In John 8:58, the author quotes Jesus:

. ..πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί (NA28)
...before Abraham was, I am (ESV)

Many have understood this as a claim to divinity, and some translations render all caps "I AM" to reflect this. The NET notes:

I am! is an explicit claim to deity. Although each occurrence of the phrase “I am“ in the Fourth Gospel needs to be examined individually in context to see if an association with Exod 3:14 is present, it seems clear that this is the case here (as the response of the Jewish authorities in the following verse shows).

These words ἐγὼ εἰμί are reasonably distinct because:

  • The redundant pronominal subject is included.
  • It is unpredicated.

However, it's unlikely Jesus was speaking Greek, and I’m trying to figure out the words he likely spoke, what made them distinct enough to be upsetting ("So they picked up stones..."), and how they were connected to Exodus 3:14:

אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה ... אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִ אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃ (BHS)
I am who I am. . . . I am has sent me to you. (ESV)

And the LXX:

᾿Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· . . .῾Ο ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. (Rahlfs-Hanhart)
I am the [one] being. . . . the [one] being has sent me to you. (my overly literal translation1)

I was considering that he might have said:

  • The Tetragrammaton: but it's hard to see how this could be translated ἐγὼ εἰμί,2 or understood to yield a semantically satisfactory sentence. . . . and it's not in Exodus 3:14. (It's in 3:15 & 16 etc., but it's 14 that everyone seems to cite as the referent.)
  • אהיה (I am): but it's hard to see how this would be distinctive enough to be recognized as a claim to deity.3
  • אני אהיה (I am with the redundant pronominal subject like the Greek): but it isn't in Exodus 3:14 (or 3:15 ff.), and I don't know if it even works in Hebrew.
  • אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה (I am who I am): but this seems more naturally translated as the LXX: ᾿Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν·
  • Something else that my Hebrew isn't good enough to construct. (Check out how this Hebrew NT shifts it into the perfect, but that has even less to do with Exodus 3:14.)
  • Aramaic, in which case I can't even start.

Is anyone able to provide more educated speculation about what Jesus may have said that incited the authorities to pick up stones?

Notes 1. I realize there are better ways to do this, but I was attempting to make it very obvious exactly what words are there. 2. See also [this answer](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/6063/3555) about the rendering of the tetragrammaton in the LXX. 3. My search found 55 instances of this exact form in the Hebrew Bible, with various first-person subjects. To my knowledge, there was not an association with the divine name outside of Exodus 3, nor any problem pronouncing this word.
  • 7
    That the words "I am" constitute an assertion of divinity is patently false or else Paul would have been less insensitive to using the words in reference to himself: Young's Literal Translation 1 Cor 15:10 "and by the grace of God ** I am what I am**, and His grace that is towards me came not in vain, but more abundantly than they all did I labour, yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me;" biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-10.htm
    – Ruminator
    Commented Aug 20, 2017 at 16:15
  • 3
    @WoundedEgo Paul does not make the same claim. 1 Corinthians 15:10: χάριτι δὲ θεοῦ εἰμι ὅ εἰμι John 8:58 πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί Commented Aug 22, 2017 at 4:02
  • 4
    @RevelationLad, true, but "I am that I am" is more emphatic and more like the Hebrew of Exodus 3:4, no? If alluding to Exodus 3:4 is a capital crime, Paul committed it; more so than did Jesus.
    – Ruminator
    Commented Aug 22, 2017 at 5:02
  • 4
    @RevelationLad, Then why didn't they stone the man born blind?: "Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he. [EGW EIMI]". The "he" was added by the translators. Try it in John 8:58; it works.
    – Ruminator
    Commented Aug 23, 2017 at 0:25
  • 1
    As for the passage at hand, the birth of the Messiah (obviously) took place after Abraham, but the promise of his birth precedes Abraham by generations (Genesis 3:15). Furthermore, there are parallels to Proverbs 8:25 and Psalm 90:2.
    – Lucian
    Commented Nov 14, 2019 at 0:18

11 Answers 11


See also the follow-up Q&A to this one on the Greek antecedents of the absolute use of ἐγὼ εἰμί in the New Testament which advances and nuances the discussion below.

The Question

This is an excellent question, and one that in different forms has been pondered by interpreters of John's gospel for centuries. My own way of capturing what is at stake here would be to put it this way:

  • what Jesus is reported as saying in John 8:58 caused outrage in his hearers;
  • although reported here in Greek, it is safe to assume there is Hebrew or Aramaic antecedent for it;
  • so what did Jesus' audience hear in those simple words?

By "hear", here, I don't mean just the actual words spoken (or intended by the narrator), but what resonances did the audience catch that caused outrage, and which (we can further assume) John expected his readers to be able to hear as well?

OP asks for "educated speculation", and that is in part what this answer aspires to. "Speculation" suggests there is a degree of guesswork: true, there is. But there is also evidence, long observed, on which judgments have been formed.1 There is a vast secondary literature on this question as well, so this answer will be limited to some key observations drawn from the more significant contributors to the discussion.

John 8:58 interpreted

To begin with, it can be agreed (perhaps ironically), that in spite of some question about what lies behind the egō eimi statement, the interpretation of the claim is widely agreed. On this specific point, Barnabas Lindars may be taken as representative in noting:2

  • in this gospel, "John never simply identifies Jesus with God";
  • this verse comes as the climax of a dispute over how it is that Jesus "continues forever" (Jn 8:35);
  • the saying is in the simple present tense.

All of which points to Jesus' implicit claim here to "timeless pre-existence". This, or something like it, is found widely in the commentaries.

᾿Εγώ εἰμι = ?

But that, of course, simply leads us to OP's question. What connections were forged in the minds of the hearers between Jesus' claim, "egō eimi", and the prior tradition?

One obvious connection is explored already in the question posed: that there is a strong allusion to Exodus 3:14 here, and the revelation of the divine name to Moses, especially as it comes down through the (thoroughly Hellenistic) Septuagint rendering. (I won't repeat this here; it's set out with clarity in the question.) This association is widely repeated in more popular Bible guides,3 and is a fairly natural association.

It might come as a surprise, then, that the more common scholarly understanding sees Exodus 3:14 lying very much in the background, and not providing the primary allusion for Jesus' words as presented by John. The primary association is found rather in the Hebrew expression אֲנִי הוּא = ʾănî hûʾ and especially as found in Isaiah 43:10bα (see also the LXX):4

לְמַ֣עַן תֵּ֠דְעוּ וְתַאֲמִ֨ינוּ לִ֤י ...
...lĕmaʿan tēdĕʿû wĕ taʾămînû lî
...that you may know and believe me,
...ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ πιστεύσητε
...hina gnōte kai pisteusēte
...that you may know and believe

וְתָבִ֙ינוּ֙ כִּֽי־אֲנִ֣י ה֔וּא
wĕtābînû kî-ʾănî hûʾ
and understand that I am he.
καὶ συνῆτε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι
kai sunēte hoti egō eimi
and understand that I am he.

Every substantial commentary on the Greek text of John's gospel has some discussion of this question.5 However, without doubt the major contribution on this front in recent years (and which should be consulted by anyone interested in this question) is Catrin H. Williams, I Am He: The Interpretation of A̓nî Hû ̓in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (WUNT II/113; Mohr Siebeck, 2000).6 Some of the factors that come into play for Williams and the (many) others who concur with her reading are as follows:

  • The "absolute" use of the Greek egō eimi (without "complement" or predicate) is (in the words of C.K. Barrett) "hardly a Greek expression", "...ἐγώ εἰμι is in itself (as Greek) a meaningless expression".7 This makes the search for its antecedents in Jewish literature pressing.
  • The Exodus 3:14 text has a superficial appeal, but that leaves the "absolute" use as an oddity...
  • ...except that it "prepares the way" for different versions of the "I-formula" ("I am YHWH", "I am he") that appear elsewhere, especially Deuteronomy 32:39 as found in the LXX; Isa 43:10 (cited above); and 45:18 (via the LXX). These provide a form of words in which the solemn self-declaration of the LORD is rendered into Greek with the "absolute" (no complement) form of egō eimi.
  • The use of this formula in Jewish liturgy, and its associations with the Temple in particular, are explored exhaustively by Williams, and provide some obvious links with the John 8 context.
  • The John 8 usage is often taken in tandem with the other occurrence in the gospels of the "absolute" egō eimi, that found in Mark 14:62.8 This wider view demonstrates a convergence on the same ʾănî hûʾ via LXX self-declaration as the primary source of the statement, "egō eimi", spoken by Jesus in Mark and John.


There is much more that could be said -- but Catrin Williams has probably said it. I hope this is sufficient to provide a meaningful response to a good question: that the popular identification of "I am" in John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14 is superficially appealing but ultimately unsatisfactory; that the ʾănî hûʾ sayings in the Hebrew Bible provide the more plausible background for Jesus' speech at various points in the gospel of John (and Mark).9


  1. That is, this question is subject to evidence and argument like any other "accepted" question on BH.SE; it should not be misconstrued therefore as "opinion based" - unless the vast majority our questions are to be designated in this way.
  2. For the following, B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (New Century Bible; Eerdmans, 1981), p. 336.
  3. As, for example, in the NET Bible at John 8:58, as noted by OP; similarly given in the ESV Study Bible.
  4. (There appears to be some English text missing from the LXX translation of Isa 43:10 at the link provided.) The expression also appears as אָנֹכִי הוּא ʾānōkî hûʾ (e.g. Isa 43:25), but I will just use one form for convenience in this answer.
  5. Note in particular the appendix devoted to it in R.E. Brown's The Gospel According to John I-XII (Anchor Bible; Doubleday, 1966), pp. 533-538.
  6. There is a generous preview in Google Books; I will not cite or interact with the rich body of earlier scholarship on this question that she so ably presents. See also more recently, and less substantially, Yung Suk Kim, Truth, Testimony, and Transformation: A New Reading of the "I Am" Sayings of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Wipf & Stock, 2014).
  7. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (SPCK 1978), pp. 341f.
  8. Note that there are two further "non-complement" egō eimi sayings in Mark (adding 6:50 and 13:6); and there are further examples in the gospel of John (4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 9:9; 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8).
  9. And in case the question about what form this would take in Aramaic, the answer is אֲנָה הוּא or אֲנָא הוּא.
  • 2
    Since the Hebrew (אֲנִי הוּא) is a verbless clause, why would the Greek add the verb and remove the predicate nominative with ἐγώ εἰμι if that phrase was not already in usage to reflect "I am he"? It seems if it is "meaningless" in Greek, that the translation would have either been kept direct with the Hebrew as εγω ουτος or simply added the verb as εγω ειμι ουτος. Does Williams discuss extra biblical uses of εγω ειμι as a declaration of "I am he" (much like Jn 9:9 usage) in her work that justifies the LXX translation as "good" Greek?
    – ScottS
    Commented Oct 1, 2014 at 13:36
  • 1
    @ScottS (1) Barrett speaks as one who had classical Greek from childhood: those (of us) who come to Greek via NT just don't hear its "accent" the same way. (2) How LXX-Deut and LXX-Isa ended up with ἐγώ εἰμι for אֲנִי הוּא is a different question! (3) The point isn't that the LXX rendering is good Greek; only that these instances of the non-complement egō eimi provide the more plausible source of the same use in Mk and Jn. | P.s. Best to read Williams for yourself, I reckon!
    – Dɑvïd
    Commented Oct 1, 2014 at 14:07
  • 1
    No time to read Williams myself (maybe someday). I understand and agree with (3), but I do feel (1) and (2) relate (unless I completely misread Barrett). "Meaningless" is not a statement about an accent (pronunciation) issue. If the phrase indeed had no meaning in Greek, it makes less sense that LXX translated it as it did (rather than one of the other two ways). But if it had extra biblical support for meaning an elliptical expression for "I am he," then it makes perfect sense for its use in LXX for the Hebrew verbless clause אֲנִי הוּא. I think I'll ask this as a new BH.SE question.
    – ScottS
    Commented Oct 1, 2014 at 14:31
  • 2
    @ScottS - sorry: my bad. "Accent" here was a metaphor. I meant he can spot the bad Greek that those who stay within NT bounds can't. It still means looking into the mechanism for rendering in LXX-Deut and LXX-Isa which is an interesting question in its own right. Must check Wevers' Notes on Greek Deut to start with; Isaiah translator was much more "free"; also worth seeing what Field has for this. But this goes beyond my BH.SE pay-grade. ;)
    – Dɑvïd
    Commented Oct 1, 2014 at 14:46
  • 2
    @David (A.) Please add what you think proves that what Jesus said would have been recognized as "Formulaic"; (B.) "Ana Hu" is NOT the Aramaic rendering--here, but probably אנא איתי, (from the Peshitta). (C.) Your reference to: אְנָא הוּא is from the Aramaic Targum, Jonathan, making it impossible to know what Jesus actually said. (D.) Your argument of recognizability hinges on the Assertion that "Ana .." is associated with Temple Liturgy, but unsubstantiated. Commented May 22, 2015 at 0:01

Professor of Religious Studies , Jason David BeDuhn of Northern Arizona University in his book "TRUTH IN TRANSLATION Accuracy and Bias of the New Testament" compares ten major English translations and list them as follows:

In Chapter ten "TEMPERING WITH THE TENSES" deals exclusively with John 8:58 analyzes grammar and syntax of this verse and other similar verses.

KJV before Abraham was, I am

NRSV before Abraham was, I am

NASB before Abraham was born, I am

NIV before Abraham was born, I am

TEV before Abraham was born, I Am

AB before Abraham was born, I AM

NAB before Abraham came to be, I AM

NW before Abraham came into existence,I have been.

LB I was in existence before Abraham was ever born.

Quote "What is going on here? You may think that there is a particularly difficult or convoluted Greek clause underlying this mess in English. But that is not the case. The Greek reads "prin Abraham genesthai ego eimi". What is Jesus says here is fine idiomatic Greek. It can be rendered straightforwardly into English by doing what translators always do with Greek, namely, rearrange the word into normal English order, and adjust things like verbal tense complimentary into the proper expression"unquote.

The chapter runs into ten pages, the concluding paragraph is as follows.

"The LB comes out as the most accurate translation of John 8:58. The translator avoided the lure of bias and the pressure of the KJV tradition. The NW is second best in this case, because it understands the relation between the two verbs correctly, even though the influence of the KJV has led its translators to but the verb improperly at the end of the sentence. The average Bible reader might never guess that there was something wrong with the other translations, and might even assume that the error is found in the LB and NW When all you can do is compare the English translations and count them up like votes,the LB and NW stick out different in John 8:58. It is natural to assume that the majority are correct and the odd ones at fault. It is only when translations are checked against original Greek, as they should be, that a fair assessment can be made, and the initial assumption can be seen to be wrong".

There those that say Exodus 3:14 corresponds with "I am" in John 8:58, however a quick look at the Septuagint show s this claim to be a mistake. The Septuagint at Exodus 3:14 has God say "ego eimi ho ohn" translated " I am the being" or "I am one that exists". "I am " sets up the title identification God uses of himself, it is not itself a title. Separating "I am" off as if it were to meant to stand alone is an interpretive sleight-of-hand, totally distorting the role the phrase plays in the whole sentence, either in the Greek Septuagint version of Exodus 3:14 or in John 8:58

At John 8:58, most translations have Jesus using the expression “I am” in connection with himself, saying, “Before Abraham was, I am.” However here the expression is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. as explained above. Here Jesus did not use it as a name or title but simply as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Thus, according to :

LB I was in existence before Abraham was ever born.

NWT before Abraham came into existence,I have been.

“I existed before Abraham was born!” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am.” Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.

“I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible.

  • You might want to check out Trevor Allen's 2016 critique of DeBuhn's work. The PDF of the critique is here: livingwater-spain.com/beduhn.pdf. Commented Sep 2, 2017 at 22:40
  • 2
    As a Greek I can read the Greek Koine and agree with the rendering of the verse by Debuhn . I used his work to add strength to my answer. Commented Oct 9, 2017 at 19:13
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Steve can help
    Commented Sep 29, 2021 at 9:50

Perhaps the following may help:-

The following is how several other Biblical authorities translate John 8:58:-

"I have existed before Abraham was born"-James Moffatt 1948 (Impression)

"I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born."-The Original N. T. by Hugh J. Schonfield 1985

"Truly truly I tell you, I am from before Abraham was born."-The N. T. by Richmond Lattimore

"I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!"-Edger J. Goodspeed 1935 copyright

“Then Jesus said to them, ‘I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.’"-Chas. Williams’ The New Testament.

“He said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I have been.” -A. S. Lewis’ “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest.

“‘Believe me,’ Jesus replied, ‘before Abraham was born I was already what I am.’”-The Twentieth Century New Testament.

“Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was born, I was.”-G. M. Lamsa’s The Modern New Testament.

“Jesus said to them: Verily, verily, I say to you, That before Abraham existed, I was.”-Jas. Murdock’s The Syriac New Testament.

“Jesus: ‘Before there was an Abraham, I was already there [war ich schon da]!’”-F. Pfaefflin’s Das Neue Testament (German).

“Jesus said to them: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you: Before Abraham was born, I was [war ich].’”-C. Stage’s Das Neue Testament (German).

“Jesus answered: ‘In truth, in truth, I say to you: Before Abraham was born, I was [era yo].’”-Nácar Colunga’s Nuevo Testamento (Spanish).

“I have been” (haiithi) instead of in the imperfect form."-F. Delitzsch’s Hebrew New Testament and that by Salkinson-Ginsburg both have the verb in the perfect form.

"The absloute truth is that I was in existance before Abraham was ever born!"-The Living Bible.

"Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!"-New Living Translation 1997

"Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly I tell you: before Abraham was born, I have already been."-The Unvarnished N.T. translated by Andy Gaus 1991

"Jesus said to them, "Mark my words and make no mistake: before Abraham himself was born, I already have being.""-'The Four Gospels' by Norman Marrow p.171

'The Companion Bible' has the following marginal note about the phrase "I am" on page 1540 as found in John 8:58, " 58 was = came into existence : i. e. was born. I am."

“Jesus said to them, “The truth is that I existed before Abraham was born!””-A Translation for Translators, ebible.org


The six times in John's Gospel when Jesus says "I Am" followed by nothing else, which are four times when preaching (8:24,28,58; 13:19) plus two times when responding to the party that had come to apprehend Him (18:5,8), the words ἐγὼ εἰμί (Ego Eimi) translate אהיה (Ehyeh) of Ex 3:14.

Jesus' listeners might have understood that the expression in itself was a claim to divinity if Jesus said it in Hebrew in the middle of a dialogue carried out in Aramaic. Moreover, I hypothesize that Jesus did exactly that in his trial, as the High Priest and the scribes would certainly have understood the reference to Ex 3:14:

But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" And Jesus said, "I Am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven." (Mk 14:61-62).

But just as the composite scriptural quote following "I Am" in this passage was enough in itself to be understood as a claim to divinity, so was the text preceding "I Am" in Jn 8:58: "before Abraham came to be (genesthai)", as it implied Jesus' pre-existence since time immemorial before being conceived in human form.

The case that John has Ex 3:14 in mind when recording Jesus stating "I Am" followed by nothing else is further supported by understanding the falling to the ground of the soldiers that had come to arrest Jesus in response to his saying "I Am" in light of the rite of the feast of Atonement. For that, we must note two facts:

  1. The term "fell" (epesan) is used 5 times by John in Revelation in the sense of "fall on their face" to worship: 5:8, 5:14, 7:11, 11:16 and 19:4.

  2. By the time of Jesus, the proper Name of God in the third person revealed in Ex 3:15: YHWH, "He causes to be" if vocalized YaHWeH, was uttered by only one person, the High Priest, on only one day of the year, the feast of Atonement (Yom Kippur), 6 times when making a sacrifice for his own sins, one time when drawing the lot for the he-goats, and 3 times when loading the iniquities and transgressions of the sons of Israel on the he-goat to be sent to the desert (Lev 16:20-22). The prayer used by the High Priest for the latter function, and the people's response, are in the Mishna, tractate Yoma, chapter 6 [1] [2]:

He then came to the he-goat which was to be sent away to Azazeil and forcefully leans his hands on it and confesses. And so he would say: Please O YHWH, they have done wrong they have transgressed they have sinned before You - Your nation the House of Israel, Please, O YHWH, forgive them for their doing wrong, for their transgressions and for their sins, as is written in the Torah of Moshe Your servant: “For on this day He will effect atonement for you to purify you before YHWH” (Leviticus 16:30). And when the priests and the people who were standing in the courtyard heard the fully pronunced Name come from the mouth of the High Priest they would kneel, prostate themselves, fall on their faces, and call out: Blessed be the Name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever. He gave it over to the one who was to lead it [to Azazeil].

(The original response was Psalm 113:2 "Blessed be the Name of the LORD for ever and ever". It was later modified by the rabbis by changing "the LORD" to "His glorious kindgdom" and recorded that way in the Mishna).

From these data, the meaning of the fall to the ground of the party that had come to apprehend Jesus when He said "I Am" for the first time is crystal clear: Jesus is the High Priest who is carrying out the true Atonement prefigured by the rite in the Mosaic Law, and that at the time of loading the iniquities and transgressions of men on the victim that will carry them, pronunces the proper Name of God, with the difference, with respect to an ordinary High Priest, that:

  • since Jesus Himself is the victim, He bears and carries our iniquities and transgressions Himself,

  • since Jesus Himself is God, He pronounces the proper Name of God in the first person.

Finally, the third time when Jesus pronounces the proper Name of God in the first person as true High Priest of the true Atonement is not recorded in John's Gospel but in Mark's, in the reply to the High Priest quoted above. To validate the interpretation of this "I Am" as the third utterance of the divine Name in the first person by Jesus as High Priest of the true Atonement, we must note that, in the Jewish rite, immediately after the High Priest finished his prayer uttering the divine Name by a third time, the goat was taken to the desert. Similarly, immediately after pronouncing the third "I Am" in Mk 14:62, Jesus started to be spit, striken, mocked and slapped by the Jews (Mk 14:65).

The understanding אהיה (Ehyeh) of Ex 3:14 as the name of God in the first person is already present in the works of two 12th century Jewish biblical commentators: Samuel ben Meir, known as Rashbam, and Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra, who was also an outstanding Hebrew grammarian.

Rashbam's view on the subject, as mentioned in [3]:

Perhaps, nonetheless, God is revealing two different names in 3:14-15: 'ehye(h) and Yahweh. If so, the best analysis is Rashbam's: Yahweh calls himself 'ehye(h) 'I-will-be,' while others refer to him in the third person as yahwe(h), assumed to be a form of yihye(h) 'he will be.'

Ibn Ezra's comment on Ex 3:15, where the name YHWH is revealed [4]:

Another name meaning the same as the first one. However, one name (EHYH) is in the first person and this name (YHVH) is in the third person.


[1] http://www.emishnah.com/moed2/Yoma/6.pdf

[2] http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Yoma.6

[3] Propp, William H.C., Exodus 1-18 - A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary - The Anchor Bible, (NY: Doubleday, 1999), p.225.

[4] Strickman, H. Norman & Silver, Arthur M. (translators), Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Pentateuch: Exodus (Shemot), (NY: Menorah, 1997), p.64.


I will limit my response so as not to repeat the considerable contribution already on the questions.
Caution: one must remember there is clear bias in translation and no Bible is either genuine nor original. Written by mysterious men, by an unknown number of men, written in unknown places and unknown dates. Noting that most bibles are translated by Trinitarian’s.

Jesus makes no claim of being God anywhere in the Bible

  1. The likelihood is that Jesus was intercepted before he could finish as they picked up stones etc… any way let’s look at other possible evidence.
  2. If Jesus wanted to say he was God and before all – he would have said before – any living thing or at least before Adam not Abraham. Many references Jesus is clearly not implying he is God.
  3. “Son of God” literally means “Servant of God” in Hebrew
  4. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English, mainly by Trinitarian.

Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am.” (Acts 26:29).

Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”

  1. The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he” or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be” —John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58

  2. Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the plan of God. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Here is another example where a Prophet existed in the knowledge even before he was born, yet he was not at all Divine, Jeremiah 1:5 – Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

  3. Exodus 3:14. Is very different. While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.” Thus the “I am” in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said “I am” did not make him God.

  4. Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus because he was claiming to be God (John 8:59) see also point 10 below

This is just an assumption. There is a different explanation that is supported by better evidence: the Jews picked up stones to kill Jesus because they understood he was claiming to be the Messiah. At Jesus’ trial, the High Priest asked, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ” (Matt. 26:63). First of all, we should notice that no one at the trial asked Jesus if he were God. However, if they thought he had been claiming to be God, that would have certainly been a question they would have asked but such is never recorded anywhere.

  1. The New Jerusalem Bible has translated this phrase “I am that I am” from “Ehe’ye asher ehe’ye” (Hebrew) as “I am He who is: Ego eimi, Ho on” (Greek). The commentary of this verse states that this rendering of the original Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 is exactly how the seventy translators of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) (i.e. A Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible completed by seventy Greek-speaking Hebrew scholars in Alexandria, Egypt, 250 BCE) understood the meaning to be, and these were highly educated Greek-speaking Hebrew scholars. Essentially God is telling Moses that “He who is” or He that can never die has sent him unto Pharaoh.

The Divine attribute is the phrase “Ho on” (He who is), yet Jesus in John 8:58 simply says, “Before Abraham was, ego emi.”

  1. The Greek of John, however, is different than the Greek of Exodus 3:14. Please read - John 8:52-59.

So, what does Jesus mean by “Before Abraham was, I am,” and why do the Jews pick up stones? Jesus is simply claiming his legitimacy in a very clever way. The Jews were so proud that they were the progeny of Abraham, so he (Jesus) hits them where it hurts most. He basically says, “Before Abraham was born into this earthly existence, I was in the knowledge and Will of God. When we all existed before the creation of the physical universe in spiritual form, Abraham longed to see my day, the day of the Messiah.” Jesus is saying that since God knew him and made him Christ before the creation of Abraham, he (Jesus) is just as legitimate as Abraham. God tells the Prophet Jeremiah: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations”(Jeremiah 1:5). This is precisely what Jesus meant when he said: “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).

Even the John the Baptist cousin of Jesus warns the Jews: “And think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Matthew 3:9).

Then why do the Pharisees pick up stones? The answer is because Jesus is claiming to be genuinely sent from God and His anointed. We are told in the Book of Deuteronomy 18:20 that false prophets must be killed. If the Jews truly believed that Jesus claimed to be God, then why don’t they use these ‘claims’ as evidence against him, Read - Mark 14:55: “And the chief priests and the whole council gathered together to find evidence that would warrant a death sentence, but failed to find any”

After Pilate tells the hordes of Jews shouting for Jesus’ execution that he finds no fault in Jesus, the Jews very cleverly answer, “If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar” (John 19:12). Therefore, Pilate had little choice but to hand him over to be crucified.

Previous Hebrew Prophets killed “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not”(Matthew 23:37).

There is also a big problem with Gospel of John - https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/63568/33268

  • this is a poor understanding of the trinity, and an argument based on silence. you cannot make the faulty conclusion that Jesus isn’t God just because he didn’t outright say “oh yeah guys I’m God”. Jesus also kept his messianic identity a secret for a long time aswell - does that mean he isn’t the Messiah? Paul explicitly said Christ was God (Romans 9:5), and his letters were all written before the gospels, seeming as you want to argue that their christology develops over time and that John’s gospel is a fraud. You’re looking at selective evidence to frame your argument.
    – ellied
    Commented Aug 12, 2022 at 1:26
  • 1
    @ellied - I don't understand trinity at all - my answer is a bit more then Jesus did not say he is God - but why not say it he is God, no one can do anything to him? secret mission is a weak theory. unfortunately everything has been influenced by Paul who did not even know Jesus and even contradicts himself is this so called Damascus experience with no independent witness. Commented Aug 12, 2022 at 14:30

Let's assemble the clues to understanding John 8:58.

1. The grammar of the statement itself. The grammar is ambiguous and much debated, but contemporary translators are unanimous that this involves existence before Abraham.

So, Jesus is saying something about existing before Abraham.

2. What immediately follows it. Jesus said something that angered hostile elements within the crowd. It is important to distinguish between what Jesus meant and how the crowd received it, as a theme in John is people misunderstanding what Jesus is saying.

First, let's look at what might have angered the crowd. Of course, these elements are already angry - Jesus has called them liars, said the Father isn't their father, and rather their father is the devil. They have called him a Samaritan and possessed by a demon. The hostility is already established.

As we know from 1., whatever immediately causes them to pick up stones involves something about existing before Abraham. How could Jesus exist before Abraham?

To determine this, we should look to the immediate context as well as the context of John more generally, looking for clearer passages that can inform what Jesus might be claiming.

We have a few options for pre-existence.

a) Jesus could be claiming to pre-exist as God Almighty (Trinitarian view).

b) Jesus could be claiming to pre-exist as the Logos (but not co-equal with the Father, common view in the early church, 'Logos theorists' - God in some sense).

c) Jesus could be claiming to pre-exist as the Christ, the Son of God.

Note that if the crowd is responding to what it views as blasphemy, does this require a perceived claim to be God Almighty himself? No. Blasphemy was a broader concept, and simply meant talking inappropriately about God. It didn't require claiming to be God Almighty Himself - a claim that ancient Jews would have considered very strange.

Note also Luke 4:16, where the Jews try to kill Jesus. There is no claim there by Jesus that He is God Almighty. Also note St. Stephen, who is killed by the Jews. He is accused of blasphemy by claiming Jesus would destroy the temple and changing the Mosaic law (Acts 6:8-15). The Sanhedrin then become enraged when Stephen claims they are the betrayers and murderers of the Righteous One (i.e., Jesus). They then rush at him and stone him when he says he sees the Son of Man (i.e., Jesus) standing at the right hand of God. Again, St. Stephen does not claim Jesus is God Almighty - rather Jesus is at the right hand of God Almighty.

Instead, Stephen's claim Jesus is at the right hand of God is a direct reference to Psalm 110:1, a Messianic Psalm.

"Yahweh said to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

Claiming Jesus was the Messiah caused the Sanhedrin to cover their ears and rush at him.

So it seems reasonable to think Jesus said something hostile elements within the crowd interpreted as blasphemous. Would falsely claiming to be God Almighty be blasphemous? Yes. Would falsely claiming to be God's Logos be blasphemous? Yes. Would falsely claiming to be the Christ, the Son of God be blasphemous? Yes.

So what happens immediately after supports a), b), and c).

3. Immediately before, Jesus was talking about how Abraham saw Jesus' day.

Abraham's vision wasn't of someone being God Almighty, nor was it of someone being God's Logos. Rather, it was of the Messiah's day.

The immediate context before Jesus' statement supports a claim to be the Christ, the Son of God, as that is what Jesus is referring to there.

4. 8:58 is Jesus' third 'I am (he)' statement in John 8. In between these, the crowd twice asks "Who are you?" So a major theme of John 8 is who Jesus is. The first use of 'I am (he)' (8:24) prompts the crowd to ask "Who are you?" (8:25). Jesus then says "Just what I have been telling you from the beginning". So the identity is something he has been saying before. Has Jesus said He is God Almighty before this? No. However, He has said He is the Messiah (John 4:24). The second "Who are you?" comes at 8:53, shortly before Jesus' statement at 8:58.

The context of John 8 is clearly about Jesus' identity, and the most obvious answer to "Who are you?" is 'the Christ, the Son of God'.

5. This theme in John 8 is a continuation of a theme in John 7, namely, who is Jesus? Is he the Messiah? Or Elijah? Or a prophet?

None of the options being discussed in John 7 include Jesus being God Almighty. Elijah and the prophets come after Abraham. So, the context of John 7 supports the answer to the crowd's question at 8:53 being 'the Christ, the Son of God'.

6. John 1 has John the Baptist making similar-sounding claims about Jesus as Jesus' own statement at 8:58.

John the Baptist says at John 1:30

"This is He of whom I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because He was before me.’"

And who is this one who was before John the Baptist (despite being born after him)? John 1:34 gives the answer.

"I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God."

John the Baptist does not say Jesus is God Almighty. Rather, he is identifying him as the Christ, the Son of God.

Shortly after this, Nathanael identifies Jesus at John 1:49 as

"“Rabbi,” Nathanael answered, “You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”"

John the Baptist's statements in John 1 suggest that being the Son of God is important to the claim of being before. John the Baptist makes no mention of Jesus being God Almighty or the Logos.

Note this doesn't mean Jesus isn't God Almighty or the Logos, and John 1:1-14 just might be saying those things. But if we are talking here about people's perceptions, and what they understand Jesus to be claiming about his identity at John 5:58, these statements are key.

7. Finally, let's look at the scope of John more generally. We know that Jesus says 'I am (he)' to the woman at the well at John 4:24 where He clearly is claiming to be the Christ. We know Martha claims He is 'the Christ, the Son of God' - pairing the terms - at John 11:27, a similar pairing as Nathanael's mentioned previously, as well as Peter's at Matthew 16:16 and the high-priest Caiaphas as Jesus' trial. At the trial as described in the synoptics, Jesus is then condemned for blasphemy for affirming the charge of being 'the Christ, the Son of God' (Matthew 26, Luke 22, Mark 14). We also know the elites want to kill Jesus for claiming to be 'the Son of God' in John itself at 19:7, not God Almighty or the Logos.

"“We have a law,” answered the Jews, “and according to that law He must die, because He declared Himself to be the Son of God.”"

After John 10 (Jesus' famous 'I and the Father are one') there is no mention of Jesus claiming to be God Almighty or the Logos, and no one is talking about killing him for so claiming.

Whatever Jesus' statement at John 10:30 means ("I and the Father are one"), Jesus clearly distinguishes a partial, dependent kind of equality throughout John, as he does in John 8. This doesn't make sense if He's claiming to be God Almighty.

Note that Trinitarians can agree with this - Jesus often spoke from his human nature, or various statements come from Jesus' 'kenosis'. In this respect, his claims won't be of co-equality with the Father. Instead, the Father is greater, the Father knows where the Son does not, the Father is the only true God, and so on.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly in the context of John, we come to John's definitive statement of the purpose of his Gospel, at John 20:31.

"But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name."

Conclusion: both the immediate context as well as a large amount of evidence from John supports Jesus claiming at 8:58 to pre-exist Abraham as the Christ, the Son of God. Those who did not believe this claim could consider it blasphemy, as the hostile, elite Jews do at his trial and at John 19:7.

  • Excellent answer.
    – Joshua B
    Commented Mar 7 at 9:14

ἐγώ εἰμι with predicates
The Fourth Gospel records Jesus saying ἐγώ εἰμι with a predicate twelve times (6:35, 6:48, 6:51, 8:12, 10:7, 10:9, 10:11, 10:14, 11:25, 14:6, 15:1, 15:5). These help demonstrate what language Jesus spoke because "Hebrew does not have a word for the present tense of the verb "to be." In other words, there is no Hebrew word for "am" or "is" or "are." Therefore, in order to say "I am Joseph," for example, one would say "Ani Joseph" ("I Joseph")."1 Therefore, if Jesus spoke Aramaic, the proper rendering into Greek would be "I ---" (not "I am ---").

In fact, the Semitic form is found in John the Baptist's testimony:

He said, “I am the ‘voice of one shouting in the wilderness: “Make-straight the way of the Lord”’, just as Isaiah the prophet said [in Isa 40:3]”. (John 1:23 DLNT)
ἔφη ἐγὼ φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου καθὼς εἶπεν Ἠσαΐας ὁ προφήτης

From Luke (1:5) the Baptist is identified as a Levitical priest; undoubtedly schooled in Hebrew and was speaking to other priests and Levities (1:19). At first blush the Baptist spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic which the writer translated literally into Greek. Yet the Gospel also records (1:20-21) he used εἰμι which has no Semitic counterpart. So the better explanation is the Baptist chose the Semitic expression even though he spoke in Greek. Perhaps he was "accustomed to think and speak in Aramaic as well as in Greek."2This would also explain why his quote follows neither the LXX or the Hebrew text. He replaced ἑτοιμάσατε with εὐθύνατε in order to conflate either ἑτοιμάσατε, εὐθείας of the LXX or פנו ,ישרו of the Hebrew into a single action.

Another reason would be to avoid saying "ἐγώ εἰμι..." altogether. The LXX of second Isaiah has that expression for God speaking fifteen times (41:4; 43:10, 25; 45:8, 18, 19, 22; 46:4, 9; 47:8, 10; 48:12, 17; 51:12; 52:6) occasionally with a predicate:

and remember the former things of old, because I am God, and there is no other beside me. (LXX-Isaiah 46:9)
καὶ μνήσθητε τὰ πρότερα ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεός καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι πλὴν ἐμοῦ

The LXX adds the implied verb when God self-identifies with a predicate (I God). A Levite versed in both the Hebrew and Greek texts would understand the potential for a charge of blasphemy when quoting Isaiah and saying ἐγὼ εἰμι... Therefore, using the Semitic I voice... despite speaking Greek eliminates the potential of a claim of blasphemy against the Baptist.3

Regardless of the reason, the manner in which the Gospel presents the Baptist's witness shows the writer had no qualms omitting εἰμι to write I voice; nor should there be question the reader would find this unintelligible. So, if Jesus spoke either Hebrew or Aramaic when saying "I am ----" (with a predicate), the writer should continue to reflect that Semitic form. The reader expects, "I the bread of life" (ἐγώ ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς) for example. The fact εἰμι is always used when made with a predicate is best explained by understanding they were spoken in Greek.

ἐγώ εἰμι in John 8
In terms of the entire Gospel, Chapter 8 appears to be the centerpiece of the writer's presentation of ἐγώ εἰμι spoken by Jesus. The passage begins with a predicate use and is followed by three absolute uses the last of which are Jesus' final words:

Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12) [ESV]
Πάλιν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς αὐτοῖς ἐλάλησεν λέγων,Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου· ὁ ἀκολουθῶν ἐμοὶ οὐ μὴ περιπατήσει ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἀλλ᾽ ἕξει τὸ φῶς τῆς ζωῆς

I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24)
εἶπον οὖν ὑμῖν ὅτι ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν

So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. (John 8:28)
εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅταν ὑψώσητε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τότε γνώσεσθε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι καὶ ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ποιῶ οὐδέν ἀλλὰ καθὼς ἐδίδαξέν με ὁ πατὴρ ταῦτα λαλῶ

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58)
εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

Jesus begins the discussion with "ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου" I am the light of the world. As discussed above, if Jesus was speaking in Hebrew or Aramaic, the Semitic form would be, ἐγώ τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου. So ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου shows Jesus spoke in Greek.

In discussing verse 8:24 C.K. Barrett arrives at that same conclusion:

The absolute use of ἐγώ εἰμι at 6.20; 18.6...can readily be understood from the context; here however it seems impossible to supply an appropriate complement from the context. Moreover the question that follows (σὺ τίς εἶ; v. 25) suggests that the words were not plain to the hearers. ἐγώ εἰμι without compliment (see also vv. 28, 58 and 13.19) is hardly a Greek expression. It occurs not infrequently in the LXX and on this basis (rather than on direct translation by John of a Semitic original) the words should be understood. In the LXX they render אני הוא ('ani hu', literally "I (am) he"), which occurs especially in the words of God himself, and there is a particularly close parallel to the present passage in Isaiah 43.10, ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ πιστεύσητε καὶ συνῆτε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι (אני הוא).4

He goes on to say (see below) εἰμι is properly a continuous tense implying neither beginning nor end, which fits 8:58:

πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι. Before Abraham came into existence; perhaps, before Abraham was born, since γενέσθαι can have this meaning. ἐγώ εἰμι...The meaning suggested in the note there suits admirably the present context: Before Abraham came into being, I eternally was, as now I am, and ever continue to be.5

Where the first three uses may "mask" ἐγώ εἰμι to some extent, first with a predicate then within a statement where the meaning might be considered as normal speech (cf. John 9:9), 8:58 ends with ἐγὼ εἰμί and the meaning cannot be mistaken (as the crowd's reaction demonstrates).

The Old Testament Source
If the origin of the expression is from the LXX, its Semitic form cannot be dismissed. In other words, it is most unlikely an LXX use of ἐγώ εἰμι which does not directly correspond to the Hebrew (either אני הוא ’ănî hū' or אנכי אנכי הוא ’ānōḵî ’ānōḵî hū') could be a "source" text for the Gospel writer. Similar to the Baptist's Greek confession, the underlying concern is the Hebrew Scripture. For this reason, Exodus 3:14 should be eliminated as a source for the writer (although it is possible the crowd made that connection). Additional support for eliminating Exodus 3:14 is found in Richard Bauckham's observation that the number of absolute uses of ἐγώ εἰμι in the Gospel (9 which could be counted as 7) matches exactly that in the Hebrew text.6

Barrett identifies John 8:24 with LXX-Isaiah 43:10:

Similar passages occur at Deuteronomy 32.39; Isaiah 41:4; 43.13; 46.4; 48.12. In the Isaiah passages the meaning of the Hebrew is apparently "I am (forever) the same" with perhaps an allusion to the name יהוה (YHVH) given in Exodus 3:14-16;...The context demands a similar meaning for the Greek, though ἐγώ εἰμι is in itself (as Greek) a meaningless expression. The Lord, the first and with the last, is the eternal one. The εἰμι, that is to say, is a properly continuous tense, implying neither beginning nor end of existence. This meaning is particularly appropriate to v. 58 (where see the note), and appropriate also to the present verse, where it reinforces the assertion that Jesus belongs to the eternal heavenly world (ἐκ τῶν ἄνω). We may say then that ἐγώ εἰμι, thus understood, (i) indicates the eternal being of Jesus; (ii) thereby, and in itself, places Jesus on a level with God (ἐγώ εἰμι usually is found in the LXX on the lips of God himself; at Isaiah 47.8; Zephaniah 2.15 it is arrogantly used by men who put themselves in the place of God; and both אני and הוא were used as divine names-7

Barrett also states parataxis is one of the most striking feature of John's style.8If the absolute uses in the Gospel (4:26, 6:20, 8:24, 8:28, 8:58, 13:19, 18:5, 18:6, 18:8) are arranged side-by-side with their order in the Hebrew Scripture, Isaiah 43:10 corresponds to the use in 8:24: enter image description here

Other parallels are apparent as well. For example, the one spoken to the Samaritan woman and the one in Deuteronomy, the only one in the Pentateuch. This comparison would make Isaiah 43:25 as the specific source for 8:58:

“I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins. (Isaiah 43:25)

Verse 25 could be paraphrased, from the beginning and continuing forever, I, I am the one who blots out transgressions and forgets sin, for My own sake. This alludes back to the first use at 8:24: unless you believe I am you will die in your sins. Also the double "I" (אנכי אנכי הוא ’ānōḵî ’ānōḵî hū') of the passage acts in support of Jesus' claim to be one with the Father (cf. 10:30) an act which also elicits the response of stoning (cf. 10:33).


  1. The internal evidence of the Gospel shows Jesus began by saying "I am the light of the world" speaking Greek and there is no reason to believe He changed to Hebrew or Aramaic.
  2. ἐγώ εἰμι may be used in normal conversation, but it is obvious those who heard Jesus say "ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί" did not understand it as such. Their reaction, picking up stones to throw at Him, is the response to blasphemy.
  3. The origin of the expression is the LXX, but the Gospel writer understands the source as a Hebrew text. This eliminates Exodus 3:14.
  4. Any Hebrew text could be taken and, in fact all apply to Jesus. Yet the Gospel writer invites the reader to compare each use in the Gospel with a corresponding use in the OT. In this case Isaiah 43:25 corresponds to "Before Abraham existed, I am."


  1. Dennis Prager, Exodus: God, Slavery, and Freedom, Regnery Faith, 2018, pp. 44
  2. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, S.P.C.K, 1962, p. 11
  3. The group of priests and Levites from Jerusalem asking "Who are you?" suggests a delegation sent for legal purposes; surely they knew of his miraculous birth and actual identity.
  4. Barrett, pp. 282-283
  5. Barrett, p. 292
  6. Richard Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple, Baker Academic, 2007, p. 247
  7. Barrett, p. 283
  8. Barrett, p. 6
  • 1
    Excellent answer. +1.
    – Dottard
    Commented May 10, 2021 at 23:38
  • In this case Isaiah 43:25 (אָנֹכִ֨י אָנֹכִ֥י ה֛וּא מֹחֶ֥ה פְשָׁעֶ֖יךָ לְמַעֲנִ֑י וְחַטֹּאתֶ֖יךָ לֹ֥א אֶזְכֹּֽר׃ - I, [even] I, [am] he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins [KJV]) corresponds to "Before Abraham existed, I am." Why? Commented May 31, 2021 at 21:43
  • @MigueldeServet I recommend Catrin Williams I am He. She points out the crowd's response and the reasoning behind it are likely not the same as John's understanding, She correctly notes how the crowd responds emotionally where John is writing with reflection. To that we can add how this NT writer was purposeful to replicate the number and pattern of the OT "I He" sayings of YHVH. Also add "I am" with predicates that only Israel's God would claim (i.e. I am the Good Shepherd). Commented Jun 1, 2021 at 8:23
  • Rev Lad, I have already seen Catrin Williams' I am He "recommended" here by @David. You haven't given a reasonable explanation of the connection between John 8:58 and Isaiah 43:25, though ... Commented Jun 1, 2021 at 9:15
  • By the way (even without reading Catrin Williams' I am He), just considering the אני הוא at Deut 32:39 vs ἐγὼ εἰμί at John 4:26, obviously יְהֹוָה is affirming that he is the One God, whereas Jesus is confirming to the Samaritan Woman that he is the Messiah. Commented Jun 1, 2021 at 9:50

The key to John 5:58 may be in Gen 17:5

Let’s look at the relevant verses of John 8:

Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.” Then the Judeans replied, “You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham was, I am!” (John 8:56-58 NET)

The critical phrase is the last one: in Greek, prin abraam genesthai egô eimi and, even more specifically, the phrase prin abraam genesthai.

Now, genesthai is the Second Aorist – Middle Deponent – Infinitive form of gi[g]nomai (Strong's 1096), which has a very broad spectrum of meanings (see also Liddel-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon), the most fundamental of which is “to become” and, only derivatively, “to be [born]” (absolute sense). Normally, in the sense of “to become”, genesthai is followed by a predicate, which is apparently not the case in John 8:58, so the Greek phrase prin abraam genesthai is usually understood as though genesthai was actually used in the absolute sense, and consequently translated with something like “before Abraham was [born]”.

The English Unitarian Thomas Belsham (1750 – 1829), to interpret John 8:58, considered, among other arguments, that of double ellipsis (see A Calm Inquiry Into the Scripture Doctrine Concerning the Person of Christ, § 3, pp. 53-55).

The argument runs, more or less, like this. If, instead of interpreting genesthai as absolute (“to be [born]”), we suppose that genesthai means “to become” (in an elliptical sense to be determined), and eimi is similarly considered not absolute, but the verb of a predicative sentence (in an elliptical sense to be determined) the key phrase at John 8:58 becomes:

[Lit. Eng.] before Abraham become [ellipsis], I am [ellipsis]

Neither “become”, nor “I am” are, normally, used in an absolute sense. So, there may be an ellipsis associated with each verb. Unpacking the [double ellipsis], we may have:

“Before Abraham become [father of a multitude (viz. of nations) – Gen 17:5] I am [the Messiah]”

Less obscurely, what Jesus is saying to “the Jews” may be something like this:

“And verily I say, that the time for the accomplishment of what he foresaw is not yet arrived: for before Abram shall be Abraham, i. e. become the father of many nations, according to the import of his name, I am the Christ your Messiah.” (Interpretation and paraphrase of John 8:58, see A Calm Inquiry Into the Scripture Doctrine Concerning the Person of Christ, cit. p. 54)

In conclusion, this is what Jesus is likely to have meant in John 8:58:

“Abraham is not yet the father of a multitude of nations, but I am the Messiah”

  • This is an interesting interpretation, but I don't think it follows from the conversation the Jews have just been having with Jesus. They criticize Him for the Abraham reference because He (Jesus) wasn't around yet. His response (I was around then!) works in context, whereas downplaying the realization of Abraham's blessings does not. Commented Jun 7, 2021 at 13:28
  • @HoldToTheRod As often happens in the GoJ, the Jewish interlocutors of Jesus (appear to) misunderstand him. When Jesus tells them, "Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad", he was referring to some prophetic vision of the patriarch (mentioned also in Genesis Rabbah). The Jews' reply made it appear that Jesus had claimed that he had seen Abraham. Jesus, with his (doubly) elliptic reply at 8:58, called their bluff. I am pretty sure that's why they felt outraged. Commented Jun 7, 2021 at 14:42
  • +1 This interpretation makes the most sense of the context. Everything fits - it refers back to the central theme of John 8, it fits with the question at 8:53, fits with Jesus' remark at 8:56, fits with John's purpose of his Gospel at 20:31. The double ellipsis seems to help explain the grammatical oddity, as well. Commented Jun 15, 2022 at 6:21

Summarized Answer

  1. Exodus 3:15

The confusing translations of imperfect "I am who I am," which lead the Jewish Publication society to transliterate the Hebrew “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh” shows the continuing incomplete action of the imperfect, in this case independent of time. Thus, God's attribute of "Who was, is, and will be." YHWH changed this from 1st person (God speaking) to 3rd person (a human speaking).

In Exodus translations translated the personal pronoun as "I am" 26 times (Using a pronoun אֲנִ֥י, אָנֹכִי֙ for “I am” 3:6,10,11; 6:2,6,7,8,12,29(twice),30; 7:5,17; 8;22; 10:2; 12:12; 14:17,18; 15:26; 20:2,5; 22:27; 29:46(twice); 31:13; 34:10(twice),11) The only verse in Exodus אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה is translated "I am" is 3:14. אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה is translated "I will" three times in Exodus (אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה is translated “I will” in 3;12; 4:12,15 )

See Doesn’t Moses hypothetical response of the Israelites in (4:1) answer his proposed question in (3:13), then “I AM” is an assurance as in Exodus 3:12?

  1. John 8:58

In Greek Jesus' statement ἐγὼ εἰμί intentionally violates grammar rules. If Jesus wanted to express preexistence before Abraham, he would have used Hebrew/Aramaic perfect tense, which would have been translated with Greek imperfect, past tense in English. Jesus' statement translated "I am" has the same impact as אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה expressing eternal existence. Thus, Jesus probably said אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה. The Hebrew translations did not use אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה because it would have been offensive to Jew. Instead they use the normal way of writing "I am" (אֲנִי הוּא).

Previous Long Discussion

First here’s some background and outline related to why Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 questioned.

. ..πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί (NA28) ...before Abraham was, I am (ESV)

What’s startling about Jesus’ statement as recorded/translated by John is the use of the present tense, ἐγὼ εἰμί (I am). John’s language in his first chapter has: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, … Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης …Commentators have pointed out John’s use of γίνομαι (became, came into existence) for created things here to contrast what wasn’t created with the imperfect of εἰμί. This type of wording is similar in 8:58, except in this case εἰμί is present tense, not imperfect tense. The present tense leads to a double entendre with the meaning, “I was before Abraham came into existence,” but also with the meaning “I am” as in Exodus 3:14 and Isa 43:10 LXX.

How common is double entendre in the Gospel of John? When it occurs, translators and commentators dispute which meaning to translate or interpret as John’s intent, while they should probably accept the double entendre as intentional and attempt to translate it as such. The following are some examples.

In 1:5 is the word, καταλαμβάνω, which can mean 1) to overcome, gain control over, or 2) to understand (Louw-Nida). Translations struggle with this because both meanings fit. For his symbolism using light and darkness, you can’t un-shine darkness on light to take light away. Darkness cannot overcome light. From the standpoint of light symbolizing knowledge and truth coming through Jesus Christ, darkness unable to understand light makes sense. Ideally translators should look for words, such as grasp which conveys both meanings.

An example in Jesus’ conversation is ἄνωθεν in 3:3. This word has the meanings 1. locally from above, 2. temporally—a. from the beginning, b. for a long time, 3. again, anew (BAG 1979). This site has questions posted and answered related to Jesus’ intent here. What adds confusion is mostly likely Jesus wasn’t speaking Greek to a Pharisee. Did these multiple meanings in Greek (from above and again) in particular reflect what Jesus said? The Syriac Peshitta is an early translation of the Bible into a language similar the Aramaic influenced Hebrew the Jews spoke in Jesus’ day. The Peshitta translates this word as ܡܶܢ ܕ݁ܪܻܝܫ. The equivalent Hebrew words with the same meaning are מִן־ רֹאשׁ, which mean from the head, first, new, top. Note רֹאשׁ is used in Gen. 1:1 for the beginning. It’s used for new in the Jewish New Year. With Jacob’s ladder in Gen. 28:12, וְרֹאשׁ֖וֹ מַגִּ֣יעַ הַשָּׁמָ֑יְמָה (and the top of it reached the heaven), top translates רֹאשׁ. Thus, it is highly likely that John’s Greek did accurately reflect Jesus’ words.

Here’s an example from Luke instead of John, but it’s an example of Jesus using play on words that the Greek translation doesn’t readily show. This is from Bailey, K. E. (2008). Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (pp. 378–380). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic:

Second, Jesus asks the pointed question, “If you have not been faithful in unrighteous mammon, who will entrust the truth to you?” (Lk 16:11, my translation). This text exhibits a play on words in Aramaic, which was the language Jesus spoke at home. He says:

If you have not been amin [faithful]

in the unrighteous mammon [your material possessions]

the amuna [the truth]

who will ja’min ith kun [entrust to you].

The root amn, which appears in the word amen, is used here four times. It makes the point that anyone who cheats on his or her taxes will never understand the gospel. Those who have been unfaithful before God with material possessions cannot expect God to reveal his greater treasure to them, which is the truth of God.

Why would Jesus use play on words? In the first century people didn’t carry around notepads to take notes. They depended in memory to remember what their teacher said. Play on words was a memory tool. Second Jesus’ play on words with Nicodemus (ch3) and the Samaritan woman at the well (ch4) were attention getting tools that got his listeners to ask questions. Finally as in John 8:58 and, as double entendre is most commonly used, it implied a second meaning without actually stating it. This was also Jesus’ reason for using parables (Luke 8:10).

Jesus’ instructions were often, if not usually, uttered in rhythmic or otherwise memorable fashion. As Barnett notes, “Much of his teaching is cast in poetic form, employing alliteration [repetition of same sounds or letters], paronomasia [puns, wordplays], assonance [resemblance of sound], parallelism, and rhyme. According to R. Riesner, 80 percent of Jesus’ teaching is cast in poetic form.” At the least, this suggests that Jesus expected his disciples to learn from him, and learn well, both the content and the form of much of his instruction. -- Komoszewski, J. E., Sawyer, M. J., & Wallace, D. B. (2006). Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture (pp. 37–38). Kregel Publications.

As far as Hebrew translations of the New Testament, the link you gave references Franz Delitzsch’s translation as its source. As you mentioned, unlike Exodus 3:14, it has the 1st person singular pronoun, אֲנִי, but uses the perfect tense of the same verb that is imperfect in Exodus 3:14. The Bible Society in Israel Hebrew New Testament translates ἐγὼ εἰμί as אֲנִי הוּא, the two pronouns I he with is/was understood, but not written. This is the same wording as Isa. 43:10. As noted in David’s answer LXX translates these words as ἐγώ εἰμι in Isa. 43:10. Looking at both Biblical Aramaic and the Syriac Peshitta in John 8:38 the language seems too different to give any information.

As for as Tetragrammation goes, Jesus didn’t seem to be that direct in his statement. Do we even have an adequate explanation of exactly how Tetragrammation fits Exodus 3:14? While we can’t tell exactly what Jesus said in Hebrew/Aramaic, John carefully worded his gospel with the ambiguous meanings being intentional. As important a statement as Jesus’ in John 8:38, it is inconceivable that John would not have carefully worded it. As you have noted ἐγὼ εἰμί does match the LXX in Exodus 3:14 as well as Isa. 43:10, and the New Testament writers often, but not always, quote the LXX, so that doesn’t seem an accident. In both cases ἐγώ εἰμι refers to God.

Also see Doesn’t Moses hypothetical response of the Israelites in (4:1) answer his proposed question in (3:13), then “I AM” is an assurance as in Exodus 3:12?


In John 8:58 Jesus claims His eternal, divine existence, that is to say, the identical existence with God the Father, therefore, inciting Jews present there to a decision to stone Him, due to this, what they thought to be, a blasphemous claim of co-Divinity with the Father.

Here is the proof:

In the context of a prior persecution of Jesus, when there it is clear to the Jews that He is a blasphemer and makes himself equal to God, i.e. making himself Jahve (Jehovah) (John 5:18), it is only reasonable to conclude that for majority of the listeners Jesus' wording of "before Abraham was, I am" was not something totally unexpected, but confirmed their suspicion and even conviction that Jesus is a blasphemer and in the "I am" implied a sacrilegious theology, that is to say, His equality with the Father, i.e. His, Jesus' divinity. In fact, of course Jesus knew their ominous expectations and fears when He pronounced intentionally those absolutely provocative words. That is to say, it was an intentional "blasphemy" from His part, in order to reveal His divinity.

Even if (let us suppose hypothetically) Jesus did not put this meaning, so to say, grammatically, but only indicated His pre-existence before Abraham's birth (and not eternal divine existence), the Jews who already knew and suspected Him being a blasphemer, would definitely see in the "I am" this theological implication. Who on earth would have reasoned, immediately after the words "ἐγὼ εἰμί" were uttered, about the subtleties of Hebrew or Greek grammar, when there was a clear terrifying expectation of blasphemy of Jesus equaling himself to God on the part of the agitated and enraged Jews? Since the expectation was of this concrete theological blasphemy, then the "ἐγὼ εἰμί" would definitely bear for them this dangerous implication rather than a mitigated and lessened one of Jesus simply making himself a pre-existent but not eternally existent being. And clearly Jesus knew about their expectation before saying those words, thus, putting in them exactly the theological meaning.

Thus at least a conspicuous majority of them would have naturally seen a blasphemous theology in Jesus' "I am".

Moreover, Jesus apparently makes a direct allusion to Psalm 89:2 (or 90:2 according to an alternative numeration), which in the Greek Septuagint reads:

πρὸ τοῦ ὄρη γενηθῆναι καὶ πλασθῆναι τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν οἰκουμένην, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος σὺ εἶ

Before mountains came to being, and earth and the world was formed, and from eternity to eternity, You are.

The verb γενηθῆναι is the same as in John 8:58, and the "You are" has exactly the same existential import as the "I am", meaning "You exist", and therefore also the "from eternity to eternity" is automatically implicated in Jesus' words, which makes His being identical with Jahve's (Jehovah) being, thus makes Him Jahve, for Jahve means "the one who is", and Jesus' "is-ness" is the same "is-ness" as Father's, both having the one and identical existence, thus Both, while representing distinct Persons, sharing the identical eternal divine existence. (In later theology this identity was expressed in the theological notion of "essence" - οὐσία which is absolutely identical in the Father and the Son, whereas the no less outspoken difference between Jesus and the Father by the notion of "person" - ὑπόστασις, which they have absolutely uniquely and uninterminglably).

It was plainly impossible for Jewish religious experts present at Jesus' address not to see a clear and intentional allusion to the Septuagint text of the Psalm 89:2 and thus their rage is unequivocally related to Jesus making himself eternally existing, just as God. It cannot be more clear! And for sure Jews saw this quite intelligibly.

In fact, any other interpretation, for instance, that Jesus claims simply His pre-Abrahamian existence either making Himself a reincarnation of some historical figure, who lived before Abraham, or an incarnation of some angelic created being, that lived before Abraham is strained to such an extent as to make easy to exclude their plausibility. Why? Because immediately before the ἐγὼ εἰμί ("I am") Jesus says that "Abraham saw My day" (John 8:56), and this means that Abraham saw by his spiritual eyes the final resurrection from dead, that Isaak would not be annihilated but resurrected, because, as the Apostle Paul explains by Holy Spirit this passage, "Abraham believed that God gives life to the dead" (Romans 4:17). Therefore, Jesus speaks of "His day" that "Day" in which He will resurrect the dead, for He has this authority of rising from dead jointly with the Father (John 5:21). Now, the life-giver to the dead can be only God, thus Jesus claims His divinity already in John 8:56 and then, confirms the claim of the joint equal authority and power with God the Father also by the claim of His equal and identical eternal existence with the Father in John 8:58.

Also later they had to admit directly: "we do not want to kill you because of good deeds, but because of being a man you make yourself God" (John 10:30-33), thus, the clearly understood blasphemy, as they thought, of Jesus, that He claimed that He was God, was the chief reason for their murderous intent.

  • @Down-voter Hey, my anonymous Arian/Jehovahwitnessian reader, give your counter arguments! If you cannot and are simply pricked by truth of my arguments, then instead of stealthily and ignobly down-voting, why not rather embrace my arguments, for correct theology and sound hermeneutics that is its basis is necessary and sine qua non for salvation, and the eternal one, for that matter. Commented Jun 15, 2022 at 0:06
  • "Now, the life-giver to the dead can be only God" Martha seems to think this applies to the Christ, the Son of God, not God Almighty. John 11:25-27. Commented Jun 15, 2022 at 6:02
  • +1 I like that you mention Romans 4:17, important context. Commented Jun 15, 2022 at 6:03
  • @OneGodtheFather Thanks for upvoting. There is no almightier an action than to create the world or resurrect the dead, and both acts are always jointly conducted by the Father and the Son, never separately, and not out of choice of deference and courtesy towards Each-Other, but out of ontological and theological necessity, just like the physical sun cannot enlighten without rays, so Father cannot create/resurrect without the Son, and just like the rays cannot enlighten unless emitted from the sun-disc, so the Son can do nothing unless as being born from the Father. Commented Jun 15, 2022 at 7:00

It has already been shown in detail how 'anî huʾ in Hebrew probably corresponds to ἐγώ εἰμι and that there is likely a link to Isa 43:10. Let me quote the GW (God's Word) translation:

I have chosen you as my servant so that you can know and believe in me and understand that I am the one [who did this].

The square brackets indicate implied information from previous context. My suggestion it that both expressions when used absolutely whether in Hebrew or Greek are best translated as "I am the one [having just been talked about]." Some examples from John:

John 4:26 Ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι I am the one, the one speaking to you.

They had just talked about who the Messiah was. An alternative translation would be "It is me, the one speaking to you."

John 6:20 ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ἐγώ εἰμι· μὴ φοβεῖσθε - It's me {the one you know, Jesus). Don't be afraid.

They had seen what they thought was a ghost walking on the water.

John 8:24 ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι - For if you do not believe that I am the one [that I say that I am]

NIV 1984: if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be

NIV 2011: if you do not believe that I am he

It is unfortunate that NIV2011 moved away from a clear and accurate translation.

John 8:28 τότε γνώσεσθε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι - then you will know that I am the one [I say that I am]

John 9:9 ἐκεῖνος ἔλεγεν ὅτι Ἐγώ εἰμι. - He said: "I am the one".

Since this is the blind beggar who was healed, no one is suggsting that this man is using the divine name, and no translation says "I AM" with big letters.

John 13:19 ἵνα πιστεύσητε ὅταν γένηται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι. - So that you may believe when it happens that I am the one [I say I am].

John 18:5 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ, Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον. λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ἐγώ εἰμι - They answered him: Jesus of Naxareth. He says to them: I am the one (It's me).

John 18:8 Εἶπον ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι. - I told you that I am the one (you are looking for, Jesus of Mazareth).

In John 8:58 we do not have such an absolute expression. I only listed these examples to show that ἐγώ εἰμι when used alone simply means "I am the one who is being talked about." When it does not stand alone, it is different:

John 8:58 πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί - Before Abraham came into existence I existed and still exist.

The verb "to be/exist" in Greek does not have an aorist nor a perfect form. It does have an imperfect form, but if John had used that, it would suggest that Jesus existed some time in the past and no longer. The verb "to become" which is used for Abraham, does have a perfect form, but it is not good to use the verb γίνομαι for Jesus, because that would imply that at some point he came into existence. Jesus is talking about his eternal existence that was a fact before Abraham was born, and it has no beginning. So, Jesus is saying that while he is standing alive before them, he was also in existence before Abraham was born. There is really no other way to say this than to use the present tense in Greek. This is an indirect way of expressing his divinity, since no human could be alive before Abraham and stand before them, and that was enough for them to want to stone him.

That is why we find the most accurate translation in the Living Bible: "The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born!” This was kept in NLT1996: "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!" However, it was changed in NLT2004 to: "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I AM!" This change must be driven by a desire not to upset readers who believe that Jesus was here using the divine name.

  • You wrote, "This is an indirect way of expressing his divinity, since no human could be alive before Abraham and stand before them..." Are you saying that Jesus was a human being before he became a human being? This is contradictory. Commented Dec 27, 2020 at 1:43
  • 1
    You wrote, "Jesus is talking about his eternal existence that was a fact before Abraham was born, and it has no beginning." This is your opinion. It is not stated. Jesus is saying that he existed before Abraham. But the text does not comment if Jesus eternally existed. You are reading more into the Bible than stated. This is called eisegesis. Commented Dec 27, 2020 at 1:46
  • To Jesus Saves (whoever you may be?) To your first comment: No! To your second comment: I suppose it depends on what you understand by "eternal". The text says that Jesus was already alive more than 2000 years earlier. That would have been more accurate. Thank you. His eternal existence is clear from other parts of Scripture. But you have the right to disagree. Commented Dec 28, 2020 at 7:52
  • 1
    I have not found any verse that teaches that Jesus eternally existed. I have found several that indicate that Jesus came into existence: Proverbs 8:23-26; Colossians 1:16-17; John 1:18, 5:26, Hebrews 3:2, 1 Peter 1:2, Revelation 3:14. Also, the title Son of God" for Jesus implies that he came into existence at a point in time. May God bless your study. Commented Dec 28, 2020 at 21:01
  • +1 Lots of good points and context here! Commented Jun 15, 2022 at 6:09

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.