Here’s another verse that people often think can only mean that Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh, the “Great I Am.” However, there are many problems with that interpretation. Here is the verse:

“Jesus said unto them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am’.” (John 8:58)

Again, from a Trinitarian perspective, where does this verse explain, “God is a Trinity of three coequal persons in one substance”? It doesn’t, right? So, Trinitarians, in order to use this as a proof-text, which they do, have to jump to conclusions, and create their false dilemma…

TRINITARIAN’S FALSE DILEMMA: “this can ‘only’ indicate that Jesus is claiming to be the “the Great I Am” thus He must be one of the members of a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead.”

This is how a Trinitarian would use John 8:58 as a “proof-text” for their Trinity doctrine, which they impose on the text (eisegesis), rather than gain from the text (exegesis) what it clearly and openly teaches in detail (since this verse doesn’t say anything about a Trinity of persons or “one substance”).

On the same token: Where does this verse explain, “Jesus is a dual-natured incarnation of the Father, his ‘deity’ is called ‘Father’ and his human flesh is called ‘son’, but he only has one identity, one personality, that operates in different ‘modes’”? It doesn’t, right? So Onenessians, to use this as a proof-text, jump to conclusions, and create their false dilemma…

ONENESSIAN’S FALSE DILEMMA: “this can ‘only’ indicate that Jesus is claiming to BE the ‘the Great I Am’, thus Jesus is God the Father incarnate.”

This is how a Onenessian would use John 8:58 as a “proof-text” for their Oneness doctrine, which they impose on the text (eisegesis), rather than gain from the text (exegesis) what it clearly and openly teaches in detail (since this verse doesn’t say anything about Jesus being an incarnation of the person of the Father or a mode of the Father or any specific details of the Oneness doctrine). Right?

Proof Texted Scripture	False Dilemma “Concluded” from Proof Text	Scripture Negating the False Dilemma / Conclusion
John 8:58 “Before Abraham was, I am.”	Jesus could only be claiming to “be” the “Great I Am”	John 5:30 “I can of myself do nothing,” Exodus 3:14 “ho on” means “the being” not “ego eimi.” See also John 5:19-20; John 5:26-27, 30; John 8:28; Matthew 26:22; 26:25; Luke 1:19; John 4:25-26; Mark 14:61-62; and Acts 9:20

So, if Jesus didn’t explain the details of either the Trinity or the Oneness in this passage, what did he mean? Shall we jump to conclusions, or search the scriptures to find out? We’ve already seen what jumping to conclusions looks like, so now let’s try searching the scriptures for clearer verses for our understanding.

Here’s the first thing about John 8:58 that you need to know. Some people will tell you that Jesus was quoting Exodus 3:14, that goes like this:

“¹³Moses said to God, ‘Behold, when I come to the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you;’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ What should I tell them?’ ¹⁴God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM,’ and he said, ‘You shall tell the children of Israel this: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ¹⁵God said moreover to Moses, ‘You shall tell the children of Israel this, ‘Yahweh, 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 memorial to all generations’.” (Exodus 3:13-15)

The thing is, “I AM” was written in Greek in the Septuagint as was the New Testament. And the Greek OT, which the apostles often used, did not use the same Greek words Jesus used in Exodus 3:14.

The words “I am” in the NT come from the Greek words “ego eimi.” While Exodus 3:14, in the Greek Septuagint, doesn’t use “ego eimi” as God’s name at all whatsoever. What it says, in Greek, is “ego eimi ho on” which, translated means, “I am the being.” So, in Exodus 3:14, what God said, in the Greek version was, “tell them the Being (ho on) has sent you,” not “tell them I am (ego eimi) has sent you.” So no, Jesus did not repeat what Yahweh said. And Jesus certainly didn’t tell them “I am Yahweh.” As can be seen in the passage in Exodus, God was very clear and very expressive of who He was. God’s characteristic assertiveness and clarity in explaining Himself in Exodus 3:14 is very unlike the “proof-texts” that Incarnationists like Onenessians use to attempt to “prove” Jesus claimed to be Yahweh.

For a very pertinent contrast, consider God’s clear and absolute declaration of himself to Moses, above, as compared with Jesus’ answer to Paul, asking basically the same question:

“⁵He said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ The Lord said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. ⁶But rise up, and enter into the city, and you will be told what you must do’.” (Acts 9:5)

Notice that Jesus didn’t say anything like, “I am the God of your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” or anything like that which Yahweh said to Moses. And what was Paul’s understanding of what Jesus proclaimed to him?

The Apostle Paul— “Immediately in the synagogues he proclaimed the Christ, that he is the Son of God.” (Acts 9:20)

Oh, so Paul, after encountering Jesus for the first time after his resurrection, didn’t run around preaching that Jesus was a dual-natured incarnation of Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Rather, Paul went out preaching that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, just like Peter! Perhaps this “Son of God” doctrine has some validity after all!

Let’s get back to what Jesus meant in saying “I am.” It is critical to understand that when God said, “I am that I am,” He was declaring His absolute independence from any other power or authority. The technical word for this is “aseity,” meaning, “existence originating from and having no source other than itself.” Yahweh alone was and is the top of the chain of existence and authority. He does all things by Himself. Most of all, Yahweh is self-existent and self-reliant. This is explained in commentaries, which, by the way, point out that “I am” as a name is an assumption…

“I AM, assumed as a name, implies (1) an existence different from all other existence. “I am, and there is none beside me” (Isaiah 45:6); (2) an existence out of time, with which time has nothing to do… (4) an independent and unconditioned existence, from which all other is derived, and on which it is dependent.” Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers

“I AM the existing Being… That is, I am He that enjoys an essential, independent, immutable, and necessary existence… he is the fountain of all being and perfection, and that from him all things have derived their existence; so that it is he alone that has life in himself: and no creature, of whatever rank or order, has so much as an existence of its own: For in him we live, and move, and have our being.” Benson Commentary

With that idea of “I Am” meaning “independent existence” in mind, hear what Jesus says right here:

“¹⁹Jesus therefore answered them, ‘Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise. ²⁰For the Father has affection for the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does. He will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel’.” (John 5:19-20)

“²⁶For as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself. ²⁷He also gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man.” (John 5:26-27)

“I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous; because I don’t seek my own will, but the will of my Father who sent me.” (John 5:30)

Does that sound like Jesus was claiming “independent existence” of himself? Do any of these passages explain that “Jesus is the second person of a Trinity of coequal persons of one substance”? No. But neither do any of these explain that Jesus is a dual-natured incarnation of the Father and he was only speaking from his human nature. They teach something contrary to that.

They teach:

• The son can do nothing of himself. John 5:19
• The Father gave to his son to have life in himself. John 5:26 (therefore, the Father’s life is inherent and independent, but the son’s life was not inherent—it being given to him–and thus also was dependent)
• The Father gave to his son authority. John 5:27
• Jesus received the power to take up his life again by commandment from the Father John 10:18

Each one of these points have the exact opposite meaning from an independent being. And remember that Jesus cannot deny himself per 2 Timothy 2:13. In these passages Jesus was explicitly talking about himself not his human nature.

So, either Jesus lied in these explanations about himself, or he didn’t mean what people “jump to conclude” about what he said in John 8:58. Thus the “imagination” that Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh is an imagination that needs to be cast down (2 Corinthians 10:5).

What then did Jesus mean by saying before Abraham was, I am?

First, he was making what is perhaps the greatest statement of faith ever made by a human. Faith is biblically defined as “hope that is not seen” (Romans 8:24). It is also defined as the “assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1; see also 2 Corinthians 5:6–7; Romans 3:21–22; and Galatians 2:16). Our faith in God exists in contrast to any ability to see God, “for we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7). So then, to be our example, Jesus also had to walk by faith, not by sight. The only way Jesus could walk by faith is to have had a human self-awareness that could not “see” God. These are things the Bible tells us positively about Jesus when it says he was made like us in all things.

But it also tells us plainly that Jesus was faithful to God:

“¹Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus; ²who was faithful to Him who appointed him, as also was Moses in all his house.” (Hebrews 3:1–6)

God operates in an absolutely assured anticipation of what He foreknows. Since God is a moral being, His foreknowledge is part of being all-good.

“…as it is written, ‘I have made you a father of many nations’…God…calls those things which do not exist as though they did…” (Romans 4:17–18; NKJV)

This makes Christ’s faithfulness to God a human reflection, or image, of God’s foreknowledge. That is a critical aspect of Christ’s faith. Christ had faith in God because God had a faith-like foreknowledge of Christ. So, when Christ said, “before Abraham was, I am” he was referring to his faith that he was the planned Messiah and son of God in preeminence over Abraham’s preeminence over Abraham’s children.

Which means that Jesus was simply telling them that before Abraham existed, he was God’s foreknown Messiah. And that we can demonstrate by what the Bible explains.

For that we notice that the entire context for John 8:58 is centered around the Pharisees not believing Jesus is the Messiah. From John 7:40 to John 8:58 Jesus is providing proof to the Pharisees that he is the Messiah.

This discussion begins at John 7:40:

“⁴⁰Many of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, said, ‘This is truly the prophet.’ ⁴¹Others said, ‘This is the Christ.’ But some said, ‘What, does the Christ come out of Galilee? ⁴²Hasn’t the Scripture said that the Christ comes of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?’ ⁴³So there arose a division in the multitude because of him.” (John 7:40-43)

This is the context, the basis of the whole discussion from 7:40 to 8:58.

In the entire event, Jesus never once said to the Jews that he is YHWH. Jesus cannot deny himself (2 Timothy 2:13).

Now notice what he told them in 8:28…

“Jesus therefore said to them, ‘When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am, and I do nothing of myself, but as my Father taught me, I say these things’.” (John 8:28).

Since “I am” means an independent and unconditioned existence, Incarnationists want you to believe that Jesus just said, “I am an independent existence and I do nothing of myself.” That would be a self-contradiction.

Within 8 words stated by Jesus [I am, and I do nothing of myself], Incarnationists want you to believe Jesus himself was both claiming to be the Great I Am and denying that he was the “independently existent” Great I am in the same sentence, at the same time, in the same relationship!

That is nonsense! That is confusion! But that is what happens when the Bible is interpreted by jumping to conclusions the way the devil does and not considering the context in which Jesus was speaking.

That, folks, is no less of a contradiction than saying God is three, but he is one at the same time, in the same relationship as Trinitarians do. You cannot be “A” and not be “A” at the same time in the same relationship without there being a contradiction. Jesus cannot be independent (“I am”) and not be independent (“I can do nothing of myself”) at the same time. Notice carefully that he is talking about his self, “I,” not his human nature. And that is what Onenessian folks need to hear if they want to hear Jesus. That “human nature” imagination comes from anti-Christian Gnosticism. There is NO WHERE in the Bible where Jesus or any other Biblical writer teaches or explains that Jesus was referring to his human nature in relation to his deific nature, which is another “imagination.”

What Incarnationists (Oneness and Trinitarians) want you to believe is, that by interpreting John 8:58 the way the devil interprets God’s words, you can arrive at “truth” which they express in words of their own imagination, but not scripture. And thus, that “truth,” their “truth,” is not biblical truth, it is their imagination that is read into the passage and made to “appear” to be “truth.” And that is what eisegesis, jumping to conclusions, and interpreting by “false dilemma” looks like.

Furthermore, “I am” simply means “I am.” Have you ever said, referring to yourself, “I am”?

In addition to the above facts, the phrase “I am” is just as common of a phrase in Greek as it is in English. It is not God’s name. For examples of this see John 9:9 (the blind man who said “I am” (ego eimi); Peter said “I am” (ego eimi) in Matthew 26:22; Judas said, “I am” (ego eimi) in Matthew 26:25; the angel Gabriel said “I am” (ego eimi) in Luke 1:19.

The first time Jesus used “I am” was to confirm to the Samaritan woman that he was indeed the Messiah:

“²⁵The woman said to him, ‘I know that Messiah comes,’ (he who is called Christ). ‘When he has come, he will declare to us all things.’ ²⁶Jesus said to her, ‘I am he, the one who speaks to you.’” (John 4:25-26)

As we can see, clearly, Jesus was simply declaring himself to be the Messiah in response to the woman who referred to the coming of Messiah in the previous verse. Note the “he” is in italics meaning that it is added by the translators to make the Greek read properly in English. This means that it is a standard grammatical expression in Greek to not supply the pronoun; the referent is based on the context. In this case, it is the context of him affirming that he is the Messiah that was to come.

Another very clear case where Jesus used “I am” (ego eimi) in the context of being the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God, is found in Mark 14:61-62:

“⁶¹… Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ ⁶²Jesus said, ‘I am [ego eimi]. You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of the sky.’” (Mark 14:61-62)

This, being the Messiah, is yet again the context that Jesus uses “I am” for, that he was the Christ, the son of God. Likewise, in the case of John 8:24 & 58. By saying, “before Abraham was, I am,” Jesus was simply telling the Jews that he was in God’s foreknowledge, plan, and purpose for redeeming mankind before Abraham existed. Jesus never said or explained himself in a way to mean that he literally pre-existed as a conscious being in heaven before Abraham existed. Rather, when Jesus is allowed to explain himself, that imagination of men is totally refuted by the words of Jesus himself. The view that Jesus literally and consciously, personally preexisted conflicts with the Bible’s explicit explanations of Jesus being himself born of Mary.

 Print This Post