had predicted those things of interest to the gathered dignitaries. There weren’t any such oracles that could be produced or any that could show how events would now develop. Contrary to the common commentary view, this is not a ‘trial speech’ but a ‘diplomatic exchange’ at the royal court with diplomatic submissions of evidence. All the nations have gathered together so that the peoples may be assembled.16 Who among them can declare this and proclaim to us the former things? Let them present their witnesses that they may be justified, or let them hear and say, ‘It is true.’ Isa 43:9 (NASB) This begs the question as to what is the elliptical ‘this’, to which the obvious answer is that it is the prediction of a return of Judahites (vv. 1-7). Such a return would have been regarded as implausible by the diplomats and rulers of the local nations and city-states. The oracle unit recording the meeting closes with, Yea, before the day I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall reverse it? Isa 43:13 (KJV revised) The ‘day’ here is the forthcoming day of vengeance; this is the ‘day’ from which there will be no deliverance from the Lord’s hand (Isa 34:8; 61:2; 63:4). The ‘I am he’ in this utterance recapitulates the identification of vv. 3, 10-11. The point of this further identification is to give the reassurance that Yahweh is the Saviour of Israel before the forthcoming Day of the Lord.17 Jesus alludes to Isaiah 43 in his dialogue with the Jews with his use of egō eimi ‘I am he’. Jesus models his controversy with the Jews in John 8 at the close of the Feast of Tabernacles18 on Yahweh’s contention with the people in Isaiah 43. We should therefore look to the context to determine who Jesus is saying that he is when he says ‘I am he’. ...for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins. John 8:24 (KJV revised) The self-identification here is with the preceding claims of Jesus, And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. John 8:23 (KJV) In short, Jesus says ‘I am from above…I am not of this world…unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins. Generally, elliptical self-identification will be disambiguated near the ellipsis. The best translation here is simply ‘I am’. A second use of egō eimi best translated as ‘I am he’ is, ...when ye have lifted up the Son of Man, then shall ye know that I am he... John 8:28 (KJV revised) The KJV and RSV have a jussive form, ‘Let all…’; the NASB translates the Niphal Perfect; J. Blenkinsopp Isaiah 40-55, (New Haven: Doubleday, 2002), 223, thinks the form is Imperative. Looking at the database for this form (6x), the NASB is correct. A link with this verbal form in Isa 34:15 seems possible, namely, that Isa 43:10 is intended to signal the fulfilment of Isa 34:15 – “there shall also the vultures be gathered”. 17 The self-identifying uses elsewhere are Deut 32:39 (I am he, the Rock); Isa 41:4 (I am he, Yahweh); 46:4 (I am he, the one carrying Israel); 48:12 (I am he, the First and the Last); 52:6 (I am he, the one who is ‘Yahweh’). 18 A. Edersheim, The Temple (Repr. Ed.; London: Angus Hudson, 1997), 186. 16 The common suggestion19 here is that Jesus is identifying himself as the Son of Man; disambiguation will often be a definite description or title. In these two cases, John 8:24, 28, there is a word pattern picked up from Isaiah 43, ...believe not that I am’... John 8:24; cf. 13:19 (KJV) ...know (understand) that I am he’... John 8:28 (KJV revised) This pattern is one where there an attitude (belief, knowing, and understanding) is required towards the one who is the referent of ‘I’. Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I (am) he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, (even) I, (am) Yahweh; and beside me there is no God. Isa 43:10-11 (KJV) The pattern identified above, ‘(believe) (know) that I (am)’ in John’s Gospel, is lifted from this utterance in Isaiah, and the phrase being quarried is, ‘(know)... (believe)... understand that I (am) he’. Jesus is modelling his contention with the Jews on that of his Father. Issues of identity are important in Isaiah 43, and they are about who is ‘Yahweh’; hence, the ‘he’ is important—‘I (am) he—Yahweh’. In a corresponding way, Jesus’ assertions in John 8:24, 28 are about his identity. When we look at John 8:58, there isn’t an obvious nearby definite description or title to disambiguate the egō eimi.20 This is why commentators regard this use as ‘absolute’, but if this is so, it is unique in John (despite attempts to garner a few more examples). On this basis, commentators then wax lyrical and talk about preexistence, timelessness, eternity and deity, drawing in Isaiah 43 and/or Exodus 3. What commentators have rejected from their consideration is the possibility that Jesus is closing his contention with the Jews with the identity claim he made at the opening of his preaching (v. 12). When Jesus says ‘Before Abraham comes to be, I am he’, he is identifying himself as the Light of the World and closing the discourse with his opening claim. In literary terms, this gives the reader an inclusio with the beginning and end of the discourse. In the narrative story of Genesis-Exodus, the Light of the World is the Angel of the Lord; he brought Israel out of Egypt. His work was the making of Abraham’s people (his seed), fulfilling the promise in Genesis 17 that Abraham would be the father of a multitude (Gen 17:2, 7). Before Abraham was glad, this promise was given and it describes the future work of the Angel of the Lord. It follows that any typology21 here happens to place Jesus and his work before Abraham’s rejoicing. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly… As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee… And I will make thee exceeding fruitful… And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Gen 17:2-7 (KJV) It is this promise (and others) that the Jews place their confidence in when they say to Jesus, They answered him, ‘We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?’ John 8:33 (KJV) J. Painter, The Quest for the Messiah (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 257. So, ‘You are not yet fifty years old…I am’ (v. 57) does not work; ‘I know him…I am’ (v. 55) equally fails to work as an ellipsis; and so on, working backwards. 21 While Jesus is greater than Abraham in the purpose of God, his position in that purpose is not expressed by ‘I am he’; we require a ‘he’ in John 8 to secure the self-identification. 19 20 And, They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. John 8:39 (KJV) And, Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? John 8:53 (KJV) It is against this question that Jesus crafts his reply, ‘Before Abraham comes to be, I am he’. Who then did he make himself? Is it really the Light of the World? Light of the World The identity of Jesus as the Light of the World is introduced in the Prologue, That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. John 1:9-10 (KJV) The concept of the ‘world’ in John is a social concept; it is about a restricted society. John writes that the Light coming to the world could light every man (John 1:9), but he came to his own (people) first. It was these people that did not receive him, and therefore did not know him (hence John 1:26 says ‘whom ye know not’).22 He was then in that world circumscribed as the world of the Jews and John’s telling point is that the world was made through the Light. The introduction of John the Baptist as “a man sent” (John 1:6) echoes the description of Moses “the man” sent from God (Exod 3:14; 11:3, Num 12:3). This in turn suggests that the type behind ‘the Light” of John 1 is the Angel of the Lord to whom Moses was a witness. John confirms this when he records Jesus’ words, “I am the Light of the World; he that follows me shall not walk in darkness but have the light of life” (John 8:12). The allusion here is to the Israelites following the pillar of fire at night through the wilderness (Exod 13:21; cf. Isa 9:2; 42:6; 60:1).23 The Angel of the Lord appeared as a light, first to Moses at the bush (Acts 7:30, 35), and then to Israel when taking them out of Egypt. He gave Israel light during the plague of darkness (Exod 10:23).24 This angel prevented the destroying angel from annihilating Israel’s firstborn (Exod 12:23). He then stood as a pillar of light to protect the nation at the Red Sea (Exod 14:19-20; Num 14:14), and then led Israel through the wilderness, again as a pillar of fire (light) and a cloud (cf. Exod 40:38; Num 9:15; Deut 1:33). The first to be ‘the Light’ was therefore the Angel of the Lord and John presents him as a type of Christ.25 Jesus is the archetypical Light of the World of whom the Angel of the Lord is type.26 An insight into the work of the Angel of the Lord is provided by the remark made to Moses, ‘I will make of thee a great nation’ (Exod 32:10 (quoting Gen 12:2); Num 14:12). This remark shows the angel’s own perspective upon his Exodus work — it concerned making something.27 He had brought the children of Israel out of Egypt and delivered them at the Red Sea, and the Israelites had responded by making false gods whom We read in Matthew 1 that ‘he shall save his people from their sins’ (v. 21), and this mention of Christ’s own people comes at the same point in Matthew’s account as we find in John 1. 23 Carter, The Gospel of John, 103-105. 24 Hence, we read that light comes into the world and that men should not live in darkness (John 3:19; 12:46). 25 Classic studies of typology have made this connection; see A. M. Hodgkin, Christ in All the Scriptures (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1922), 16. 26 This light was enacted at the close of the Feast of Tabernacles. 27 Other verses which mention the making activity of the angel of the Lord are Exod 4:11; 14:21; 15:25; 24:8; and 1 Sam 12:6. Certain Psalms also describe the creative activity of the angel, e.g. Pss 95:6; 100:3. 22 they claimed had brought them out of Egypt (Exod 32:4). The Angel of the Lord’s response to this was a proposal that he make of Moses a great nation, and he would have destroyed the people. This shows us how he viewed his work for God; he viewed his work as one of making a nation. Moses’ intercession saved the people on that day. The allusions in John’s Prologue then direct our attention to the Exodus and the work of the Angel of the Lord. This work was a creative work in which a ‘world’ was made, and this ‘world’ was the nation. Such a work was a continuation of the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for God through the Angel of the Lord had likewise declared to Abraham that he would make of him a great nation (Gen 12:2). Other phrases in the Prologue fit this OT typology. For example, (1) Moses had asked the Angel of the Lord for his name, and the name of the Lord was placed in the angel (Exod 23:21), and so John comments of the Jews of his day that some ‘believed on his (Christ’s) name’ (John 1:12). (2) Again, Christ came to ‘his own (people)’, and ownership of a people is an emphasis we find in Exodus – “And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I [am] the Lord your God, who bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.” (Exod 6:7). When the people rejected the Angel of the Lord and fashioned golden calves, the Levites remained faithful and they were rewarded with the office of priesthood — they became the sons of God (Exod 32:29). Similarly, in John’s day, those who believed on the name of Christ, were given power to become sons of God (John 1:12). (3) And finally, the true Light tabernacled with the nation (John 1:14), just as the Angel of the Lord had tabernacled with Israel in their midst and manifested the presence of Yahweh. In this way, the nation beheld his glory reflected in the face of Moses; and likewise, the disciples beheld the glory of Christ.28 That John is using language typologically is indicated by his description of Jesus or the Word as the ‘true Light’, for ‘true’ here denotes, not the opposite of false, but rather the measure of the standard. It is like saying of a right angle that it is true if it conforms to the definition of a right angle. In typology, it amounts to saying that Christ is the archetype for the typical Light. Other examples of this use of ‘true’ which involve typology include ‘true riches’ (Luke 16:11), ‘true bread’ (John 6:32), ‘true vine’ (John 15:1), ‘true tabernacle’ (Heb 8:2), ‘figures of the true’ (Heb 9:24) and ‘true witness’ (Rev 3:14).29 What does it mean to say that Jesus is the Light of the World? It means that he is the ‘light of life’, the truth that leads to life, if it is believed. This life is a freedom from bondage to sin and death. The Angel of the Lord in leading Israel out of Egypt is a type of this Light. This deployment of typology is like Paul’s use of ‘the rock’ (1 Cor 10:1-5). The people journeyed through the wilderness with a rock, and Paul comments that this rock was Christ. So, they journeyed with Christ through the desert. But the rock that was struck was a literal rock, and the water was provided by the Angel of the Lord who led them through the wilderness. He sustained them by day with manna (also Christ) and water. So, Christ went with them and sustained them, if only they had eyes to see the doctrine being taught Another example where Christ is equated with the Angel of the Lord is found in 2 Corinthians 4:17 — ‘Now the Lord is that Spirit’. This is an identity in typology, because Paul is inviting us to see the Angel of the Lord who revealed God to Moses on Sinai as Christ. Believers are like Moses beholding with open face the glory of the Lord (Exod 33:23). And this glorious Light is reflected upon them as their faces shine as lights to the world. In this way, their image is changed by the Lord the Spirit (2 Cor 3:18). This light that they are given is a ministry of righteousness, and this is made with great plainness of speech, and without the use of a veil, which Moses used whenever he communicated the words of the Lord to the people (Exod 34:32-35). 29 Here the true witness is contrasted with the typical witness in the heavens of the rainbow (Ps 89:37) — all covenants require a witness. 28 in their midst. Christ was there in type, as Paul says, the Exodus was a type, and the things that happened to the Israelites were types. Abraham Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say unto you, Before Abraham comes to be, I am he.” Jesus’ way of contending with the Jews repeats the manner of speaking of Isa 43:10-11. In Isaiah, Yahweh’s argument with the people is that he is the one true God and that before him there was no god formed. Jesus’ argument with leaders of the people is that, before Abraham comes to be, I am he. How is the Angel of the Lord as the Light of the World related to Abraham? The first narrative introduction of the Angel of the Lord is in Genesis 16 where he promises to Hagar that her seed would be multiplied (Gen 16:7-11). The Angel of the Lord is not mentioned in Genesis 17, but v. 1 has, And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am El Shaddai; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and I will multiply thee exceedingly. Gen 17:1-2 (KJV revised) The question is therefore whether we infer that Yahweh appeared to Abram in the person of the Angel of the Lord – i.e. whether this was Jesus’ reading. It is significant that Genesis 17 records an incident where Abraham is also promised that he would be multiplied (v. 2), which a reader would naturally compare with the immediately preceding promise to Hagar. Hagar’s seed would be multiplied as well as the seed that would be born through Sarai. The terms of this promise cover several things:   First, ‘I will multiply’ is picked up from Gen 16:10, then repeated in Gen 22:17 and then Exod 32:13. The promise is that God would multiply Abram and this is what Moses pleads using Gen 22:17 when God proposed instead to make of him a great nation (Exod 32:10). Second, Abram would be a father of many nations and so his name is changed to ‘Abraham’. This ‘many nations’ element is distinct from the ‘multiplying seed’ element which pertains to Israel in Egypt: And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. Exod 1:7 (KJV)  Third, God would establish his covenant with Abraham’s seed “after him” (Gen 17:2, 5); he would give the land to his seed “after him” (Gen 17:6). His seed “after him” would be required to circumcise every male child (Gen 17:10). All of these elements are incorporated into the Law (John 7:22; Acts 7:5). Jesus’ ‘Before Abraham’ stands as a natural contrast to the refrain in this promise of what is “after Abraham” (vv. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10). The Jew’s confidence in Abraham as their father reflects their position “after him”, but Jesus was before Abraham. In a discussion with Jews about Abraham, any rabbi might invoke Genesis 17 to argue his point. This, Rabbi Jesus does, but is the theophany of that chapter one involving the Angel of the Lord? This theophany is referred to in Exod 6:3, And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh was I not known to them. Exod 6:3 (KJV revised); cf. Gen 48:3 But this theophany in Exodus is equally through the Angel of the Lord who was to bring Israel out of Egypt. This is clear from the narrative continuity between the theophany of Exodus 3 and Exodus 6, And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush…Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Exod 3:2-6 (KJV) It follows that Jesus sees the Angel of the Lord as the Light of the World and a type of himself, not only in the Exodus, but also in events of Abraham’s life. Jesus identifies himself in the present tense assertion ‘I am he’ connecting with his earlier identity claim of being the Light of the World. Since Jesus was not literally the Angel of the Lord (he was not and had not been an angel), he is asserting an identity in typology. Just as he might have said ‘I am the Rock that followed Israel in the wilderness’ – he wasn’t literally the Rock. Jesus’ use of typology is the reason why the Jews did not understand him (and, we might say, many commentators today). The typology is one of making people free from bondage.30 The Jews had argued as follows, They answered him, ‘We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?’ John 8:33 (KJV) Jesus’ counter-claim is that if they believed his word, the truth would set them free. As ‘the Light of the World’ had brought Abraham’s descendants out of Egypt, so too Jesus would free people from sin. The Angel of the Lord is a type of Christ in this respect, since Christ sets people free from bondage. In this way, the promised multitudinous seed of Abraham could be brought into being with the faith of Abraham. The counter-argument in Jesus’ logic to the Jews’ emphasis on Abraham as their father, is that his seed were multiplied by the Angel of the Lord in Egypt. Jesus is reading Genesis-Exodus and seeing that before Abraham rejoiced, the Angel of the Lord was a type of himself promising to make his seed a multitude. The Jews could point to Abraham as their father but the one greater than Abraham would be the one who was to make him that father both of a multitudinous seed and of many nations. The reason why the Angel of the Lord is a type of the Light of the World is because Jesus’ freedom from bondage comes through belief of the truth. Objections There are four alternatives to our approach to be noted. (1) The most common interpretation states that ‘Before Abraham was’ is about a time before Abraham was born (existed). It is said that Jesus’ claim is all about a pre-existence in heaven or an existence in eternity.31 The problem with this reading is that it is dependent on linking ‘I am’ to either Exodus 3 or Isaiah 43 (or both32) but (a) Exodus 3 is about manifestation and not existence; and (b) Isaiah 43 is about selfidentification and not existence. Our approach keeps the focus on Jesus’ emphasis on identity (v. 25, ‘Who are you?’) and Jesus’ constant assertions about himself – hence, we can properly explain the present tense quality of ‘I am he’ (which the pre-existence reading cannot do). Further, while the Angel of the Lord has a role in Genesis 17, there isn’t such a role for him before Abraham was born or before he existed. Abraham was born ‘Abram’ in Ur of the Chaldees and there isn’t anything This is why the ellipsis is neither ‘Before Abraham was (Abraham)’ nor ‘Before Abraham was (your father)’ – the naming of Abram pertains to his being the father of many nations rather than his seed being multitudinous. Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not the Gentiles. 31 You don’t have to look far for this idea: C. H. Dodd, The Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 261; J. Marsh, Saint John (London: Penguin, 1968), 371; B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (London: Oliphants, 1972), 336; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel of John (London: SPCK, 1976), 292; etc. What is astonishing about these commentaries is how very little justification is given for the interpretation; they take it for granted. No doubt part of the reason is that they were unaware of emerging disciplines of Semantics and Pragmatics. 32 See B. Lindars, John (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1990), 84-86 for a good introduction to the options. 30 intertextual in the story at this point that is picked up in Jesus’ argument. Rather, the themes of Genesis 17 – the multitudinous seed and fatherhood are part of what is in contention in John. The argument of Jesus with the Jews is about a present identity and not a past one; Jesus doesn’t say ‘Before Abraham was, I was’. His thinking is not about his existence as someone (in heaven or on earth) back in the history of the nation. Equally, he is not saying that he actually is the Angel of the Lord; rather, he is saying that he is truly the ‘Light of the World’ (v. 12). In order to make a point about Abraham centred on his rejoicing at the promise of a seed and fatherhood, you have to use a prospective tense; hence, Jesus says elliptically, ‘Before Abraham comes to be, I am he’. Jesus’ whole assertion might be regarded as odd because of the mixed tenses, but this is necessary if you are identifying yourself in the present as the archetype of the Angel of the Lord in the past: all Jesus is in effect saying is - Abraham will be made a fruitful seed, and I am he (the Light of the World who gives that life). (2) A second alternative interpretation is that Jesus does not say ‘I am’ to refer back to his assertion that he is the Light of the World. He is using the divine self-identifying proclamation from Isaiah 43 to indicate an identity with the God of Israel. The problem with this reading is that it ignores the semantics of the selfidentifying idiom ‘I am he’ as it functions in the real conversation of John 8. In that conversation, Jesus hasn’t previously introduced an identification between himself and the God of Israel, an identification that can then be picked up later by an elliptical use of ‘I am he’. Further, whereas in a later conversation, the Jews will understand Jesus to make a claim of equality with God (John 10), they make no such reply in this exchange.33 In essence, this proposal throws the reference of an ellipsis back to Isaiah 43 based on allusiveness in Jesus’ reasoning, rather than the more immediate identity claim, ‘I am the Light of the World’. Elliptical self-identifying idioms are common enough and there is nothing intrinsically ‘divine’ or unique to Isaiah or John about such an expression. For example, to show that there is nothing uniquely Israelite about ‘I am he’, take the following Sumerian hymn to Enlil (c. 1000-1300), I am the Lord, the lion of the holy An, the hero of Sumer, I make the fishes of the sea glad, and see that the birds do not fall down, the wise countryman, who ploughs the field, Enlil, I am he.34 The conversation Jesus is having with the Jews is about the seed of Abraham, fatherhood, Abraham himself, and his own identity or status. What he has seen his father do in Isaiah, he himself is doing with his identity as the true ‘Angel of the Lord’. Jesus can indeed be alluding to Isaiah 43, but the conversation he is having with the Jews does not itself indicate he is identifying himself directly as the God of Israel (or in contemporary parlance, including himself in the identity of the God of Israel. (3) The third alternative is that Jesus is using the divine name from Exod 3:14, ‘I AM that I AM’. We have already noted that this has more to do with theology than Hebrew linguistics. Simply put, ‘I AM’ is not the divine name; this is ‘Yahweh’. Moreover, to use the divine name or even to use the divine ‘I AM’ (if we were to accept that translation) would require a semantics and a pragmatics to explain how that use is working in the utterance. We can supply this for Exodus 3, but apart from the claim ‘Jesus is using the divine I AM’, commentators don’t supply the explanation. It is often argued that the Jews’ taking up of stones to stone him requires a recognition on their part that Jesus was using the divine name, claiming it for himself, or referring or alluding to it – see Whittaker, Studies in the Gospels, 406-407; Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 85. If this was their understanding (cf. Lev 24:10-11), this does not mean it was Jesus’ intention; they often misunderstood him. Moreover, this reading of the stoning is too narrow. In this exchange, Jesus has said that his opponents can’t tell anything about him (v. 14); they judge after the flesh (v. 15); they don’t know God (v. 19); they will die in their sins (v. 21); they are of the world (v. 23); they did the deeds of the devil (v. 44); and they were liars (v. 55). It is no surprise that they would take up stones to stone him. In narrative terms, their attempt at stoning obviously stands as an ironic counter-point to their unwillingness to stone the woman taken in adultery. Jesus has said many things in this discourse to give them cause to stone him. 34 W. Beyerlin, ed., Near Eastern Religious Texts relating to the Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 1978), 101. 33 Exodus 3 contains a paronomasia between the name ‘Yahweh’ (Yhwh) and the verb form ‘I will be’ (‘hyh), and as part of that construction, God instructs Moses to say, ‘I will be has sent me unto you’ (Exod 3:14). This is distinctive word-play but not a precedent for John 8. God’s use of ‘I will be’ has a predicate; it stands as a proxy35 for a referring expression like a name – this is the point of the substitution and how the paronomasia works, which Moses gets, because he was to say that ‘Yahweh Elohim has sent me unto you’ (Exod 3:15). John is instead simply an idiom of self-identification ‘I am he’ in a conversation. On the other hand, we might well say that ‘I will be who I will be’ is fulfilled in Jesus, and so his use of ‘I am he’ is also designed to show that he is the present tense fulfilment of ‘I will be who I will be’, but this fulfilment is the same as God’s presence in the Angel of the Lord before Abraham and at the Exodus (i.e. in the Angel of the Presence; Exod 23:20-21; Isa 63:9). Jesus’ declaration that he is the Light of the World is how he is claiming in this dialogue to be God manifest36 in the flesh. This theology is correct but a more straightforward approach to the discourse of John 8 should at first be established before digging deeper. Whereas scholars usually work with the LXX as their witness for the OG and relate John 8:58 to Exod 3:14’s ‘I am the Being’,37 this is not how the Spirit quotes and develops its own Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus is a manifestation of whom God would be, and his ‘I am’ declarations in John are uttered in part to establish this claim, but we also need to root Jesus’ declaration in the conversation that he has with the Jews. Once egō eimi is recognised as a self-identifying idiom, the conversation controls its semantics; it should disambiguate the identification with a more explicit earlier claim of identity such as ‘I am the Light of the World’. We are not free to go and look for identities outside the conversation, for example, that Jesus is asserting he is the seed of the woman (Gen 3:15). Jesus’ identity as the Light of the World then leads to an understanding of how he fulfils the meaning of the divine name. (4) The final alternative interpretation38 is that Jesus is not asserting the fact of his pre-existence in respect of Abraham but rather a quality of existence, a timeless eternal existence – he simply is (‘I am’). He has eternal life in himself and the Jews are just showing their wilful mis-understanding when they accuse him of claiming to be older than Abraham. This interpretation can, of course, be combined with interpretations (2) and/or (3) if it is thought that Jesus is doing more than claiming to have eternal life. The main problem with this view is that it rejects the reading that egō eimi is a self-identifying idiom, and so it flies in the face of all the textual evidence for this usage in the NT and the LXX which we have listed. Secondly, the interpretation misapplies what Jesus means when he says that the Father has given to the Son to have life in himself (John 5:26) – this was given upon his resurrection from the dead. The eternal life that Jesus has before his death and resurrection is the light of life (v. 12), a life that is realized through resurrection. Before his death, Jesus is cannot be claiming to be eternal. Conclusion Discussion of John 8:58 has been bedevilled by theology. Failure to see the cut and thrust of a back-andforth dialogue, making due allowance for ellipsis, has meant that theologians have wrested the text from its context and plonked it into the middle of philosophical musings about existence, eternity and deity. This has been sustained by ancient exegesis of the divine name and Exodus. In a word-play where paronomasia is going on, a unique use of ‘I will be/I am’ does not create a name in and of itself; there aren’t two names of God – ‘Yahweh’ and ‘I will be/I am’. 36 Showing God and being a manifestation of God in the flesh is John’s theology throughout the gospel. It begins in 1:1, ‘and was God’, continues through ‘has seen the Father’ (14:9) and ends with Thomas’ confession ‘my God’ (20:28). 37 Philo has the same approach as the LXX to the divine name; e.g. Life of Moses 1.75. 38 Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John, 91-92. 35 The textual evidence for ’ani hu’ (‘I am he’), and ’atāh hu’ (‘You are he’) and egō eimi (‘I am he’) suggests we have a self-identifying idiom rather than, in the case of egō eimi, an assertion about existence, eternity or deity. When we investigate who it is that Jesus is identifying himself to be in John 8:58, the principal identification he has put forward at the beginning of his contention with the Jews is ‘I am the Light of the World’. Recapitulating this identity at the end of the dispute is an appropriate response to the Jews as it adds to and closes the theme of ‘the one who is to bring about the seed of Abraham’.