top of page
Writer's pictureEdward D. Andrews

An Alternative Argument Regarding Jesus' Use of "I AM" in John 8:58

Updated: Oct 21

Jesus’ Use of the Divine Name "I AM"


One of the most explicit ways in which Jesus claimed divinity is through His use of the divine name "I AM." In the Old Testament, when Jehovah appeared to Moses in the burning bush, He revealed His name as "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:14). This name, representing God’s eternal and self-sustaining existence, became central to Israel’s understanding of Jehovah.


In John 8:58, Jesus makes a remarkable statement: "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." This declaration goes far beyond a simple claim to preexistence. By using the phrase "I am," Jesus directly applies the divine name to Himself. The Jewish leaders immediately recognized the significance of this claim, as they picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:59). In their eyes, Jesus was equating Himself with Jehovah, which was an unforgivable offense under the Law.


This is not the only instance where Jesus uses the phrase "I am" in a way that implies divinity. In John 13:19, Jesus says, "I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he." The Greek phrase used here, ego eimi (ἐγώ εἰμι), is the same as in John 8:58, further linking Jesus with the divine identity revealed to Moses.



An Alternative Argument Regarding Jesus' Use of "I AM" in John 8:58


In examining the debate surrounding John 8:58, an alternative argument questions the traditional theological stance that equates Jesus’ use of "I am" (Greek: ego eimi) with a direct claim to divinity, as understood from Exodus 3:14. This alternative view contends that while ego eimi is undeniably present in the text, its meaning may not inherently point to Jesus identifying Himself as Jehovah (the God of Israel). Instead, proponents argue that Jesus was asserting His preexistence before Abraham, without directly invoking the divine name in the same sense found in Exodus.


Grammatical Considerations: The Present of Past Action Still in Progress (PPA)


The Greek construction of John 8:58, particularly the phrase ego eimi, has led to extensive debate among scholars regarding its proper interpretation. The core of the alternative argument is rooted in the Greek grammar rule known as the Present of Past Action still in progress (PPA), a rule that applies when the present tense is combined with an adverbial expression referring to past time. This rule indicates that the action being described began in the past and continues up to the present moment.


This grammatical construction appears in several other places within the Gospel of John. For instance, in John 14:9, the phrase "Have I been with you so long" follows the same grammatical structure, where the present indicative verb eimi ("I am") is accompanied by an expression indicating past time, which the translators render in the perfect tense as "have been". Similarly, in John 15:27, where Jesus says, "You have been with me from the beginning", the verb follows the same pattern.


The rule is further attested in standard Greek grammars. Dana and Mantey’s Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (1927) explains that "sometimes the progressive present is retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and continued into the present"​(I AM John 8.58). Other authorities on Greek grammar, such as Kenneth McKay, emphasize that the natural and grammatically consistent rendering of ego eimi in John 8:58 should follow the pattern of a PPA, yielding something closer to, "I have been", rather than a simple present indicative "I am". McKay writes, “to claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction”​(I AM John 8.58).



Other Examples of PPA in the Gospel of John


The key strength of this argument lies in the consistency with which other verses in John are rendered according to this rule. In John 14:9 and John 15:27, translations consistently respect the grammatical rule by using the perfect tense, which acknowledges the action's continuation from past to present. However, when it comes to John 8:58, many translators deviate from this pattern, rendering ego eimi in the present tense rather than applying the PPA rule and translating it as "I have been."


This inconsistency has led some to suggest that theological biases, rather than strict adherence to Greek grammar, have influenced the rendering of John 8:58 in many translations. McKay criticizes this deviation, noting that the translators’ decisions to capitalize "I AM" in some versions is an interpretive choice rather than a reflection of the Greek text itself. This choice, according to him, imposes a theological reading on the passage, suggesting that Jesus is invoking the divine name from Exodus 3:14, even though the grammar does not necessitate this conclusion​(I AM John 8.58)​(I AM John 8.58).


Contextual Analysis and Theological Considerations


Supporters of the alternative view also argue that the reaction of the Jewish leaders to Jesus’ statement—picking up stones to stone Him—does not automatically prove that Jesus was claiming to be Jehovah. While it is clear that the leaders found His statement deeply offensive, proponents of this argument suggest that their reaction might have been due to their perception of an extraordinary claim regarding preexistence, rather than a claim to divinity. In this reading, the offense could stem from what they saw as Jesus elevating Himself above Abraham, a revered patriarch, rather than from an assumption that Jesus was claiming equality with Jehovah.


The context of John 8:58 must also be considered. Just prior to this verse, Jesus declares that "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." The Jews respond incredulously, asking, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" (John 8:57). The focus of the discussion, therefore, is on time and preexistence, not on identity. Jesus’ response, according to the alternative view, addresses this temporal question: He asserts that He existed before Abraham, but not necessarily as Jehovah.


This interpretation contrasts sharply with the common theological understanding, which sees the stoning as evidence that Jesus’ audience perceived His words as blasphemous—a direct claim to divinity. However, proponents of the alternative view argue that this interpretation overstates the case, failing to consider other potential reasons for the Jewish leaders' outrage.



Temporal vs. Divine Implications


The alternative interpretation highlights the temporal contrast in Jesus' statement. The focus, they argue, is on the temporal distinction between Abraham's finite existence and Jesus' preexistence. The phrase "Before Abraham was" (Greek: prin Abraam genesthai) contrasts Abraham's coming into being with Jesus' continuous existence, represented by the present tense ego eimi. In this view, Jesus' statement emphasizes His existence before Abraham, rather than His identification with Jehovah.


This interpretation aligns with the idea that Greek and Hebrew idioms do not always translate directly into one another. The phrase ego eimi does not necessarily carry the same divine significance in Greek that Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh does in Hebrew. The argument here is that John 8:58 should be understood in the context of the Greek language, where the phrase ego eimi is more often used to express existence or identity rather than divinity.


The Reaction of the Jewish Leaders


One of the most significant challenges to the alternative interpretation is the reaction of the Jewish leaders in John 8:59. The fact that they picked up stones to stone Jesus suggests that they understood His statement as blasphemous, which implies a claim to divinity. However, proponents of the alternative view argue that the leaders may have misunderstood Jesus' statement, reacting to what they perceived as an outrageous claim of preexistence, rather than a direct claim to divinity.


Additionally, it is argued that the Jewish leaders often misunderstood or misinterpreted Jesus' words and actions throughout the Gospels. For example, in John 10:33, they accuse Jesus of blasphemy for saying, "I and the Father are one," even though Jesus goes on to explain that He was speaking metaphorically about His unity of purpose with the Father. The alternative view suggests that a similar misunderstanding may have occurred in John 8:58, where the leaders mistakenly interpreted Jesus' claim of preexistence as a blasphemous claim to divinity.



An Alternative Rendering of Exodus 3:14: "I Will Be What I Will Be"


The rendering of Exodus 3:14 as "I am what I am" in many translations has been the subject of considerable debate among scholars. While this translation has become widely accepted, a closer examination of the Hebrew grammar and context suggests that it might not be the most accurate interpretation. An alternative rendering, "I will be what I will be," has been proposed by several scholars as a more faithful translation of the Hebrew phrase "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh."


The Hebrew Grammar: "Ehyeh" as a Verb of Becoming


In Hebrew, the verb "ehyeh" (אֶהְיֶה) is derived from the root "hayah" (הָיָה), which generally means "to be" or "to become." However, the specific form "ehyeh" is in the imperfect tense, which often conveys future action. This is why many scholars argue that "I will be" is a more accurate rendering than "I am."


The imperfect tense in Hebrew can convey a range of meanings, including future action, continuous action, or even potentiality, depending on the context. In the case of Exodus 3:14, where Jehovah is responding to Moses' question about His name, the phrase "I will be what I will be" emphasizes God's ongoing and dynamic nature, rather than merely His existence. This conveys a sense of God's ability to become what He needs to be in various circumstances, which fits the broader context of His promise to deliver the Israelites from Egypt.


Contextual Considerations


The context of Exodus 3 is crucial in understanding the meaning of God's self-revelation. Moses is being called to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, a task he feels inadequate to perform. When Moses asks God for His name, he is essentially asking for assurance of God's power and presence. In response, Jehovah reveals His name as "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh," which can be understood as a promise that He will be with Moses and the Israelites in whatever capacity they need Him. This dynamic sense of "becoming" or "being" what is necessary aligns well with God's role as the deliverer and sustainer of His people.


Scholarly Support for "I Will Be"


Several prominent scholars have supported the rendering of "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" as "I will be what I will be." For example, Robert Bowman, an evangelical Christian theologian, acknowledges that "the expression in Exodus 3:14 is probably better translated ‘I will be what I will be.’" Additionally, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains that the verb "hayah" has a dynamic sense of "becoming" or "happening," which supports the rendering "I will be" rather than "I am."​


The Anchor Bible also supports this interpretation, noting that "I will be who I will be" is a more accurate reflection of the Hebrew grammar​. This understanding emphasizes God's active, redemptive role in history, rather than a static declaration of existence.



Why "I Am" Is Less Suitable


The traditional rendering "I am" tends to imply a static, unchanging existence, which may not fully capture the nuance of the Hebrew verb. While it is true that God is eternal and unchanging in His essence, the phrase "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" seems to emphasize His role as a God who acts in history and fulfills His promises. By translating the phrase as "I will be what I will be," the dynamic nature of God's relationship with His people is highlighted.


Additionally, the rendering "I am" can create confusion when linked to later passages in the New Testament, such as John 8:58, where Jesus uses the phrase "I am" (ego eimi) in a theological context. This has led some translators and interpreters to draw direct connections between the two passages, potentially implying that Jesus is equating Himself with the God of Exodus 3:14. However, as we will explore in the following sections, the use of "I am" in John 8:58 can be understood in a different light, without necessarily invoking Exodus 3:14.


By examining the Hebrew grammar and context, the rendering "I will be what I will be" offers a more accurate and theologically rich understanding of God's self-revelation in Exodus 3:14. It emphasizes God's active and dynamic role in fulfilling His promises, which is consistent with the broader biblical narrative.


Analyzing Other Translations and Bias


Many traditional translations of Exodus 3:14 have adhered to "I am who I am" due to theological commitments rather than purely grammatical concerns. The English Standard Version (ESV), for example, renders the verse as "I AM WHO I AM" but includes a footnote acknowledging that "I will be what I will be" is an acceptable alternative. This suggests that even within mainstream translations, there is recognition of the validity of the alternative rendering​).


The rendering "I am" is often capitalized in translations such as the New Living Translation (NLT) and linked directly to John 8:58. This creates a theological connection between the two texts, which may not be justified by the original Hebrew or Greek. By translating "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" as "I will be what I will be," this connection is weakened, allowing each text to be understood within its own context.


In conclusion, the rendering "I will be what I will be" is a more accurate reflection of the Hebrew grammar and context of Exodus 3:14. It emphasizes God's dynamic and redemptive role in history, rather than a static declaration of existence. This understanding aligns better with the broader biblical narrative and avoids the theological implications that arise from linking Exodus 3:14 directly to John 8:58.


This interpretation serves as a foundation for understanding why linking Exodus 3:14 to Jesus' use of "I am" in John 8:58 is not as straightforward as it may seem. In the following section, we will explore this alternative argument and how it shapes our understanding of Jesus' declaration in John 8:58.



Theological Bias in Translation Decisions


An essential aspect of this alternative argument is the claim that many Bible translations reflect theological bias in their rendering of John 8:58. The decision to capitalize "I AM" in certain translations, such as the NASB and NLT, is not a requirement of the Greek text. It reflects an interpretive choice, suggesting a link between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. As noted by McKay and others, this capitalization is unwarranted and not based on the grammatical structure of the Greek. In fact, the Greek Septuagint version of Exodus 3:14 does not contain the phrase ego eimi at all but uses ho on ("the one who is") to refer to God, further complicating the argument that Jesus was directly quoting this Old Testament passage.


Some scholars, such as Daniel B. Wallace, challenge the notion that ego eimi in John 8:58 can be viewed as a historical present or as having a direct reference to Exodus 3:14​. He argues that the grammar and syntax of the passage are more complex than a simple declaration of divinity and that the connection to the Old Testament "I AM" is a later interpretive tradition rather than a clear reading of the text itself.


The alternative argument regarding Jesus’ use of ego eimi in John 8:58 hinges on a detailed analysis of Greek grammar, particularly the PPA rule, which suggests that the phrase should be rendered as "I have been" rather than "I am." Proponents of this view argue that many translations reflect theological biases in their handling of this verse, inserting divine connotations that are not necessarily supported by the Greek text or the broader context. By applying the same grammatical rules to John 8:58 as are applied to other passages in the Gospel of John, this alternative reading presents a compelling case for interpreting Jesus' words as a claim to preexistence rather than a direct identification with Jehovah.


In summary, the alternative interpretation of John 8:58 asserts that Jesus' use of ego eimi should be understood as a claim to preexistence, not divinity. Supporters of this view argue that the phrase ego eimi is used throughout the New Testament in non-divine contexts, and that the reaction of the Jewish leaders does not necessarily indicate that Jesus was claiming to be Jehovah. Instead, this interpretation emphasizes the temporal contrast between Abraham's finite existence and Jesus' continuous preexistence, without the theological implications of a direct claim to divinity.


This alternative perspective raises important questions about the relationship between language, context, and theological interpretation. It challenges the traditional understanding of John 8:58 as a direct claim to divinity and invites readers to consider the broader linguistic and cultural context in which Jesus' statement was made.



A Refutation of the Alternative Argument Regarding Jesus' Use of "I AM" in John 8:58


In seeking to provide a refutation of the alternative argument regarding Jesus' use of "I AM" in John 8:58, we must first acknowledge the critical points raised in the opposing perspective. These arguments suggest that Jesus' use of "I AM" (Greek: ego eimi) in John 8:58 is not necessarily a claim to divinity but rather a simple affirmation of His preexistence. The proponents of this view argue that ego eimi could simply indicate Jesus' existence before Abraham, without the divine connotation associated with Jehovah’s revelation in Exodus 3:14. They further argue that the phrase ego eimi in John 8:58 should be read with a different grammatical emphasis and not connected to Exodus 3:14, where Jehovah identifies Himself as "I AM WHO I AM" (Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh).


This refutation will challenge the alternative perspective by critically engaging with the Greek grammar, the context of the passage, and the theological implications of Jesus' words, all while addressing the central arguments proposed by those holding the alternative interpretation.


The Issue of Grammar: Does Ego Eimi Convey Simple Existence or Divinity?


One of the key arguments presented by the alternative view is that the Greek phrase ego eimi in John 8:58 can simply mean "I am" in the sense of personal existence, rather than a declaration of divinity. The grammatical construction of ego eimi has been the subject of significant debate, with some arguing that it could be understood as a "Present of Past Action still in progress" (PPA), which would translate into English as "I have been" rather than "I am." This view emphasizes the temporal distinction between Abraham’s existence and Jesus' preexistence, seeing no need to import the divine overtones associated with the Hebrew name for God in Exodus 3:14.


Response to the Grammatical Argument:


While the argument concerning the PPA grammar has merit in certain contexts, it does not hold in the specific case of John 8:58. Greek grammar allows for the use of ego eimi as an absolute statement of being, which is what we find in Jesus' declaration. In contrast to the ordinary use of ego eimi for personal identity (as in John 9:9, where the blind man says, "I am [he]"), the construction in John 8:58 carries a unique weight due to its theological context.

Scholars have pointed out that the structure of John 8:58 breaks from typical Greek grammatical conventions, particularly with the combination of prin ("before") and ego eimi (present tense). Normally, we would expect a past-tense verb to match the adverbial phrase "before Abraham was," but Jesus uses the present-tense ego eimi, emphasizing an eternal, ongoing existence that transcends the normal constraints of time. This construction is not easily explained by a mere claim of preexistence; instead, it suggests an eternal, timeless existence, which aligns with the divine name Jehovah revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14.


In other instances of the Greek New Testament, when similar grammatical constructions occur (such as in John 14:9, "Have I been with you so long?"), translators consistently render the verb in a past-perfect sense, implying an action that began in the past and continues into the present. However, in John 8:58, this convention is not followed by most translators, precisely because of the theological implications of the passage. Jesus’ choice of words—ego eimi instead of "I was"—suggests something far beyond mere preexistence.



The Reaction of the Jewish Leaders: Misunderstanding or Recognition of Blasphemy?


The alternative argument contends that the Jewish leaders’ reaction to stone Jesus (John 8:59) was not merely based on a misunderstanding or outrage over His preexistence. Instead, they interpreted His statement as a claim to possess eternal existence, a characteristic that they associated with divinity. To assert that He existed before Abraham and continued to exist was seen as a claim to divine status. This, in their eyes, was not only audacious but also blasphemous, warranting the stoning as a response to what they perceived as a divine claim.


Response to the Jewish Reaction Argument:


This explanation recognizes that the Jewish leaders’ intense reaction was not merely about the claim of preexistence, but rather about the perceived claim of divinity inherent in Jesus' statement. In the culture and religious climate of first-century Judaism, any assertion of eternal existence or equality with Jehovah was considered blasphemous, punishable by death according to the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 24:16). The Jewish leaders, well-versed in Scripture, understood the gravity of Jesus' claim when He declared, "before Abraham was, I am."


To claim both preexistence before Abraham and continued existence beyond him implies more than just temporal priority—it implies eternal existence. In their theological framework, only Jehovah possessed such attributes, so Jesus’ declaration was perceived as a claim to divine identity. This is why the Jewish leaders immediately sought to stone Him, interpreting His words as blasphemy, equating Himself with Jehovah, the self-existent God.


Further emphasizing this is Jesus' use of the phrase ego eimi ("I am"), which echoes the divine name revealed in Exodus 3:14, where Jehovah identifies Himself as "I AM WHO I AM" (Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh). The leaders would have recognized the theological implications of Jesus using this phrase, especially in a context discussing His existence before Abraham. Thus, it was not just a bold claim of preexistence but a perceived assertion of divine, eternal nature that provoked such a strong and violent reaction.



The Broader Johannine Context: Ego Eimi in Other Passages


The alternative argument also highlights that ego eimi is used in other places in the Gospel of John where it clearly does not carry a divine meaning (such as John 9:9, where the blind man says, "I am [he]"). This is used to suggest that ego eimi in John 8:58 should not be understood as a declaration of divinity.


Response to the Use of Ego Eimi in Other Passages:


While it is true that ego eimi is used in other contexts for personal identification, the meaning of any phrase is heavily dependent on its context. In John 9:9, the blind man’s use of ego eimi is clearly a simple affirmation of identity ("I am the man"), and there is no indication that he is claiming anything more than that. In contrast, the context of John 8:58 is entirely different.


Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus uses the phrase ego eimi in ways that clearly allude to His divine identity, particularly in connection with the "I AM" statements. For instance, in John 8:24, Jesus declares, "For unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins." Here, the use of ego eimi is linked with belief in Jesus’ identity, and failure to recognize this leads to spiritual death—a consequence that suggests more than mere human preexistence.

Similarly, in John 13:19, Jesus says, "I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he." The phrase ego eimi here is again used in a context that emphasizes Jesus' unique identity, which is closely associated with His divine mission.



Theological Implications: Connecting John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14


Finally, the alternative argument challenges the connection between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14, asserting that ego eimi in John 8:58 should not be equated with Jehovah’s revelation to Moses in the burning bush. Supporters of this view argue that the Greek phrase ego eimi in John is not a direct translation of the Hebrew Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh.


Response to the Theological Argument:


While it is true that the Greek phrase ego eimi and the Hebrew Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh are not exact linguistic equivalents, the theological connection between the two cannot be dismissed. Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus frequently uses ego eimi in ways that evoke the divine name, especially in contexts where He is revealing His unique identity and mission. The connection between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 is strengthened by the reaction of the Jewish leaders, who understood Jesus’ words as a claim to divinity. Their response was not merely to question His preexistence but to accuse Him of blasphemy, a charge that could only arise if they believed He was claiming equality with Jehovah.


Moreover, John’s Gospel is structured in a way that emphasizes the divine nature of Jesus from the very beginning. In John 1:1, Jesus is identified as the Logos who was with God and was God from the beginning. This theological framework sets the stage for Jesus’ later "I AM" declarations, which culminate in John 8:58 as the most explicit expression of His divine identity.


Conclusion of the Refutation


In refuting the alternative argument regarding John 8:58, the evidence suggests that the traditional interpretation—that Jesus’ use of ego eimi in this passage is a claim to divinity—remains a compelling interpretation. The grammatical construction, the context of the passage, the reaction of the Jewish leaders, and the broader theological themes in John’s Gospel point toward Jesus identifying Himself with the eternal, self-existent Jehovah of the Old Testament.


While the alternative perspective presents valid grammatical points and raises legitimate questions, the traditional view accounts more comprehensively for the theological and contextual implications present in John 8:58. Therefore, interpreting ego eimi as a divine self-identification continues to be a reasonable and well-supported reading of the passage, though it should be recognized that this interpretation is not without debate.


About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220 books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).


YOU MAY ALSO LIKE


Explore whether Jesus made explicit claims to being the Messiah from the Old Testament. Uncover insights and interpretations.


Investigate the intriguing question of whether Jesus was the Essene Teacher of Righteousness. Explore historical insights.



RECOMMENDED READING FOR CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND EVANGELISM


Comments


bottom of page