"Before Abraham Was, I AM"

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again bdavidc,

You are trusting scholars and dictionaries over God’s own words, and Scripture says that is trusting man rather than the LORD ~Jeremiah 17:5. That is the core problem here. Under Sola Scriptura, Davidson’s opinion carries zero weight. Scripture interprets Scripture, not footnotes, margins, or respected Hebrew professors

I am not sure what you are claiming here and what you represent by "Sola Scriptura". I consider it important to consider a number of different translations. My grandmother's favourite Bible was the RV/KJV Interlinear, and I read a portion of Scripture from this edition of the two translations most mornings. We mainly use the KJV in our meetings, but as well as my RV/KJV I have a NASB Study Bible for quick reference, while I leave the RV/KJV open at the selected reading of the day. An interesting new translation of the OT is Robert Alter's Hebrew Bible and Commentary. According to the reviews this is closer to the Hebrew than most modern translations. The Commentary portion is mainly explaining why he chose particular words in his translation.

God is not naming a future role in Exodus 3, He is revealing His identity. God immediately tells Moses to tell Israel, “I AM hath sent me unto you” ~Exodus 3:14. God then tells Moses that this name is His memorial “for ever” ~Exodus 3:15. This name is about who God is, not what He will do in the future.

I consider the events surrounding the Passover are very important, not only with regard to the formation of the nation of Israel, but also as a pattern of things to be accomplished in Christ. Jesus is the Passover lamb, and the Yahweh Name is fulfilled in what was accomplished in his sufferings, crucifixion, death, resurrection and exaltation. The same words used in the Song of Moses in fulfilment of the Yahweh Name are also used of Jesus' crucifixion and the events of his second coming and are spoken about in Revelation as the Song of Moses and the Lamb.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[bdavidc]

I am not sure what you are claiming here and what you represent by "Sola Scriptura". I consider it important to consider a number of different translations.

Sola Scriptura does not say we should reject translations or not read them. It says that Scripture itself, not scholars, commentaries, or translation theories, is the highest authority. Translations are tools, not judges. We use them to read the text. But we do not let the text be “judged” by the translation when the text judges doctrine for us. Scripture interprets Scripture ~1 Corinthians 4:6. When a translation choice or scholarly explanation leads to a conclusion that contradicts what God plainly says in other places, Scripture is the arbiter.

That is why Davidson, Alter, or any Hebrew professor can’t re-define what God very clearly and expressly explains about Himself. God does not delegate His identity to scholars. He tells us it Himself.

In Exodus 3, He does not give a description of a future role or an idea in the process of unfolding. He speaks with authority in the present, and says who He is. He tells Moses, “I AM hath sent me unto you” ~Exodus 3: 14, then immediately grounds that name as enduring by saying, “This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations” ~Exodus 3:15. Scripture itself defines the name. It is not conditional. It is not progressive. It is based on God’s self-existence and immutability ~Malachi 3:6.

You are correct that Passover is a pattern that is fulfilled in Christ. Scripture is very clear that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us ~1 Corinthians 5:7. But fulfillment does not re-define God’s name. Fulfillment proves God is faithful to who He has already said He is. Events do not complete the divine name in Jesus. Jesus does not have to grow into deity by the works of the law or what happens to Him ~Galatians 4:4. He bears the divine name because of who He is. That is why He says, “Before Abraham was, I AM” ~John 8:58. And that is why His hearers correctly understood that statement as a claim to deity ~John 8:59.

Revelation does not present a new name that is developing through history. It presents the same Lord, who is, and who was, and who is to come ~Revelation 1:8. That language is deliberately echoing God’s self-revelation in Exodus. The Song of Moses and the Lamb does not blur or re-define identities or change the meaning. It proclaims continuity. The same God who redeemed Israel is the God who redeems by the Lamb.

So it is not a matter of valuing the patterns or using different translations. It is a matter of where authority is found. Under Sola Scriptura, God explains His own name, Christ bears that name, and Scripture affirms it from Exodus to Revelation.

That is not disparaging study. It is putting study under the authority of the Word of God where it belongs.

 

[amigo de christo]

Sola Scriptura does not say we should reject translations or not read them. It says that Scripture itself, not scholars, commentaries, or translation theories, is the highest authority. Translations are tools, not judges. We use them to read the text. But we do not let the text be “judged” by the translation when the text judges doctrine for us. Scripture interprets Scripture ~1 Corinthians 4:6. When a translation choice or scholarly explanation leads to a conclusion that contradicts what God plainly says in other places, Scripture is the arbiter.

That is why Davidson, Alter, or any Hebrew professor can’t re-define what God very clearly and expressly explains about Himself. God does not delegate His identity to scholars. He tells us it Himself.

In Exodus 3, He does not give a description of a future role or an idea in the process of unfolding. He speaks with authority in the present, and says who He is. He tells Moses, “I AM hath sent me unto you” ~Exodus 3: 14, then immediately grounds that name as enduring by saying, “This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations” ~Exodus 3:15. Scripture itself defines the name. It is not conditional. It is not progressive. It is based on God’s self-existence and immutability ~Malachi 3:6.

You are correct that Passover is a pattern that is fulfilled in Christ. Scripture is very clear that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us ~1 Corinthians 5:7. But fulfillment does not re-define God’s name. Fulfillment proves God is faithful to who He has already said He is. Events do not complete the divine name in Jesus. Jesus does not have to grow into deity by the works of the law or what happens to Him ~Galatians 4:4. He bears the divine name because of who He is. That is why He says, “Before Abraham was, I AM” ~John 8:58. And that is why His hearers correctly understood that statement as a claim to deity ~John 8:59.

Revelation does not present a new name that is developing through history. It presents the same Lord, who is, and who was, and who is to come ~Revelation 1:8. That language is deliberately echoing God’s self-revelation in Exodus. The Song of Moses and the Lamb does not blur or re-define identities or change the meaning. It proclaims continuity. The same God who redeemed Israel is the God who redeems by the Lamb.

So it is not a matter of valuing the patterns or using different translations. It is a matter of where authority is found. Under Sola Scriptura, God explains His own name, Christ bears that name, and Scripture affirms it from Exodus to Revelation.

That is not disparaging study. It is putting study under the authority of the Word of God where it belongs.

Yes indeed my friend . stay well grounded in the lovely scriptures . men have made a mess of things .

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again bdavidc,

Under Sola Scriptura, God explains His own name,

Yes, for example Robert Alter translates Exodus 3:14 as:
Exodus 3:14 (Robert Alter): And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, I-Will-Be-Who-I-Will-Be." And He said , "Thus you shall say to the Israelites, 'Ehyeh has sent me to you.' "

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[amigo de christo]

people will cling to anything when it suits what they desired to beleive .
The same I AM , GOD told moses , IS the same I AM JESUS said before abraham was I AM .
The scrips easily interpret the scrips . Now to the trenches one and all .

 

[JustMe]

people will cling to anything when it suits what they desired to beleive .
The same I AM , GOD told moses , IS the same I AM JESUS said before abraham was I AM .
The scrips easily interpret the scrips . Now to the trenches one and all .

Are you clinging to something that merely replaces the word of God, other than the truth, whenever it suits your beliefs? I believe so, based on your remarks. I suggest you examine this verse in John thoroughly to be sure.

Making assumptions about what is true or false can be very risky.

Yes, scripture can interpret other scripture, as long as the scripture you use as your foundation is true and not distorted by intentionally biased translations. I assume you care that what you read in scripture is the genuine word of God, or perhaps you do not.

I think this is the case with the verse discussed here. You and another individual are firmly entrenched in your views and refuse to acknowledge you might be mistaken or placed off guard. This verse is intentionally corrupted and biased toward your belief system. Naturally, you will accept and defend it. You do not want to question any of your core truths in scripture. But what is the consequence if you do not?

Pride can be very harmful.

You persist in this ignorance as if it were a child's game to win, against the true historical interpretation of John's verse, against facts and truths that do not mislead.

It amazes me that, even after clearly explaining how the English version of this verse was produced, some still question its authenticity.

This is what is known as the blind leading the blind.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings amigo de christo,

people will cling to anything when it suits what they desired to beleive .
The same I AM , GOD told moses , IS the same I AM JESUS said before abraham was I AM .
The scrips easily interpret the scrips . Now to the trenches one and all .

I prefer Tyndale's translation and he translated Exodus 3:14 in the future tense, and I also like the interesting spelling of his time and the specific spelling “I wilbe”:
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.

The Trinitarian Church of England were the translators who produced the KJV and they relied very heavily on Tyndale's translation, but did not acknowledge their reliance upon his translation. It would have been interesting to listen in to the discussions as to what would be the proper translation of Exodus 3:14 and why they overthrew Tyndale's translation here.

Back in Tyndale's day, the Church of England and the Catholic Church persecuted Tyndale and eventually burnt him at the stake. They did not like some aspects of his translation, possibly Exodus 3:14 and his use of the word "Congregation" instead of "Church". What they especially opposed at the time was Tyndale's desire to allow anyone to read the Bible, and the Church tried to destroy any copies of his translation that came to England. So yes, you can choose whatever translation that suits your tastes and

cling to anything when it suits what they desired to beleive

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[amigo de christo]

Are you clinging to something that merely replaces the word of God, other than the truth, whenever it suits your beliefs? I believe so, based on your remarks. I suggest you examine this verse in John thoroughly to be sure.

Making assumptions about what is true or false can be very risky.

Yes, scripture can interpret other scripture, as long as the scripture you use as your foundation is true and not distorted by intentionally biased translations. I assume you care that what you read in scripture is the genuine word of God, or perhaps you do not.

I think this is the case with the verse discussed here. You and another individual are firmly entrenched in your views and refuse to acknowledge you might be mistaken or placed off guard. This verse is intentionally corrupted and biased toward your belief system. Naturally, you will accept and defend it. You do not want to question any of your core truths in scripture. But what is the consequence if you do not?

Pride can be very harmful.

You persist in this ignorance as if it were a child's game to win, against the true historical interpretation of John's verse, against facts and truths that do not mislead.

It amazes me that, even after clearly explaining how the English version of this verse was produced, some still question its authenticity.

This is what is known as the blind leading the blind.

verily verily i say unto thee , its those who accuse who are truly doing what it is they accuse the other of doing .
Its not me seated under men that twisted the words of GOD . With wise sounding men and koine greek
and claims such as bad english , come sit under us so we can twist what it means .
IT aint me sitting under that . it is not I heeding them so called ever wise scholars who have done
naught but twist things and sounded so clever as they did it .

 

[amigo de christo]

Greetings amigo de christo,

I prefer Tyndale's translation and he translated Exodus 3:14 in the future tense, and I also like the interesting spelling of his time and the specific spelling “I wilbe”:
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.

The Trinitarian Church of England were the translators who produced the KJV and they relied very heavily on Tyndale's translation, but did not acknowledge their reliance upon his translation. It would have been interesting to listen in to the discussions as to what would be the proper translation of Exodus 3:14 and why they overthrew Tyndale's translation here.

Back in Tyndale's day, the Church of England and the Catholic Church persecuted Tyndale and eventually burnt him at the stake. They did not like some aspects of his translation, possibly Exodus 3:14 and his use of the word "Congregation" instead of "Church". What they especially opposed at the time was Tyndale's desire to allow anyone to read the Bible, and the Church tried to destroy any copies of his translation that came to England. So yes, you can choose whatever translation that suits your tastes and


Kind regards
Trevor

Go ahead and twist what HE told john in heaven . I AM the FIRST and the LAST .
lets see you twist that as well . You all are not gonna convince me .
And it aint me running into the ecumenical interfaith , which i KNOW is of anti christ .
Many are abandoning the actual gospel of YE MUST BELIEVE in him to BE SAVED
f or one that tries to preach a belief in unbelief . Aint me seated under trump or the popes
or the nar realm . And it aint me hollering judge not , lets find common ground .
Its not me constantly h ollering breaking down walls of divisions and building bridges
and omitting TRUTH for the sake of getting along . Might i suggest we have Nothing to do with
that mess that clearly is all over both sides of politics , both the RCC and the protestant realm .
And T rump and vance and their queen paula white and that realm
Will FINISH off what was even left of the evangelicals . THOUGH many of them have long sold out
under seeker friendly and rick warrens purpose driven lie , which was meant
ONLY to prepare the churches to recieve the lie of the agenda . WE been duped .

 

[amigo de christo]

Are you clinging to something that merely replaces the word of God, other than the truth, whenever it suits your beliefs? I believe so, based on your remarks. I suggest you examine this verse in John thoroughly to be sure.

Making assumptions about what is true or false can be very risky.

Yes, scripture can interpret other scripture, as long as the scripture you use as your foundation is true and not distorted by intentionally biased translations. I assume you care that what you read in scripture is the genuine word of God, or perhaps you do not.

I think this is the case with the verse discussed here. You and another individual are firmly entrenched in your views and refuse to acknowledge you might be mistaken or placed off guard. This verse is intentionally corrupted and biased toward your belief system. Naturally, you will accept and defend it. You do not want to question any of your core truths in scripture. But what is the consequence if you do not?

Pride can be very harmful.

You persist in this ignorance as if it were a child's game to win, against the true historical interpretation of John's verse, against facts and truths that do not mislead.

It amazes me that, even after clearly explaining how the English version of this verse was produced, some still question its authenticity.

This is what is known as the blind leading the blind.

the blind leading the blind . It aint me hoping in and trusting in any govt .
It aint me sitting to one side or the other , FOR BOTH SIDES have b een long duped .
It aint me saying judge not , hey we gotta all find common ground .
And Truth is being removed for sake of unity . NOT I my friend .
Are you sit ting under anything or anyone that has anything to do with ecumenical interfaith .
WHICH BOTH SIDES do surely preach . What did you really think Trump and the nar realm
came up WITH ecumeincal intefaith . NOPE the popes have long led in that .
Its not me hoping in men . trusting in so called wise sounding scholars .
Trusting in a love that darn SURE AINT OF GOD . that aint I my friend . ITS MANY . but not this sheep .
And many who lip the diety of Christ are long in it as well , as well as those who deny his diety .
I aint the one trying to find common ground with religoins trapped in darkness , with teh world
ITS MOST churches . but not this sheep .
Its not me allowing unrepentant sinners to sit in churches and t hus allowed the leaven to take over the places .
NO i been warning against all of that . I dont seem to remember ever seeing you
HELP ME ONCE defend the actual gospel and to help me expose this which is of anti christ
and its ecumenical we are one lovey do religoin of a false love .
SO what does it matter if one had knowledge of some mystery , IF THEY DONT EVEN BELEIVE
YE HAD TO BELEIVE . folks dont even beleive the gospel anymore .
As they gather with the false religoins for what they THINK is gonna bring peace to the world .
Finding common ground with total darkness , GUESS folks forget
GOD himself and later paul reminds us , DO NOT BE UNEQUALLY YOKED TOGETHER with unbelieves .
AND now we know why , CAUSE YOU FALL when ya DO .

 

[keithr]

Sola Scriptura does not say we should reject translations or not read them. It says that Scripture itself, not scholars, commentaries, or translation theories, is the highest authority.

In which case it is wrong to assume that Jesus was claiming to be God, and using God's name (in John 8:58), when other Scripture verses make that impossible, such as:

Revelation 3:12 WEB

(12) He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name.​

Here Jesus clearly states that he has a God, so he can't be almighty God YHVH (Isaiah 45:21 WEB, "... Who has declared it of old? Haven’t I, Yahweh {YHVH}? There is no other God besides me, a just God and a Savior; There is no one besides me"). As he states elsewhere, Jesus claims to be God YHVH's son, and that YHVH sent him to earth to become mankind's saviour (YHVH is the only one who can save mankind, and He chose to save us by sending His only begotten son to become our redeeming sacrifice, hence we can only be saved and gain eternal life by belief and faith in Jesus). God said His name shall be YHVH forever (Exodus 3:15), yet Jesus says he will have a new name, so again Jesus can't be YHVH.

1 Corinthians 8:6 WEB

(6) yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.​

1 Corinthians 1:3 WEB

(3) Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.​

Galatians 1:1-4 WEB

(1) Paul, an apostle (not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead),​

(2) and all the brothers who are with me, to the assemblies of Galatia:​

(3) Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ,​

(4) who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father—​

Ephesians 1:3 WEB

(3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ;​

He tells Moses, “I AM hath sent me unto you” ~Exodus 3: 14, then immediately grounds that name as enduring by saying, “This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations” ~Exodus 3:15.

You are deliberately misreading the Scriptures if you believe that. Exodus 3:15 MKJV

(15) And God said to Moses again, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, Jehovah the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My title from generation to generation.​

God does not say "I AM is my name forever", He says "YHVH is my name forever". "I am" is not the same as "YHVH", היה‎ (hayah) is not the same as יהוה‎ (Yahavah). As you said, "Scripture itself ... is the highest authority", so you are wrong to say that "I am" is God's name (not even if you write it all in uppercase letters!).

Scripture itself defines the name. It is not conditional. It is not progressive. It is based on God’s self-existence and immutability ~Malachi 3:6.

Malachi 3:6 WEB

(6) “For I, Yahweh {YHVH}, don’t change; therefore you, sons of Jacob, are not consumed.​

Revelation 1:18 WEB

(18) and the Living one. I was dead, and behold, I am alive forever and ever. Amen. I have the keys of Death and of Hades.​

God says that He doesn't change, whereas Jesus says that he was dead but now he is alive and immortal. Jesus was a spirit being, the Son of God, through whom all creation was made, then God changed him to be a human being (Hebrews 10:5 WEB, 'Therefore when he comes into the world, he says, “Sacrifice and offering you didn’t desire, but you prepared a body for me."'), then he died and was resurrected as a spirit being (1 Peter 3:18 WEB, "Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit", 1 Corinthians 15:45 WEB, "The last Adam became a life-giving spirit"), the firstborn of a new creation (Galatians 6:15 WEB, "For in Christ Jesus neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation"). So Jesus uniquely has changed, the only living being to have been both a spirit being and a human being (at different times), and now the first of a new creation, having an immortal spirit being nature. And we Christians too are promised that God will make us like him:

2 Peter 1:4 WEB

(4) by which he has granted to us his precious and exceedingly great promises; that through these you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world by lust.​

1 John 3:2 WEB

(2) Beloved, now we are children of God, and it is not yet revealed what we will be. But we know that when he is revealed, we will be like him; for we will see him just as he is.​

Romans 8:29 WEB

(29) For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.​

As God does not change, note also Numbers 23:19 WEB

(19) God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should repent. ...​

Jesus became a man, and frequently referred to himself as the "Son of Man"

 

[bdavidc]

Yes, for example Robert Alter translates Exodus 3:14 as:
Exodus 3:14 (Robert Alter): And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, I-Will-Be-Who-I-Will-Be." And He said , "Thus you shall say to the Israelites, 'Ehyeh has sent me to you.' "

The bottom line. Robert Alter is not God, and translators do not have veto power over what God says about Himself. In the bible, God declares His own name in His own book, not according to the preference of an academic community. In Exodus 3:14 God says, “I AM THAT I AM,” and then He does not leave it hanging. He immediately anchors the meaning by saying, “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you” ~Exodus 3: 14, and then He seals it by adding, “This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations” ~Exodus 3:15. God does not leave His name floating, evolutionary, or future-dependent. He defines it, fixes it, and preserves it. A rendering which turns God’s self-existence into a self-projection to a future point in time will collide with the very next verse in which God declares that this is not going to change.

God does not show up in history with tentative language. He is not going to decide later who He might become. He is saying who He is. Later Jesus lifts up the very same divine claim when He says, “Before Abraham was, I AM” ~John 8:58, not “I will be,” not “I might be,” but I AM. Scripture interprets Scripture. The God who says “I AM” in Exodus is the same God who says “I AM” in John because God is eternally present, eternally self-existent, and eternally unchanging, as Scripture also says, “I am the LORD, I change not” ~Malachi 3:6. Alter may have an academic opinion, but opinions bow to revelation. God has already spoken and His Word does not get rewritten on a scholar’s desk.

Robert Alter is not a theologian, pastor, prophet, or biblical authority. He is a literary critic. His primary interest is in style, narrative technique, and ancient Hebrew expression. He is not affirming biblical inspiration, divine authorship, or the principle of Scriptural unity interpreting itself. That matters. He is not a biblically correct resource.

 

[bdavidc]

In which case it is wrong to assume that Jesus was claiming to be God, and using God's name (in John 8:58), when other Scripture verses make that impossible, such as:

Your argument is incorrect. You make Scripture fight against Scripture instead of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. The bible does not isolate verses. You read all of them together. Revelation 3:12 is not saying Christ is not God. It is saying He truly became man, a mediator, in real flesh. The very same Bible that says Jesus calls God “my God” says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” ~John 1: 1, and then says, “The Word was made flesh” ~John 1:14. Scripture teaches both of those truths without contradiction. The Son addresses the Father as man because He really did become man, not because He somehow stopped being God.

You also cherry pick Exodus 3. God says, “I AM THAT I AM… thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you” ~Exodus 3: 14, and then a verse later says, “The LORD God of your fathers… hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever” ~Exodus 3:15. Scripture gives the name and self-existence together. The verb hayah is not a random word for life. God uses it to reveal who He eternally is. Jesus very intentionally quotes that revelation when He says, “Before Abraham was, I am” ~John 8:58. He is saying ego eimi, present tense, not “I was.” The Jews knew exactly what He was claiming, that is why they tried to stone Him ~John 8:59. If Jesus were just claiming to have existed in the past or that He was the messiah, that response is completely illogical.

You also misunderstand immutability. Malachi 3:6 says that God does not change in His nature or character. Scripture never teaches that God cannot put on flesh. In fact, Scripture says the exact opposite. “God was manifest in the flesh” ~1 Timothy 3:16. Hebrews 10:5 is not saying God changed Jesus into a different nature. It says the Son took on a body. Philippians 2:6–7 explains that very clearly, that Christ, being in the form of God, took on the form of a servant. That is addition, not alteration. His divine nature did not change, His role and state did.

Your idea that Jesus stopped being flesh after resurrection is also contrary to Scripture. Jesus says, “A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” ~Luke 24:39 after He rose from the dead. He is forever the God-man. “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” ~1 Timothy 2:5. That is present tense. Not past tense or temporary language.

Numbers 23:19 is not a trump card for your argument. God is not a man by nature, meaning He does not lie or repent as fallen men do. But Scripture still says, “The Word was made flesh.” You are making a rule that Scripture never makes.

In a nutshell. Scripture says there is one God ~Isaiah 45:21. Scripture says the Son is God ~John 1:1, Hebrews 1:8. Scripture says the Son became man and did not cease to be God ~John 1:14. Scripture says Jesus spoke to the Father as man and shared the divine name and glory ~John 17:5. Your argument is flawed because it divides what Scripture unites. Under the bible, Jesus is precisely who He claimed to be. The great I AM in the flesh.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again bdavidc,

God has already spoken and His Word does not get rewritten on a scholar’s desk.
Robert Alter is not a theologian, pastor, prophet, or biblical authority.

Robert Alter understands Hebrew better than you and me and I suggest that he has given the correct translation of the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14. His translation "I will be" is not new or unique as I have shown that it was Tyndale and the RV and RSV margins and AB Davidson also that give this rendition. For my own environment, our major pioneer of my fellowship expounded Exodus 3:14 as "I will be" to a large audience of Jews in 1858 when a Trinitarian Jew invited him to speak. Instead of endorsing the Trinitarian Jew John Thomas expounded Exodus 3:14 as "I will be". He reported the substance of his exposition in his magazine and later in his book "Phanerosis". I was introduced to this subject in a formal way when I was 19 y.o. by a Youth Leader at a Young People's Weekend in the Southern Highlands. This is over 60 years ago now and my interest and understanding of this subject has grown over the years.

You speak of Sola Scriptura, but ignore the theme created in Exodus 3:12-15. When Israel was delivered out of Egypt the Name of God remains the same, but the particular activity has been accomplished:
Exodus 15:1-3 (KJV): 1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. 2 The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him. 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD (Yahweh) is his name.
The future tense of God’s Name “He will be or become” has been accomplished, and Yahweh had become Israel’s salvation.

The initial fulfilment was not the ultimate completion of the Yahweh Name. God’s purpose with the earth was not complete with the salvation of Israel out of Egypt. God’s purpose was declared in the following, but sadly this was spoken at a time when the very generation that had been born through God’s deliverance failed.
Numbers 14:21 (KJV): But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD (Yahweh).

The above raises the question of how and when will the earth be filled with the glory of God. One indication is found when the Psalmist uses the same words as Moses’ Song to speak of another deliverance:
Psalm 118:14-25 (KJV): 14 The LORD is my strength and song, and is become my salvation. 15 The voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tabernacles of the righteous: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly. 16 The right hand of the LORD is exalted: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly. 17 I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD. 18 The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death. 19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the LORD: 20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter. 21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation. 22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. 23 This is the LORD’S doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. 24 This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. 25 Save now, I beseech thee, O LORD: O LORD, I beseech thee, send now prosperity.

The above is quoted at length to show that there was to be a greater salvation in fulfilment of the Yahweh Name. It is evident from the context that this salvation is by means of the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the man of God’s right hand, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The greater deliverance is revealed even in the conception and birth of the child:
Matthew 1:20-21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
The meaning of the name Jesus is revealed: “for he shall save his people from their sins”. Was Jesus to be an independent Saviour? No, the name Jesus incorporates the Yahweh Name, Je-sous, Jo-shua, or Yah-oshea. He was to be Yahweh’s Salvation. Here then is the extension or fulfilment of the Yahweh Name, Yahweh was to be, to become. He was to “become salvation” Exodus 15:2, in and through Jesus, the Son of God. Yahweh is the Saviour, Jesus is the Saviour. In other words Yahweh, God the Father is the Saviour through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Yahweh has become salvation.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[JustMe]

@bdavidc ...this post is of course for anyone to read and assess for themselves, the value of this post. Although for you it is read only, if you cannot help yourself in responding again with an exhaustive incoherent trail of what amounts to a raving rant of very little substance. It seems you cannot stick to the subject at-hand or handed to you without clouding it with the cover of chaff.

So the topic here is only about your confusion in not understanding and knowing the difference, that YHWH is dynamic and constantly changes in his interactions and communications with his creation. "He shall become what or who he shall become" when dealing with his people and his creation to fulfill his plans of restoration, This does not change his immutability (meaning His essence, attributes, will, and promises remain constant throughout time) and character, of values and principles at all, as spoke about in Mal 3:6

(using keithr's version from his post above...

Malachi 3:6 WEB
(6) “For I, Yahweh {YHVH}, don’t change; therefore you, sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

YHWH has always been the same with the same principles and core values as he said, "..sons of Jacob, are not consumed.." He is always faithful...

The statement in Malachi 3:6 that God does not change highlights His unchanging nature and faithfulness, which form the basis for the ongoing existence of His people, the descendants of Jacob, and today, His spiritual Israel. While this foundation remains constant, His methods or ways of interacting with creation may change to fulfill His plans. He has done so in the past and will continue to do so.

Therefore, YHWH’s immutability does not contradict His active involvement in history, which can vary in form and intensity, but rather underpins His consistent faithfulness in carrying out His divine purposes, including the purification and restoration of His people.

Although God's dealings with humanity may take different forms, they are grounded in His unchanging nature, not in a process of becoming something new.

To clarify, God's involvement in human affairs does not mean He has altered His core attributes or character. In Exodus, He describes Himself to Moses and His people as "I will be who I will be," indicating that while YHWH changes in His actions, He never changes His essential self.

As mentioned elsewhere, YHWH is the One who is, was, and will be, actively becoming whatever is necessary to accomplish His purposes and plans. He operates beyond the limitations of the earthly realm. The Son of God is not this YHWH.

This emphasizes God’s dynamic and purposeful engagement in the affairs of creation rather than a static ontological statement.

Again, He will become or demonstrate all that His people need Him to be, with His character and being remaining unchanged throughout.

Thus, God tells Moses: “Tell them, ‘I will be who I will be’ has sent you.” He immediately links this with His covenant name Jehovah/YHWH: “Jehovah/YHWH has sent me to you.” In this way, God defines His Name by His actions rather than abstract metaphysical concepts.


And for another future interaction if you wish...

I truly believe that if you cannot grasp this much simpler truth in scripture, you will never understand the first Chapter of John's gospel that YHWH, the Father of Yeshua, has always been THE power behind the throne; of the logos, the real mover and shaker in creation. This same YHWH is the same one who created his Son by his spirit and word and then placed this same word within his Son upon his 'walk.' He and his Father's word/logos together, two spirits, as one unified spirit, to his sons' death.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

It is amazing the extent to which some people (claimed Christians) go to contrive some explanation against Jesus divinity. This small group ( 2-3% of Christians) come out of the woodwork on a mission to attempt yet fail to defeat 97+% of the rest of us on this topic. The shame will come upon you suddenly when you finally see Christ face to face, then you'll know you were wrong!

 

[JustMe]

It is amazing the extent to which some people (claimed Christians) go to contrive some explanation against Jesus divinity. This small group ( 2-3% of Christians) come out of the woodwork on a mission to attempt yet fail to defeat 97+% of the rest of us on this topic. The shame will come upon you suddenly when you finally see Christ face to face, then you'll know you were wrong!

'Some explanation,' Ronald, really. These crucial types of explanations concern truths found in scripture and are not simply invented, unlike many false claims about the true Yeshua, the Messiah, the Son of God, the Son of Man. Consider and hold fast to these authentic titles rather than to fabrications that do not appear in scripture.

Show me clear scriptural evidence of the Son's divinity, and then I will listen.

Simply inserting the idea of the Son's divinity into scripture, such as in John 1:1, John 19:30, or Hebrews 1:8, is insufficient for obvious reasons. It would be like saying the Son sounds divine, being one with God, although he does not behave as such. Scripture clearly indicates he is not divine, without needing to explicitly say "Christ was not divine" just to satisfy people's imaginations, like yours.

 

[keithr]

You make Scripture fight against Scripture instead of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Scripture cannot fight Scripture. When comparing verses of Scripture it helps us find the true meaning, the understanding that harmonises all the verses of Scripture. If you think that the verses are "fighting against" each other then that should be an indication that you have misunderstood some, or all, of the verses that you are comparing. The clear unambiguous verses will help us to understand the more ambiguous verses that seem to be saying something different. It can sometimes be confusing; as Peter wrote - 2 Peter 3:15-16 (WEB):

(15) Regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you;​

(16) as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those, there are some things that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.​

Revelation 3:12 is not saying Christ is not God. It is saying He truly became man, a mediator, in real flesh. The very same Bible that says Jesus calls God “my God” says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” ~John 1: 1, and then says, “The Word was made flesh” ~John 1:14. Scripture teaches both of those truths without contradiction.

John 1:14 ISV

(14) The Word became flesh and lived among us. We gazed on his glory, the kind of glory that belongs to the Father's unique Son, who is full of grace and truth.​

MKJV

(14) And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth.​

John 1:18 WEB

(18) No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.​

If Jesus, the "one and only Son", was "in the beginning with God" (John 1:2), and John and others "gazed on his glory" (14), then how can he have been God who "No one has seen at any time"? To harmonise these verses you have to conclude that Jesus is not God YHVH but is indeed as it says 'the Father's only begotten Son' who was sent into the world by God. As John also writes:

John 5:37 WEB

(37) The Father himself, who sent me, has testified about me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form.​

John 6:38 WEB

(38) For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.​

John 7:28-29 WEB

(28) Jesus therefore cried out in the temple, teaching and saying, “You both know me, and know where I am from. I have not come of myself, but he who sent me is true, whom you don’t know.​

(29) I know him, because I am from him, and he sent me.”​

John 10:36 WEB

(36) do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?’​

1 John 4:14-15 WEB

(14) We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as the Savior of the world.​

(15) Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him, and he in God.​

Clearly, according to John, Jesus is not his Father, almighty God YHVH.

The Son addresses the Father as man because He really did become man, not because He somehow stopped being God.

When Jesus spoke the words in Revelation 3:12 he was no longer a man, he was the firstborn of a new creation which has not yet been revealed to us, so we don't know what his nature is like now - 1 John 3:2 (WEB):

(2) Beloved, now we are children of God, and it is not yet revealed what we will be. But we know that when he is revealed, we will be like him; for we will see him just as he is.​

You also cherry pick Exodus 3.

You have "cherry picked" from verse 14 in order to try and twist Jesus' words in John 8:58 into somehow claiming that he was YHVH, rather than YHVH's only begotten Son. That is denying who Jesus is:

1 John 2:23 WEB

(23) Whoever denies the Son, the same doesn’t have the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.​

Jesus very intentionally quotes that revelation when He says, “Before Abraham was, I am” ~John 8:58.

Jesus was not quoting Exodus 3:14!

The Jews knew exactly what He was claiming, that is why they tried to stone Him ~John 8:59.

John 8:23-24 WEB

(23) He {Jesus} said to them, “You are from beneath. I am from above. You are of this world. I am not of this world.​

(24) I said therefore to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am he {the Messiah}, you will die in your sins.”​

If the Jews understood what he was claiming, then why did they then say, John 8:25 WEB

(25) They said therefore to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning.​

They also, John 8:27 WEB

(27) They didn’t understand that he spoke to them about the Father.​

John 8:30-31 WEB

(30) As he spoke these things, many believed in him.​

(31) Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples.​

Despite now speaking to those that had believed him, they then went on to not believe him! Jesus then said, John 8:37 WEB

(37) I know that you are Abraham’s offspring, yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you.​

They were already looking for a reason to kill him. And again, John 8:40 WEB

(40) But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God. Abraham didn’t do this.​

(If Jesus heard the truth from God, then he can't be God!)

They were still misunderstanding Jesus - John 8:43 WEB

(43) Why don’t you understand my speech? Because you can’t hear my word.​

They even accuse Jesus of having a demon - they surely didn't like him and were against him! - John 8:48 WEB

(48) Then the Jews answered him, “Don’t we say well that you are a Samaritan, and have a demon?”​

John 8:52-53 WEB

(52) Then the Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets; and you say, ‘If a man keeps my word, he will never taste of death.’​

(53) Are you greater than our father, Abraham, who died? The prophets died. Who do you make yourself out to be?”​

They still don't know who Jesus is! Jesus makes it clear again that he is God's Son - John 8:54-56 WEB

(54) Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is our God.​

(55) You have not known him, but I know him. If I said, ‘I don’t know him,’ I would be like you, a liar. But I know him, and keep his word.​

(56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day. He saw it, and was glad.”​

Then, John 8:57-58 UASV+

(57) So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"​

(58) Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I have been in existence".​

Then the misunderstanding Jews wrongfully picked up stones to throw at Jesus, because they finally believed that by saying that he was not of this world and that he had been alive for over 2,000 years, when they knew he was born of Mary (they earlier said "We were not born of sexual immorality" (verse 41), implying they knew that Joseph was not his father), they therefore again thought that he was demon possessed, as they had twice already said. There was nothing that Jesus said that would have made them think that he was claiming to be God. Jesus said he honoured his Father (49) and that the Jews say that his Father is God (54). He said that he told them the truth that he heard from God (40), not that he was God.

If Jesus were just claiming to have existed in the past or that He was the messiah, that response is completely illogical.

Or your assumptions of why the Jews responded that way might be wrong! Or could the Jews have acted illogically?!

 

[bdavidc]

Robert Alter understands Hebrew better than you and me and I suggest that he has given the correct translation of the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14. His translation

At this point the issue is not evidence. It is authority.

You have been shown what the text actually says. From here there are only two paths. You either submit to what God has spoken, or you reshape His words to fit a framework you prefer. Scripture is clear that doing the latter is not harmless interpretation, it is self-idolatry.

God warns plainly, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it” ~Deuteronomy 4:2. When someone takes God’s self-declaration and recasts it into a concept Scripture never states, that is adding. When God says “I AM” and a man insists “He really means something else,” that man has placed his reasoning above God’s voice.

The Bible does not allow us to reinvent God under the banner of study, history, or sincerity. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man” ~Romans 1:22–23. That image does not have to be a statue. It can be an idea, a system, or a preferred explanation that replaces what God actually said.

Scripture gives the line in the sand. “Choose you this day whom ye will serve” ~Joshua 24:15. Either the God who speaks for Himself in His Word, or a god shaped by human reasoning. Both cannot rule at the same time.

You can submit to Scripture and stand with God, or you can reject it and stand against Him. God will not redefine Himself to make the second option safe.

 

[bdavidc]

@bdavidc ...this post is of course for anyone to read and assess for themselves, the value of this post. Although for you it is read only, if you cannot help yourself in responding again with an exhaustive incoherent trail of what amounts to a raving rant of very little substance. It seems you cannot stick to the subject at-hand or handed to you without clouding it with the cover of chaff.

So the topic here is only about your confusion in not understanding and knowing the difference,

You do not get to police when or how I engage. This is a public forum and I will address doctrinal error when it comes up. Scripture commands us to correct when God’s words are being redefined, not sit quietly for the sake of comfort ~Titus 1:9; ~2 Timothy 4:2.

Calling others “rants” is a cheap insult that sidesteps the actual content of the message. If your position is biblical, then engage Scripture, not attack tone ~Titus 3:2. Quotes don’t bow to other quotes. Scripture itself says there are some “who wrest the scriptures” to make them say what they want them to say ~2 Peter 3:16. Just because someone is skilled at twisting Scripture does not mean the rest of us have to listen. I will not.

Now let’s move on to the actual issue at hand. Your statement that “He shall become what or who He shall become” is not what God said. God said, “I AM THAT I AM,” then immediately rooted His name as unchanging: “This is my name for ever” ~Exodus 3:14–15. A name whose definition is never-ending becoming is not a name “for ever.”

Malachi 3:6 does not fit your framework. It refutes it. God says plainly, “I the LORD change not” ~Malachi 3:6. Scripture does not define God by an unchanging essence on one hand, then re-define His name as an ever-evolving concept on the other. That division is forced on the text, it is not drawn from it.

Scripture is also clear that false teachers are not to be welcomed or accommodated. We are commanded to mark them and expose them, not make room for them. “Beware of false prophets” ~Matthew 7:15. “There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies” ~2 Peter 2:1. When someone remolds who God is, and denies the biblical identity of the Son, then that is crossing over into the realm of false teaching. That is a description that fits what you are teaching.

Jesus Himself said, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures” ~Matthew 22:29. The problem is not vocabulary or confidence, it is submission to what God has actually said. “Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” ~1 John 4:1.

Understand this clearly. I will respond and post as I see fit. Scripture stands on its own. God has spoken, and I will not contort His words to make them agree with a system, a tradition, or a personal preference.