Perhaps you have heard somebody speak of God being “the great I AM.”.  Certainly such an expression sounds odd, but simply sounding odd does not make it unscriptural.  Where does this expression come from?  What does it mean?

Exodus 3:14
Anyone who has read the King James Version or one similar to it has likely come across Exodus 3:14 where God says “I am what I am.”  He tells Moses to say that “I am” has sent him.  This has long served as the basis for regarding God as “the great I AM,” though this has not proven itself to be the most exegetically sound.

The word translated “I am” is the Hebrew verb ehyeh.  This verb is an imperfect and can technically be translated in one of a few different ways.  While the most common translation within Exodus 3:14 is “I am,” one cannot help but notice that this rendering is somewhat out of place.  Examining the context of Exodus 3:14, we look back to verse 12 where God explains to Moses, “I will be with you.”  Here the words “I will be” are translated from the very same Hebrew word, ehyeh.

Indeed, ehyeh is often translated “I will be” within scripture.  Examples of this include Jos. 1:5, Jdg. 6:16, 1Sam. 23:17, 2Sam. 7:14, 15:34, 16:18, 1Chr. 17:13, Isa. 47:7 and Jer. 11:4.  Which rendering is correct and what is the meaning of Exodus 3:14?  Consider what the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) states on this issue: "This has been supposed to mean 'self-existence,' and to represent God as the Absolute.  Such an idea, however, would be a metaphysical abstraction, not only impossible to the time at which the name originated, but alien to the Heb[rew] mind at any time.  And the imperfect 'ehyeh is more accurately tr[anslated] 'I will be what I will be,' a Sem[etic] idiom meaning, 'I will be all that is necessary as the occasion will arise... The optional reading in the ARV margin is much to be preferred: ‘I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE,’ indicating His covenant pledge to be with and for Israel in all the ages to follow."[1] [Emphasis added]

Indeed, the ISBE provides the proper translation as well as a clear explanation of the meaning.  As God would be with Moses in Exodus 3:12, we will be with Israel as well.  Over time he will reveal himself as necessary. This understanding is attested to not only by Christian sources such as the ISBE, but Jewish alike.  For example, Rabbi Jordan Cohen explains: "Moses perceived that the people would want to know which attribute of God they can expect to encounter; that is, what their experience of God will be, and what is going to happen to them. God's answer, then, leaves things open-ended. Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh is based on the future tense conjugation of the Hebrew verb meaning ‘to be.’ Often translated as ‘I Am Who I Am,’ the phrase is more accurately translated as ‘I Will Be That Which I Will Be.’ The people will come to know God through their unfolding experiences together."[2]

On the translation we observe that The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament agrees with the references thus far cited, rendering the text as “I shall be who I shall prove to be”[3].  Further, The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary notes: "The meaning is obscured by the conventional translation I am who I am, which implies that God is the ground of his own existence. The Hebrew verb denotes, not abstract being, but manifestation in a definite character, or name; and its form indicates habitual manifestation in past, present, or future. Since English requires a tense, the best rendering is 'I will be as I will be.'"[4]

In view of this, one might ask how this answers the question of what God’s name is.  To render this with a future tense might seem to distort the answer in view of the question.  After all, what God “will be” is not an answer to what his name is.  On this point we must remember that verse 14 is not without a great context, which also includes verse 15.  Whereas in verse 14 God explains how he will reveal himself, it is not until verse 15 that we are actually told his name is.  Here we are told, “Jehovah… is [his] name forever”.  It is not the verb ehyeh that answers the question of what his name is, but it is the Tetragrammaton. 

The English present tense rendering of the verb is likely a result of the Septuagint’s rendering, which reads when translated, “I am the being.”  That this rendering is not literal is mostly undisputed, yet it has been used as a primary line of evidence for those maintaining a translation that is in the present tense.  This leaves the issue unresolved though, for if one were to assume that the Hebrew were to be properly translated in the present tense and the Septuagint were a literal translation, we would read ειμι ό ειμι as stated by the Apostle Paul stated at 1 Corinthians 15:10, not εγω ειμι ό ων.   

A literal, future tense rendering, though absent from the Septuagint, is not missing from other early Greek texts.  Aquila and Theodotion render the text εσομαι ό εσομαι, a translation in agreement with the LXX’s rendering of ehyeh in Exodus 3:12.  Some might dismiss this on a theological ground, arguing that these translations attempted to disconnect Jesus’ claim to being the “I am” by providing a future tense rendering.  Such an argument neglects the fact that ειμι is not used as an identification in Exodus 3:14 within the Septuagint, for it serves as a simple copula, thereby removing any possible connection between the use of it by God and Jesus.     

Jehovah and I [am] He
With arguably fewer scholars pointing to Exodus 3:14 as a place to show “I am” as some form of a divine name or title, Trinitarian apologists have turned their attention to the book of Isaiah, looking to the words “I [am] He” to act as their platform upon which to stand.  A connection is made between these words and Jesus’ use of the words εγω ειμι based upon the Septuagint, which typically renders the Hebrew pronouns ani hu as εγω ειμι. 

It should be noted that while the words ani and hu are actually pronouns, the verb “am” is considered implied.  In the case of εγω ειμι, these are a pronoun and verb, respectively.  The Greek translation then has an implied predicate that would be rendered with a pronoun and specified by the context. 

To understand the texts here discussed one must begin by understanding the most basic function of a pronoun.  One resource defines it as follows: “The part of speech that substitutes for nouns or noun phrases and designates persons or things asked for, previously specified, or understood from the context.”[5]  Whether the pronoun is found within the text, as with the Hebrew, or implied in the Greek, the most basic function it performs is to refer to what is already known or asked for.  Upon examining the texts in question we must ask ourselves if the pronoun is referring back to that which is “previously specified” or “asked for”, or if the meaning of it is actually something unnatural to the text were it applied to somebody other than God, with the phrase taking on some mystical function.

The first text for consideration is Isaiah 41:4.  Here God states, “I Jehovah am the first and the last; I am He.”  Before categorizing it as a type of divine identification, let us consider whether we find the use to be showing that which was “previously specified” or who was “asked for,” thereby allowing the text to speak for itself.  Examining this text finds the latter option more favorable, with it addressing him as the one asked for.  God asks, “Who has planned and done it, calling forth the generations from the beginning?”  God is the one who has done this, and so he answers the question that he presented, affirming himself as the one doing it. 

The next text for discussion comes two chapters later at Isaiah 43:10.  Here God is recorded as stating, “You are My witnesses, says Jehovah; and My servant whom I have elected; that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He.”  Again, does this text reference that which was “previously specified” or “asked for”?  Isaiah 43:9 presents God asking, “Who among them can declare this and cause us to hear former things?”  God answers by stating that he alone can do these things. He is that one doing this, and so he is answering the question by stating that he is the one “asked for.”  This is not a proper identification, but it is an answer to the question who can do that which he asked.  The answer is that only he is the one doing it, and in fact he is the only one able to.

Isaiah 43:13 takes a turn from the previous two texts that we have examined.  While those texts found God answering his own questions, this text finds him reconfirming that he is who he said he is.  This text finds the pronoun referencing what was “previously specified.”  God says, “Yea, from this day I am He, and no one delivers from My hand.”  The answer to who he is can be found in verse 12, where he quite simply states, “I am God.”   Further, he was probably restating that he is the one that “declared,” “saved” and “proclaimed,” which were also points raised within verse 12.   Clearly this text finds no basis in supporting any mystical reading that would include some type of name or title.

The next text in our discussion might be considered the trickiest.  This is not to say that the passage presents anything especially difficult, but as we are often caught within the mindset of each chapter being a unique context, one can forget that this is not necessarily so.  The Bible did not originally exist with chapter and verse divisions.  These were added at a later date as a great benefit to us all.  Their presence allows us to easily find any text upon request and yet they have brought about a view of artificial divisions within any given context.

Looking to Isaiah 46:4 what we have just discussed can be an issue if we are not careful.  God spends the first two verses of chapter 46 explaining that the idols of the nations are helpless.  They cannot provide any salvation at all.  God then comes back stating: “Even to old age I am he”.   Who is he?  When we note that the context discusses the idols’ inability to deliver, we find that this text most naturally refers back to that which was “previously specified”.  From Isaiah 45:21 we find that God explains himself to be “a just God and a Savior”.  Only Jehovah can help his people, and he will deliver them for all time.  By his doing this he demonstrates that he truly is the just God and Savior that he previously spoke of. In other words, none of these idols can save, for they are not truly gods.  Yet Jehovah is God and he is the one that can save. 

The final text within Isaiah that is necessary for our consideration is 48:12.  Here God simply states the words “I am he”.  Who is he?  The context discusses God as the deliverer of prophecy.  In the past he had warned his people of coming events and they proved true.  With Israel he has now done the same but they have not listened to him. They have disregarded what he has said.  Nevertheless, he knew of these things and told them.  Here, the pronoun is used to reference that which was “previously specified”, finding Jehovah restating that he was the one that did these things.  In other words, God is stating: “I am the same one that did these things.”

It becomes quite obvious that a natural reading of this text finds no special theological meaning in the words ani hu or εγω ειμι.  These texts function within what would be considered normal rules of grammar, with hu functioning just as any other personal pronoun would.  To look for a special theological meaning within these texts is to force a view into them that is entirely unnecessary and unfounded.  It is certainly more natural and exegetically sound to let the text speak for itself without importing in a priori assumptions.     

Jesus and I am [He]
The New Testament presents Christ using the words εγω ειμι on numerous occasions.  At times it is explicitly used as a copula, with the predicate defined in the sentence, yet at other times we find that the predicate is simply implied, as was found to be the case in the Septuagint.  Those who observe a parallel between God’s use of ani hu/egw ειμι in Isaiah and Jesus’ use of it within the New Testament are correct in noting their observation. Yet rarely is the parallel what these ones make it out to be. One Trinitarian apologist has argued: “The use of ani hu by Isaiah is a euphemism for the very name of God himself.”[6]  It is then argued that Jesus’ make use of this same euphemism in his use of εγω ειμι.  This is quite the theological interpretation!

As we have already noted within Isaiah the pronoun hu has found itself with a reference in the context, be it in referring back to what was already mentioned or answering the question of who was performing an action.  The parallel that we spoke of is found in that Jesus’ words perform the very same function!   Consulting A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), we observe that they concur with this point, stating: “To establish identity the formula egw, eimi is oft[en] used in the gospels (corresp[onding] to Hebr[ew] ani hu] Dt 32:39; Is 43:10), in such a way that the predicate must be understood fr[om] the context: Mt 14:27; Mk 6:50; 13:6; 14:62; Lk 22:70; J 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28; 13:19;  [7] 

The first text that presents Jesus making use of the words εγω ειμι where an explicit predicate is absent is John 8:24.  The text reads: “Unless you believe that I am [he], you will die in your sins.”  That these words are not a euphemism for God’s name can be seen through simple grammar.  For example, if we were to say, “Unless you believe that Jehovah…” or “Unless you believe that Lord…” we would find these sentences to be nothing more than nonsense.  They would violate basic rules of grammar and they would be sentences that the listener could not understand.  However, if we understand an implied predicate we have a sentence that is not only natural, but also fits the context.  How so?

John 8:25 presents the Jews asking Jesus who he is claiming to be.  They did not understand this to be a euphemism for the divine name, but they did not know who he was claiming to be.  Jesus then asks them if they have not been listening to what he has been saying.  What had he been saying?

Keeping John 8 in context we must consider the discussion that has been presented.  Who was Jesus claiming to be?  Was he asking a question and answering it by identifying himself as the one performing a specific function?  Looking back to John 8:12, we find that Jesus makes use of εγω ειμι with an explicit predicate, “the light of the world.”  As who he was claiming to be, this finds itself as the implied predicate of whom they must believe he is.  He is the light of the world, the Messiah (Isa. 9:2).  If you do not believe in him, the one who’s sacrifice covers us all, you will die in your sins. 

Noting several other texts referenced by BDAG we find that each of these are included among those pointed to by Trinitarians as significant to this issue.  John 13:19 is the next of these, with Jesus speaking to his disciples and telling them what will take place so that “you may believe that I am He.”  Who is he so that he is telling them this for them to believe?  A simple reference to the context leads us back to verse 13, where he is identified as “Teacher and Lord.”

Some have correctly noted a parallel between what Jesus stated here and the words of God in Isaiah 43:10.  However, what is not considered is the context, which provides an entirely different implied predicate.  So while it is correct that there is a parallelism in the words used, this does nothing to indicate that we should equate Jesus with Jehovah.  With a different implied predicate there is nothing theologically significant to be found.

Of the verses where ειμι serves as a copula for an implied predicate, the last of these that demand consideration is John 18:5-6.  This text is fairly unique due to the response to the words εγω ειμι.  Verse 6 explains: “So when He said to them, ‘I am He,’ they drew back and fell to the ground.”   Why did those to whom Jesus was speaking fall to the ground?  Obviously it is somehow related to Jesus use of the words εγω ειμι, for it is only when he said this to them that they fell to the ground.  Some Trinitarians might claim that the very fact that they fell to the ground demands that Jesus be identifying himself as God.  However, such reasoning is based upon a theological assumption and it does not allow the text to speak for itself.

The context of this passage presents these men in search of Jesus.  When they approach him Jesus asks who they are looking for.  Not recognizing who Jesus is, they respond by saying that it is “Jesus the Nazarene.”  When they state this, he responds by saying εγω ειμι, or “I am he”.  Who is he claiming to be?  Not God Almighty, but Jesus the Nazarene. This is who they were looking for and this is who he claimed to be.  The pronoun clearly refers back to this identification and to say otherwise is to only distort a very simple text.

The taking of a natural reading for this text is not limited to those who deny the doctrine of the Trinity.  In fact, some of the most renowned Trinitarian commentators have found their falling to the ground to be a matter of Jesus’ demeanor and openness in confirming his identity.  For example, John Gill states: "They were confounded, surprised, and intimidated, and seemed as if they would have chose rather to have fled from him, than to have apprehended him; and as they retired and went backward, they fainted away, as it were, either at the majesty of his looks, or at the power of his words, or both, so that they became like dead men, falling to the ground. Sometimes the majesty of a man's person, or his fame for some remarkable things done by him, or the innocence and uprightness of his cause, have had such an influence upon his enemies, that they have not been able to execute upon him what they intended."[8]  Albert Barnes comments along a similar line: "The frank, open, and fearless manner in which Jesus addressed them may have convinced them of his innocence, and deterred them from prosecuting their wicked attempt. His disclosure of himself was sudden and unexpected; and while they perhaps anticipated that he would make an effort to escape, they were amazed at his open and bold profession."[9]

In parallel to the use of εγω ειμι by Jesus are those used by the blind man upon his questioning (Joh. 9:9). They were asking whether he was the one who would sit and beg.  His response in answer to this question was “I am.”  He was not God, he was not claiming to be God and he was not making use of a euphemism for the divine name.  He was simply claiming to be the one that they were asking about.  To read anything more into the text would be unnecessary, and the same is true for Jesus' use of these words.

Before Abraham came to be, I am
Of the “I am” texts in the Gospel of John the one most commonly referenced is John 8:58.  This text has proven itself the most unique based upon grammar, and so no discussion of this text would be sufficient without considering the grammar and translation of the verse.

The views taken for this text have historically varied.  Some have argued that it is a euphemism for the divine name, while others have taken the position that it refers to his existence, which the Trinitarian will claim is eternal.  What is the proper translation of this text?  How should it be interpreted?  We will answer these within this discussion.

Setting the context of the passage we find that Jesus speaks of Abraham and states, “Abraham your father rejoiced greatly in the prospect of seeing my day, and he saw it and rejoiced.”  How would Jesus know that Abraham saw it and rejoiced?  Jesus was not even 50 years old, so they ask, “you have seen Abraham?” (Joh. 8:57)  Jesus’ response to them then relates to how he saw Abraham.

One might respond by noting that if Jesus were claiming to be God it would only have been natural and implied that he had seen Abraham.  Nevertheless, a claim to be God through the words “I am” would make this sentence nothing more than nonsense, as we noted earlier by the simple substitution of any other title or name.  Looking to the grammar of the text, we find it clearly involving his existence.

The majority of modern Trinitarian scholarship agrees with this view, arguing not only that Jesus existed before Abraham, but that this existence was actually eternal.  The argument made is based upon a supposed contrast of Abraham being born with Jesus simply existing.  It is said that since Jesus did not speak of his own creation or birth in contrast to Abraham’s he is showing himself as eternal.   Indeed, we will come to see that this is a possible interpretation, but it is far from necessary.

Looking at the significant portions of this verse in Greek we read πριν αβραάμ γένέσθαι εγω ειμι. Our sentence begins with the adverbial expression, “Before Abraham came into being.”  Here the adverb πριν is translated as “before,” showing that it is an event that has taken place from a time prior to Abraham’s birth.  The action employed is that of existing as demonstrated by the verb ειμι.  That it is the speaker performing this action is shown by the emphatic pronoun εγω. 

This type of a construction where the adverbial expression is used with a present tense verb is defined by Ernest D. Burton as "The Present of Past Action Still in Progress,"[10] otherwise known as a PPA for short.  He explains it as follows:  "The Present Indicative, accompanied by an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time, is sometimes used in Greek, as in German, to describe an action which, beginning in past time, is still in progress at the time of speaking."[11] Of course Burton is far from the only grammarian to define the PPA.  Smyth explains: "The present, when accompanied by a definite or indefinite expression of past time, is used to express an action begun in the past and continued in the present."[12] 

Can we be certain that John 8:58 is a PPA?  The explanation of this construction provided by Burton demonstrates such beyond a shadow of a doubt.  In fact, some grammarians have even made specific reference to John 8:58 being a PPA.  Examples of such include G.B. Winer[13], J.H. Moulton[14] and Kenneth McKay[15].  While not all grammars will make an explicit reference to John 8:58 as an example of the PPA construction, this should come as no surprise, for grammars provide a mere sampling of the verses employing a construction when it is discussed.  To argue against John 8:58 being a PPA by those grammarians' silence in providing a specific citation is nothing more than an argument from silence.  Indeed, when the definitions provided by so many grammars fit John 8:58 so clearly, whether or not a specific citation is provided, the evidence is overwhelming. 

How then should we translate John 8:58?  Some argue for the traditional translation of "Before Abraham came into being, I am."  Yet is this proper?  To answer this, we must first consider how translation takes place.  There are various types of Bible translations made.  Some are paraphrased, where an interpretation of the thought provided is presented.  Some are Interlinear, where a word-for-word translation is provided without concern for proper English or Greek idiom.  Further, there are literal translations, where what is translated is done at the phrase level, with the meaning kept true to the original text, though commutating proper idioms and using proper English.

When examining this text the consideration of a paraphrase is of little value, for the only thing we might achieve from that is a translator’s theology.  An Interlinear translation would be certain to read, "Before Abraham came into being I am," for that is done word-for-word from the Greek.  Yet what of a literal translation made at the phrase level, where we consider nothing more than grammar but render it into proper English while conveying the full thought of the Greek text? 

Greek, unlike English, has an idiomatic way of presenting an action that was continuous from the past up until the time being spoken.  This idiom is well established within Greek grammar as we have thus noted from numerous grammar.  In it, the present tense verb is used to convey the action in question.  Because English lacks a way of conveying this thought with a present tense verb, Burton explains: "English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases."[16]  Dana and Mantey restate this as correct, noting that when this idiom is employed the best way to render it is "by the English perfect."[17]

What translation do we make use of?  Kenneth McKay answer this question for us in his article, “’I am’ in John’s Gospel”: "The verb 'to be' is used differently, in what is presumably its basic meaning of 'be in existence', in John 8:58: prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi, which would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since before Abraham was born', if it were not for the obsession with the simple words 'I am'. If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction."[18]

With this in mind we can understand what is written in A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, which states: "To describe a state of continuing up to the present, Greek uses the present tense... where English uses the perfect; cf. [John] viii. 58."[19]  Indeed, the use of "have been" presents a literal (though not Interlinear) translation of John 8:58.   Therefore it is understandable why the 1970 edition of the New American Standard Bible placed "I have been" in a footnote as an alternative translation for this particular verse.  According to private correspondence from the Lockman foundation, "I have been" is a "more grammatically correct (in English) rendering." Indeed this is true, for the PPA verb is to be rendered by the English perfect as Burton explained. 

As was mentioned earlier, this text presents Jesus making a claim of prior existence with the possibility of it being eternal.  Whether or not he was cannot be determined from this text, for the only thing we can be certain of is that he existed before Abraham up until the moment of his speaking.  How can we be certain of this?

Looking to other examples of the PPA construction, we cannot overlook Psalm 90:2 LXX, where we read: “Before the mountains came to be… you have been [are]”.   This text is undeniably dealing with God existing eternally and grammatically it is very similar to John 8:58.  At the same time though, the verse provides information that reinforce this position, telling us that he is “from everlasting to everlasting.”  Yet another example where ειμι is contrasted with a verb in the aorist tense is found in the Pseudepigrapha.  Certainly we are not advocating the Pseudepigrapha as a source for theology, but it is a valuable resource for helping us to better understand Greek grammar.

Testament of Job 2:1 “For I have been [am] Jobab since before the Lord named me Job.” 

The provided translation renders ειμι with the English perfect, “have been.”  The same contrast between ειμι and the aorist infinitive that is argued for in John 8:58 is found in this text, though few would argue that Job existed or was Jobab eternally before he came to be named Job.  We agree with Kenneth McKay who provides a very similar translation to that of our own, which reads, "I have been in existence since before Abraham came to be."

What do we make of the objections to this translation and the conclusions thus far presented?  Some have argued that if Jesus were trying to indicate that he was simply created before Abraham he would have made use of γινομαι as he did when speaking of Abraham's entrance into existence.  This neglects the fact that such a statement would not deal with super-human existence that he here claimed, where even Adam came to be before Abraham, but he did not live during Abraham's and after Abraham's life.  To argue that γινομαι might have been used in a PPA construction fails to recognize that the PPA verb is durative, with the action continually in progress.  To argue that γινομαι was still in progress would mean that Jesus was in a perpetual state of coming into being, something that would not make sense.  Finally, we note that some will object to using the English perfect tense as Greek also has a perfect tense.  Nevertheless, this disregards the Greek idiom which is not conveyed by the Greek perfect.  Where as the PPA conveys the action as durative, the perfect only conveys the result of the action as such.  Certainly this is not the effect that Jesus was aiming for in his statement.

Therefore, while it is possible that Jesus was in existence eternally before Abraham, we cannot state this conclusively.   The Present of Past Action Still in Progress can be used both for those who are and are not eternal.  The construction does not deal with the length that  one existed, but it tells us only that the subject was performing the action specified by the PPA noun at a time before that specified within the adverbial phrase up until the moment in time when the words were stated.. 

To these points many have come back responding that this cannot be true, for Jesus must have been claiming to be God or else the Jews would not have tried to stone Jesus.  This notion is simply unfounded though, for even the chief priests, scribes and elders were concerned that the people would stone them for simply denying that John was sent from heaven (Luk. 20:6), while also those in Jesus’ own home town attempt to put him to death by throwing him off of a cliff (Luk. 4:29) when in context he never stated anything that might remotely indicate that he was claiming to be God.  Indeed, this action was attributed to “rage” (Luk. 4:28)

What though of the possibility of blasphemy?  If the charge against Jesus was blasphemy, though it is not defined in the context, what could Jesus have done that would have been considered such?  Let us again consider what McKay wrote on this subject: “If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction.”[20]  How does this relate to blasphemy?  If Jesus were claiming to have existed since a time before Abraham he would have been directly implying that he possessed a super human ability, and thus made use of power and authority that one could only equate to God.  Indeed, God could grant such power and authority to have this type of an existence to whomever he desired, but Jesus was rejected by these Jews and they did not believe he was from God (c.f. Joh. 10:20).  Therefore, he would have been claiming to have divine authority apart from God and thus in opposition to him. In view of this we must observe what was noted by Darrell Bock: “a claim to possess comprehensive authority from the side of God” could be considered blasphemy.  “Though Judaism might contemplate such a position for a few, the teacher from Galilee was not among the luminaries for whom such a role might be considered.  As a result, his remark [in claiming to be the son of man] would have been seen as a self-claim that was an affront to God’s presence.”[21] Indeed, just as with claiming to have authority as the Son of Man was considered blasphemy, so too would have been claiming such a staggering existence, for who else but God could grant such?