EGOEIMI
Message 2710 DATE/TIME: 01/18/89 21:33
From : JAMES WHITE
To : ALL
Subject: Jesus and “ego eimi”
Folder : G, “Greek Folder”
Purpose and Meaning of “Ego Eimi” in the Gospel of John
In Reference to the Deity of Christ
The Gospel of John has come under great fire in recent centuries
for its incredibly high Christology. On this basis alone certain
form-critics have rejected the book as having any historical
authenticity whatsoever, assuming (without foundation) that such a
high Christology could only have evolved after quite some time of
“theological formulation” and hence placing its writing well into the
second century. Fortunately, not all scholars share the same
unfounded presuppositions.
The person of Christ as presented in John’s Gospel is indeed of
an exceptionally high character – John asserts that Jesus is “the
Word become flesh” (John 1:14). He says that this Word is eternal,
has always been “with” God (pros ton theon) and indeed shares the
very being of God (John 1:1). John describes Jesus as the unique God
(monogenes theos) in John 1:18. He portrays Jesus saying that He is
the way, the truth, and the life – that man’s very life and salvation
is dependent upon his relationship with Him (a claim nothing short of
blasphemy for a mere created being!), and the Gospel climaxes in
Thomas’ confession of Jesus as his “Lord and God”.
Though the evidences of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ are
numerous in this book, one set of these evidences has always
fascinated theologians. Jesus utilizes the specific phrase ego eimi
of Himself frequently in John’s Gospel, and a number of times He does
so in a pregnant way, not providing any immediately identifiable
predicate. John’s recording of these sayings is also significant, as
he provides rather obvious settings for these sayings, emphasizing
their importance. Is there a significance to this phrase? What is
it’s purpose and meaning? Does this phrase present yet another
aspect of the Deity of Christ? This shall be the topic of the
following investigation.
Usage of ego eimi in the Gospel of John
The specific phrase ego eimi occurs 24 times in the Gospel of
John. Seventeen of these times it is followed by a clear predicate.1
Some of these instances would be John 6:35, “I am the living bread”
(ego eimi ho artos tes zoes) or John 10:11, “I am the good shepherd”
(ego eimi ho poimen ho kalos). 3 times the usage does not fall into
a clear category – these would be 4:26, 6:20, and 9:9. In 4:26 Jesus
says to the woman at the well, “I am, the one speaking to you” (ego
eimi, ho lalon soi) which is strangely reminiscent of the LXX
rendering of Isaiah 52:6 (ego eimi autos ho lalon). In 6:20 it seems
to be a rather straight-forward self-identification to the frightened
disciples in the boat.2 And in 9:9 we find the man who had been
healed of his blindness insisting that he was indeed the man of whom
they spoke. This last instance is similar to the sayings as Jesus
utters them, in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and
looks elsewhere for its predicate.
Given the above usages, we are left with 7 usages that have been
described as “absolute”.3 These would be John 8:24, 8:28, 8:58,
13:19, 18:5, 18:6, and 18:8. It is these seven passages that make up
the bulk of the discussion concerning the use of ego eimi by John.
For the sake of accurate examination, the transliterations of these
phrases are provided below:
John 8:24: ean gar me pistuesete hoti ego eimi
John 8:28: tote gnosesthe hoti ego eimi
John 8:58: prin Abraam genethai ego eimi
John 13:19: hina pisteusete hotan genetai ego eimi
John 18:5: legei autois Ego eimi
John 18:6: hos oun eipen autois Ego eimi
John 18:8: eipon humin hoti ego eimi
John uses this phrase of Jesus more than any other writer. The
phrase does occur in Mark 14:62-64 as well, however. It is to be
noted that in the above list, the phrase itself comes at the end of
the clause in each instance. This will have significance when the
Septuagint background of John’s usage is examined.
The main verses that will undergo examination here are 8:24,
8:58, 13:19, and 18:5-6. In the author’s translation these passages
read as follows:
John 8:24: “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins,
for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”
John 8:58: “Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before
Abraham was born, I am.”
John 13:19: “From now on I tell you before it comes to pass in order
that when it does happen, you may believe that I am.”
John 18:5-6: “They answered Him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He said to
them, “I am.” And Judas also, the one who betrayed Him, was standing
with them. Therefore when He said to them, “I am,” they went
backwards and fell upon the ground.”
Translation of ego eimi
Before the exact meaning or significance of ego eimi in John’s
gospel can be adequately addressed, the proper translation of the
phrase must be determined. There are a very small number of
translations that avoid a direct translation of the present
indicative ego eimi. Moffat renders it, “I have existed before
Abraham was born!” The Twentieth Century New Testament has, “before
Abraham existed I was.” Kleist and Lilly have “I am here–and I was
before Abraham!” C. B. Williams gives “I existed before Abraham was
born.” Schonfield renders the last clause “I existed before Abraham
was born.” And the spiritist Johannes Greber (who claimed to get his
translation through a spirit medium!) has, “I am older than Abraham.”
The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own translation, the New World Translation,
renders ego eimi as “I have been”.
Allegedly many of these translations are viewing the phrase as
what Robertson calls a “progressive present”. Robertson writes,
This is a poor name in lieu of a better one for the present
of past action still in progress. Usually an adverb of time
(or adjunct) accompanies the verb…Often it has to be
translated into English by a sort of “progressive perfect”
(‘have been’), though, of course, that is the fault of
English…”The durative present in such cases gathers up
past and present time into one phrase” (Moulton, Prol., p.
119)…It is a common idiom in the N.T. In Jo. 8:58 eimi is
really absolute.”4
There are many instances in historical narrative or conversation
where the Greek will use a present tense verb that is best rendered
in English by the perfect. John 15:27 would be a good example:
“because you have been with me from the beginning.” The verb, este,
is in the present tense, but the context makes it clear that it is in
reference to both the past and the present, or, as Moulton said
above, it “gathers up past and present time into one phrase.”
Robertson correctly notes that this is a common idiom in the New
Testament, though he also adds the fact that, in his opinion, John
8:58 is “absolute” and should be rendered as such (which he always
does in his works5). It should also be noted that it is the
deficiency of the English that is to blame for the rendering – to
place weight on the meaning of the English perfect tense when
rendering the Greek present in this way would be in error.
So why should John 8:58 not be rendered in this way? Why do so
few translations follow this path? Because to so translate is to
miss the entire context and content of what is being said! The vast
majority of translators see, as many commentators do, that there is a
clear differentiation being made here between the derivative
existence of Abraham and the eternal existence of the Lord Christ.
That this is understood by the translators of our modern editions can
be seen from a look at the translations that render this phrase
either as “I am” or “I Am” or “I AM”:
King James, New King James, New American Standard Bible, New
International Version, Philips Modern English, Revised
Standard Version, Today’s English Version, Jerusalem Bible,
New English Bible, American Standard Version, New American
Bible, Douay, Young’s Literal Translation, Berkeley Version,
Norlie’s Simplified New Testament, New Testament in Modern
English (Montgomery), New Testament in Modern Speech
(Weymouth), Wuest’s Expanded Translation, Amplified New
Testament, New Testament (Swann), Aldine Bible, Four Gospels
(C. C. Torrey), Confraternity Version, Four Gospels (Rieu),
New Testament (Knox), Concordant Literal New Testament,
Anchor Bible, Rotherham, Holy Bible in Modern English
(Fenton), Bible in BASIC English, Better Version (Estes),
Sacred Writings (A. Campbell), New Easy-to-Read Version, New
Testament for the New World
This writer is not aware of a single version, produced by a team or
group of scholars, that renders ego eimi at John 8:58 in a perfect
tense. Even those who do not see here a reference to the Deity of
Christ (such as Barrett6) do not change the translation to something
else. Rather, many scholars rightly point out the same contrasting
of verbs as seen in the prologue of John (between the aorist ginomai
and the imperfect en) as well as the same kind of differentiation
found in the LXX rendering of Psalm 90:2.7 They also recognize that
the response of the Jews would be rather strong if this was simply a
claim of bald pre-existence. The oft-repeated charge of blasphemy as
found in John makes this clear. Rather, the usage of a term used of
God Himself (as will be shown later) would be sufficient to bring the
response of verse 59.
The phrase was so understood by the early church as well.
Irenaeus showed familiarity with it as “I am”8 as did Origen9 and
Novatian.10 Chrysostom wrote, “As the Father used this expression,
“I Am,” so also doth Christ; for it signifieth continuous Being,
irrespective of time. On which account the expression seemed to them
to be blasphemous.”11 The context of this passage is far too strong
to allow this to be rendered as a simple historical narrative,
resulting in the conversion of the present indicative into a perfect
tense. Alford added,
“As Lucke remarks, all unbiassed (sic) explanation of these
words must recognize in them a declaration of the essential
pre-existence of Christ. All such interpretations as
‘before Abraham became Abraham’ i.e., father of many nations
(Socinus and others), and as ‘I was predetermined, promised
by God’ (Grotius and the Socinian interpreters), are little
better than dishonest quibbles. The distinction between was
made (or was born) and am is important. The present, I am,
expresses essential existence, see Col. 1:17, and was often
used by our Lord to assert His divine Being. In this verse
the Godhead of Christ is involved; and this the Jews clearly
understood, by their conduct to Him.”12
Old Testament Background of ego eimi
An extensive discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of
this paper.13 Suffice it to say that the position taken by this
writer reflects a consensus opinion of many scholars, that being that
the closest and most logical connection between John’s usage of ego
eimi and the Old Testament is to be found in the Septuagint rendering
of the Hebrew phrase ani hu in the writings (primarily) of Isaiah.14
It is true that many go directly to Exodus 3:14 for the background,
but it is felt that unless one first establishes the connection with
the direct quotation of ego eimi in the Septuagint, the connection
with Exodus 3:14 will be somewhat tenuous.
The Septuagint translates the Hebrew phrase ani hu as ego eimi
in Isaiah 41:4, 43:10 and 46:4. In each of these instances the
phrase ani hu appears at the end of the clause, and is so rendered
(or punctuated) in the LXX (just as in these seven examples in John).
The phrase ego eimi appears as the translation of a few other phrases
in Isaiah as well that are significant to this discussion. It
translates the Hebrew anoki anoki hu as ego eimi in 43:25 and 51:12.
Once (52:6) ani hu is translated as ego eimi autos (basically an even
more emphasized form). And once (45:18) we find ego eimi kurios for
ani Yahweh! This last passage is provocative in that it is in the
context of creation, an act ascribed to Jesus by John (John 1:3) and
other New Testament writers (Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:2-3).
The usage of ani hu by Isaiah is as a euphemism for the very
name of God Himself. Some see a connection between ani hu and Yahweh
as both referring to being.15 That it carried great weight with the
Jews is seen in 8:59 and their reaction to the Lord’s usage of the
phrase. If one wishes to say that Jesus was not speaking Greek, but
Aramaic, the difficulty is not removed, for the identification would
have been just that much clearer!
There seems to be a direct connection between the Septuagint and
Jesus’ usage of ego eimi. In Isaiah 43:10 we read, “that you may
know, and believe, and understand, that I am He” (personal
translation). In the LXX this is rendered thus: hina gnote kai
pisteusete kai sunete hoti ego eimi. In John 13:19, Jesus says to
the disciples, “from now on I tell you before it comes to pass in
order that when it does happen, you may believe that I am.” (personal
translation). In Greek the last phrase is hina pisteusete hotan
genetai hoti ego eimi. When one removes the extraneous words (such
as hotan genetai which connects the last clause to the first) and
compares these two passages, this is the result:
Is. 43:10: hina pisteusete … hoti ego eimi
Jn. 13:19: hina pisteusete … hoti ego eimi
Even if one were to theorize that Jesus Himself did not attempt to
make such an obvious connection between Himself and Yahweh (which
would be difficult enough to do!) one must answer the question of why
John, being obviously familiar with the LXX, would so intentionally
insert this kind of parallelism.
Another parallel between the usage of ego eimi in John 13:19 and
its usage in Isaiah has to do with the fact that in 13:19 Jesus is
telling them the future – one of the very challenges to the false
gods thrown down by Yahweh in the passages from Isaiah under
consideration (the so-called “trial of the false gods) This
connection is direct in Isaiah 41:4, “Who has done this and carried
it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the
LORD, – with the first of them and with the last – I am He.” Here
the “calling forth” of the generations – time itself – is part of the
usage of ani hu. The same is true in John 13:19. In the same
chapter of the book of Isaiah references above, in verse 22 we read,
“Bring in your idols, to tell us what is going to happen. Tell us
what the former things were, so that we may consider them and know
their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come…” That
this reference to knowledge of the future would appear in the same
section that uses ani hu as the name for God, and that this would be
introduced by the Lord Himself in the same context in John 13:19, is
significant indeed.
Hence, though some would easily dismiss the ani hu/ego eimi
connection,16 or ignore it altogether,17 the data seems strong that
this connection is intended by John himself by his usage.
Johannine Usage of ego eimi – Interpretation
It is not hard to understand why there have been many who have
not wished to make the connection that John makes between Jesus and
Yahweh. One cannot make this identification outside of a trinitarian
understanding of the Gospel itself, as one can certainly not identify
Jesus as the Father in John’s Gospel, hence, if Jesus is identified
as ego eimi in the sense of the Old Testament ani hu, then one is
left with two persons sharing the one nature that is God, and this,
when it encounters John’s discussion of the Holy Spirit, becomes the
basis of the doctrine of the Trinity! Indeed, many of the denials of
the rather clear usage of ego eimi in John 8:24, 8:58, 13:19 and
18:5-6 find their origin in preconceived theologies18 that are nearly
unitarian, subordinationist, or so enamored with naturalistic
rationalism as to be antisuper-natural. An interpreter who is
unwilling to dismiss the words of Scripture as simply “tradition”
(and hence non-authoritative) or to interpret Scripture in
contradiction with itself (as in a violation of strict monotheism in
the positing of a being who is quasi-god, mighty, but not “almighty”)
will be hard pressed to avoid the obvious conclusions of John’s
presentation. Lest one should find it hard to believe that John
would identify the carpenter from Galilee as Yahweh Himself, it might
be pointed out that he did just that in John 12:39-41 by quoting from
Isaiah’s temple vision of Yahweh in Isaiah 6 and then concluding by
saying, “These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory and he
spoke about Him.” The only “Him” in the context is Jesus; hence, for
John, Isaiah, when he saw Yahweh on His throne, was in reality seeing
the Lord Jesus. John 1:18 says as much as well.
It is self-evident that such a far-reaching and in reality
astounding claim as is made by the Lord Jesus in John 8:24, 58 is
hard to accept outside of the highest estimation of His person.
Indeed, Augustine wrote,
“…the whole unhappiness of the Jews was not that they had
sin, but to die in sins…In these words, ‘Except ye believe
that I am,’ Jesus meant nothing short of this, ‘Except ye
believe that I am God, ye shall die in your sins.’ It is
well for us, thank God, that He said except ye believe, and
not except ye understand.”19
But can the usage of ego eimi withstand that much weight? Though
being a “scholar” does not guarantee infallibility in judgment, it
should at least provide assurance of factual understanding. Given
this, the scholars seem to feel that it can.
Leon Morris has written,
” “I am” must have the fullest significance it can bear. It
is, as we have already had occasion to notice…in the style
of deity.” (in a footnote on same page:) “ego eimi in LXX
renders the Hebrew ani hu which is the way God speaks (cf.
Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4, 43:10, 46:4, etc.). The Hebrew may
carry a reference to the meaning of the divine name Yahweh
(cf. Exod. 3:14). We should almost certainly understand
John’s use of the term to reflect that in the LXX. It is
the style of deity, and it points to the eternity of God
according to the strictest understanding of the continuous
nature of the present eimi. He continually IS. Cf. Abbott:
“taken here, along with other declarations about what Jesus
IS, it seems to call upon the Pharisees to believe that the
Son of man is not only the Deliverer but also one with the
Father in the unity of the Godhead” (2228).”20
Warfield has written concerning this,
“…and again, as the most impressive language possible, He
declares…: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham
was, I am,” where He claims for Himself the timeless present
of eternity as His mode of existence.”21
The great expositor J. C. Ryle noted,
“Let us carefully note what a strong proof we have here of
the pre-existence and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He
applies to Himself the very name by which God made Himself
known when He undertook to redeem Israel. It was “I AM” who
brought them out of the land of Egypt. It was “I AM” who
died for us upon the cross. The amazing strength of the
foundation of a sinner’s hope appears here. Believing on
Jesus we rest on divinity, on One who is God as well as man.
There is a difference in the Greek verbs here employed
which we should carefully notice. The Greek for “was” is
quite different from the Greek for “am.” It is as if our
Lord said, “Before Abraham has born, I have an existence
individual and eternal.” “22
Luther, like Augustine before him, wrote in no uncertain terms:
“The Lord Christ is angry below the surface and says: “Do
you want to know who I am? I am God, and that in the
fullest sense. Do as you please. If you do not believe
that I am He, then you are nothing, and you must die in your
sin.” No prophet, apostle, or evangelist may proclaim and
say: “Believe in God, and also believe that I am God;
otherwise you are damned.” “23
A.T. Robertson certainly did not see any linguistic problems here:
I am (ego eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal
existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The
contrast between genesthai (entrance into existence of
Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the
same contrast between en in 1:1 and egeneto in 1:14. See
the contrast also in Psa. 90:2 between God (ei, art) and the
mountains (genethenai).”24
And finally, William Hendrickson put it rather bluntly:
“The “I am” here (8:58) reminds one of the “I am” in 8:24.
Basically, the same thought is expressed in both passages;
namely, that Jesus is God!”25
This writer feels that there is no way that John could have been
any more obvious in his intention to invest in ego eimi a
significance far beyond the simple function of identification that it
can, and does at times, perform. In 8:58 the Jews pick up stones to
stone Jesus. The other two times this occurs are right on the heels
of claims to deity as well – first in John 5 where Jesus has just
claimed equality with the Father both by calling God His own Father
in very special terms as well as claiming the same right to work on
the Sabbath as the Jews understood to be God’s in upholding the
universe; secondly in John 10 after Jesus claims that He and the
Father are one in their role of bringing salvation to God’s elect –
His “sheep”. In both instances John spells it out clearly that these
claims were understood to be claims to equality with God – can 8:58
then be different?
In John 13:19 the introduction of the phrase in correlation with
the revelation of future events just as is found in Isaiah, even to
the point of nearly quoting the LXX rendering, is far too specific to
be overlooked. And in 18:5-6, John repeats the phrase in verse six
to make sure that the reader understands the reason for the soldiers’
falling backwards. And why would the soldiers fall backwards if not
for the awesomeness of the words of Jesus? Some of the naturalistic
explanations brought forward for this incident are so ludicrous as to
be absurd. John’s meaning cannot be mistaken.
If each of these instances were examined solely in a vacuum,
separated from the others, without any thought of the entire book of
John, one might see how their collective significance could be
missed. But this is not the way of scholarly interpretation. These
statements are not made in a vacuum – they are placed in a book that
is rich with meaning and purpose. It has been well said that John
intends the entire Gospel to be read through the “interpretive
window” of the Prologue of 1:1-18. Given the teachings of that
passage, can one seriously doubt the meaning of ego eimi in the above
examined passages? It would seem not.
Conclusion
It could fairly be admitted that an immediate and unqualified
jump from the ego eimi of John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14 is unwise. The
connection that is much more properly traced is the one given here,
that of ego eimi/ani hu as found in Isaiah. The connection between
Isaiah and Exodus 3:14 is so obvious as to be undeniable.
We have seen that John uses ego eimi in more than one way – the
majority of the time providing a predicate. Even these are
astounding in their majesty in regards to the person of Christ. Here
Jesus is said to be the way, the truth, and the life; the light of
the world; the bread of life; and the good shepherd, each of which it
should be noted, has parallels to statements made by Yahweh in the
Old Testament. But the bulk of this paper has been devoted to those
passages where the phrase is used in a specific sense – in an
“absolute” sense.
Upon examining these we have seen that they find their origin
and background in the book of Isaiah’s usage of the Hebrew term ani
hu and its translation as ego eimi in the LXX. We have seen the
close parallel between Isaiah 43:10 and John 13:19, both in form as
well as thought content.
We have also seen how the context of the passages themselves –
the setting and teaching of the entire book of John – makes the
identification of ego eimi and its resultant presentation of the
deity of Christ inevitable. We have seen how John purposefully
emphasizes these phrases, helping us to grasp their significance.
In closing, we might do well to look, then, with this
understanding in mind, at Jesus’ words at John 8:24: “unless you
believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” Jesus here gives us
the content and object of saving faith – faith, real faith is that
which comes to the real Jesus. A faith that demands a change in
Jesus before a commitment is made is not real faith at all. The Jews
standing about Him during this conversation most assuredly would not
have denied that He was a man – but that was not sufficient for
faith. Some had just recently proclaimed Him as Messiah – but that
was not sufficient for faith. Some might hail Him as a prophet or a
miracle worker, blessed by God – but that was not sufficient for
faith. Some today say He was a great moral teacher and philosopher –
but that is not sufficient for faith. Some call Him “a god” or a
great angel – but that is not sufficient for faith. No, Jesus
Himself laid down the line – unless one believes Him for whom He says
He is – the ego eimi – one will die in one’s sins. There is no
salvation in a false Christ. If we are to be united with Christ to
have eternal life, then we must be united with the true Christ, not a
false representation. It is out of love that Christ uttered John
8:24. We would do well to heed His words.
- These are: John 6:35, 6:41, 6:51, 8:12, 8:18, 10:7, 10:9, 10:11,
10:14, 11:25, 14:6, 15:1, 15:5. 2. See F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of
John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1983) pg.
193. 3. Philip Harner, The “I Am” of the Fourth Gospel,
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970) pg. 4. 4. A. T. Robertson, A
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934) pp. 879-880. 5. See A.
T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1932) 5:158-159. 6. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel
According to St. John. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978) pg.
342. 7. See J. C. Ryle, Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels,
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.) pg. 573 as well as
- T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament 5:159. 8.
“Irenaeus Against Heresies” in Philip Schaff, The Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers, 14 volumes. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s
Publishing Company, 1983), 1:478. 9. “Origen Against Celsus” in
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10
volumes. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1981)
4:463. 10. “A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity” in
Roberts and Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:624-625. 11.
Chrysostom, “Homilies on St. John” in Schaff, The Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers, 14:199. 12. Henry Alford, New Testament for English
Readers, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1983)
2:547. 13. See Harner, The “I Am” of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 6-36.
14. This connection is either directly made or alluded to by Leon
Morris, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The
Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing
Company, 1971) pp. 447, 473; by Merrill C. Tenney, The Expositor’s
Bible Commentary: John, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company,
1981) pg. 99; and by F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1983) pp. 193, 288. 15.
Morris, The Gospel According to John, pg. 473. 16. M. James Penton,
“The “I Am” Of John 8:58″ in The Christian Quest, Winter, 1988, pg.
64. 17. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of John’s Gospel,
(Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1943) pp. 614-615. 18. A
good example is given by C. K. Barrett: “It is not however correct
to infer either for the present passage or for the others in which
ego eimi occurs that John wishes to equate Jesus with the supreme God
of the Old Testament…Note that in v. 28 it is followed by ‘I do
nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me I speak these
things…I always do the things that are pleasing to him’, and in
13:19 by ‘He who receives me receives him who sent me’ (13:20).
Jesus is the obedient servant of the Father, and for this reason
perfectly reveals him. ego eimi does not identify Jesus with God,
but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms.”
The assumption of the unipersonality of God as well as the
ontological subordination of the Son that underlies Barrett’s
comments and clouds his normally clear exegesis, is striking. 19.
As quoted by Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, pp. 531-532.
20. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, pg. 473. 21. B. B.
Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian
and Reformed, 1950), pg. 60. 22. Ryle, Expository Thoughts, pg.
573. 23. Martin Luther, “Sermons on the Gospel of John Chapters 6-
8″ in Luther’s Works, Jerislav Pelikan, editor, (Saint Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1959) pg. 365. 24. A. T. Robertson,
Word Pictures, 5:158-159. 25. William Hendrickson, New Testament
Commentary: The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1953) pg. 67.