Image Generated by Canva Magic Studio

I love Jesus. The institution called the Church has wounded, hurt, and deeply traumatized my family and me. But what has never waned is the fact that I love Jesus.

I love Jesus’s teachings, the way he lived his life, the way he showed compassion, stood against the domination structures of his day in the pursuit of justice and gave his life for his convictions that there is a better way — a better way for societies to be structured, a better way for people to care for one another and not be so self-absorbed, and a better way to know and experience God today.

As much as I love Jesus and follow Jesus, I don’t hold to dogmatic or ‘orthodox’ beliefs about him. For example, I don’t believe Jesus was God’s son in any literal sense. I don’t think the point of Jesus’ life was to be an atoning sacrifice on a Roman cross. I don’t believe Jesus is a member of a Trinity. I’ve written about these points in several articles, so I won’t elaborate on them here.

However, I do want to address the number one argument I receive from Christians when I write or share my unorthodox views about Jesus. Across the board, whether in the comments of an article, a social media post, or in a real-world conversation, the number one rebuttal I receive is, “Well, what do you do with John 8:58?”

For context, John 8:58 says,

The supposed point of the verse is that Jesus is making a profound declaration of his divine identity and eternal nature, equating himself with God by using the phrase “I am,” which links to God’s self-revelation in Exodus 3:14. The statement is supposed to underscore Jesus’ pre-existence before Abraham, affirming his role as the Messiah and his authority over Jewish religious traditions. It also highlights the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. It reflects God’s unchanging presence throughout history, emphasizing God’s nature as revealed in the Hebrew and Christian Testaments.

Wow, that’s a heavy burden to place on a single sentence! In light of the complexities of interpreting Jesus’ identity and the implications of his statement in John 8:58, I, along with numerous scholars, are convinced that the phrase “I AM” in Exodus 3:14 does not function as a definitive revelation of God’s nature, but rather reflects a broader understanding of the divine as relational and contextual; thus, it does not support the assertion that Jesus is literally God but instead underscores the importance of his teachings and the transformative impact of his life in demonstrating an alternate way to experience and relate to the divine.

Let’s start by looking at what God says in Exodus 3:14,

“God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ He said further, ‘Thus you shall say to the Israelites, “I AM has sent me to you.”’ (NRSV)

For context, this verse originates from a writer, “E,” who wrote their account of Israel’s history in the 8th century BCE. The author is known as “E” because they preferred to use the more formal title of “Elohim” when referring to God. “E”most likely was located in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. At the same time in history, there was another author known as “J” who also wrote about the history of Israel while living in the Southern Kingdom. This author is known as “J”because they preferred the more informal “Jahweh (Yahweh)”when referencing God.

The J and E accounts comprise a significant portion of the Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament). As mentioned above, our Exodus passage relies heavily on E, detailing the first account between Moses and God. E’s narrative was likely preferred over J’s because E’s presence is a more transcendent image of God.

We see this as God speaks to Moses from a burning bush. When Moses asks God, “Who do I say sent me?” God responds with the famous Exodus 3:14 passage.

The phrase that stands out most, especially to Christians, is ‘I AM WHO I AM’ or, in Hebrew, *’Ehyeh asher ehyeh,’*literally ‘I am what I am.’ For many contemporary Jews, this phrase is often interpreted as the revelation of God’s essential nature. For Christians, this passage often represents God revealing His identity and attributes, such as God’s eternalness and immutability.

Christians also view the passage as a foreshadowing of Jesus in the New Testament. Scholars have a problem with these interpretations because both the Jewish and Christian views are far too metaphysical for anything that E could have thought.

This phrase has a far more straightforward interpretation based on what was believed and thought about God in the 8th century BCE. Ehyeh asher ehyeh is a Hebrew idiom that communicates intentional vagueness.

In the same way, I AM WHAT I AM is God’s way of saying, “Never mind who I am!” Author and commentator Karen Armstrong explains;

“So when Moses asked God who he was, Yahweh in effect replied: “Never mind who I am!” There must be no discussion of God’s nature and no attempt to manipulate God, as the pagans did when they called on their deities by name.” (The Case for God, p. 39)

In summary, the phrase “I AM WHO I AM” in Exodus 3:14 is not a profound metaphysical statement about God’s nature, as often interpreted by contemporary Jews and Christians. Instead, it’s likely an intentionally vague response akin to saying, “Never mind who I am.” This interpretation aligns with the historical context of the 8th century BCE and avoids anachronistic metaphysical concepts. Understanding this context helps us approach Jesus’ “I am” statement in John 8:58 from a more nuanced, historically informed perspective.

Understanding God’s intentional vagueness in Exodus 3:14, we can now examine how this impacts Jesus’ words in John 8:58. This statement occurs during a tense exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees and Jewish leaders who challenge His authority and claims about His relationship with God.

The vast majority of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians believe by using the term “I am,” Jesus invokes the divine name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14, signifying His eternal existence and divinity and explicitly stating that He predated Abraham, the revered patriarch. This claim leads to outrage among the religious leaders, who view it as blasphemous, further fueling their determination to arrest and crucify Him.

Theologically, this verse allegedly affirms the belief in Christ’s pre-existence and emphasizes His identity as God, highlighting the profound implications of His nature and mission within Christianity. There are just a few issues with this viewpoint.

The Gospel of John is often considered the most unreliable source for quoting the exact words of Jesus among the four gospels for several reasons. Unlike the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), which share similar narratives and themes, John presents a distinct theological perspective, focusing on Christ’s divinity rather than His earthly ministry. This indicates that John has a specific agenda in his gospel, starting with believing in Jesus’ divinity and crafting his narrative to support this perspective.

Additionally, John’s narrative includes long, elaborate discourses attributed to Jesus, which are absent from the more succinct teachings of the Synoptics, raising questions about their authenticity. The historical context in which John was written — decades after the other gospels and likely in a different community with specific theological aims — further suggests that the text may reflect later theological developments rather than direct quotations from Jesus.

Moreover, John often uses symbolic language and metaphorical representations, leading to ambiguities that complicate the interpretation of Jesus’ words. These elements collectively contribute to a perception that the Gospel of John may be more focused on conveying theological ideas rather than providing a reliable account of Jesus’ actual sayings.

Of the four gospels, John offers the most ‘creative interpretation’ in unpacking his narrative on the life of Christ. Because of this, it should come as no surprise that many of Christianity’s most bombastic claims are rooted in this gospel.

Here’s where the rubber meets the road in understanding the implications of the ‘I AM’ statement in Exodus and John. Suppose the ‘orthodox’ or majority views on these passages are correct. In that case, all we have gained is more knowledge to fill our heads, increase our spiritual hubris, and convince ourselves we’ve nailed putting God and Jesus into our ideological boxes. This is likely to be different from what E or John intended.

A better understanding of Jesus’ identity emphasizes his role not as a divine being but as a profound spiritual teacher and social reformer whose life and teachings offer a transformative model for ethical living and community engagement. Rather than viewing Jesus solely through the lens of traditional Christology — as the literal Son of God or a member of the Trinity — more historically accurate interpretations celebrate his emphasis on compassion, justice, humility, and love for one another.

In John 8:58, Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” This statement upset the Pharisees and Jewish leaders for many reasons. First, it showed his authority and unique identity, placing him in a significant role in God’s plan and challenging their established religious power. Jesus’ claim also went against their traditions and interpretations of scripture, threatening their role as the link between God and the people. Additionally, by suggesting he existed before Abraham, Jesus elevated himself above important figures, which was offensive to them. His convictions and different views on the law undermined the Pharisees’ authority. Even though he didn’t directly claim to be divine, the phrase “I am” reminded them of how God revealed himself to Moses, which they might have seen as blasphemy. All these points created serious theological and social tensions, leading to a strong reaction from the religious leaders.

Exploring the complexities of faith and interpretation, we reexamine traditional “I AM” statements in Exodus and John’s Gospel. A more nuanced perspective invites us to see these passages as profound insights into the relational nature of the divine and the transformative power of Jesus’ teachings. This reinterpretation enhances Jesus’ significance by encouraging us to embody his message of justice, compassion, and love. Ultimately, the most inspiring “I AM” statement may not be about divine status but rather an invitation to declare, “I am a follower of the Way.” By embracing this call, we embark on a journey of growth, compassionate action, and transformative love — one that has the potential to change the world

_______________________

Thanks for stopping by and reading this article! If my work has served you or you want to contribute to creating authentic faith connections, consider becoming an Authentic Faith Advocate.