Table of Contents
- John 8:58
- John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14: Addressing the Tense Objection
- ἐγώ εἰμι with no Predicate
- Objection: If God’s Name Is “I AM,” Why Doesn’t the LXX Translate Exodus 3:14 as “ἐγὼ εἰμί ἐγὼ εἰμί”?
- Objection: Jesus Is Only Claiming Pre-Existence, Not Eternal, Uncreated Existence
- Objection: Jesus Is Only Saying He Was Prophesied Before Abraham
- How to Understand John 8:58 in Context
- Early Church Perspectives
John 8:58 NKJV – “Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
John 8:58 Greek – “εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.“
Exodus 3:14 Hebrew – “Eheyeh aser Eheyeh (I AM that I AM)…Eheyeh (I AM) has sent me to you.”
Exodus 3:14 LXX – “καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.”
Christians have traditionally connected John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14; however, not all Christians interpret this link in the same way. Many, including myself, recognize that in Exodus, God is revealing His personal, covenant name to Moses. In contrast, John 8:58 focuses less on identifying Jesus and more on emphasizing the duration of Christ’s existence. Contextually, the phrase ἐγώ εἰμι (“I am”) in John 8:58 highlights that Jesus existed before Abraham and continues to exist at the very moment of the conversation.
I will dive deeper into the evidence and provide clear proof that John 8:58 affirms Jesus’ eternal existence, just as Exodus 3:14 reveals God’s timeless nature, as I unpack and respond to common objections.
John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14: Addressing the Tense Objection
One common objection raised when comparing John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 centers on the apparent difference in verb tenses. In John 8:58, the Greek phrase ἐγώ εἰμι (ego eimi) is rendered in the present tense, meaning “I am.” Meanwhile, in Exodus 3:14, the Hebrew word אֶהְיֶה (EHEYEH) is often translated as “I will be,” a future tense expression. This raises a natural question:
How can John 8:58’s “I AM” correspond to Exodus 3:14’s “I WILL BE” when they seem to express different tenses?
The Complexity of Hebrew Verb Tenses
The answer lies in the intricacies of the Hebrew language. Hebrew verb tenses do not always function as straightforwardly as in English. Instead, the tense of a verb in Hebrew is often determined by contextual usage, rather than rigid grammatical structure. A verb that appears to be in the past tense may, depending on context, refer to a present reality, and similarly, a future tense verb can describe a present or past reality.
Contextually, using Exo 3:12 [I will be – EHEYEH], someone can make a good case that EHEYEH should be rendered in reference to the future, ie. God will be there with Moses when He goes to meet Pharaoh. To make this unambigious, Moses could’ve used “ani/anoki hu”, lit. “I He/I am He”. Because of the complexity of the Hebrew language, EHEYEH, if rendered futuristically, this does not imply that God was not with him at that moment. Its a promise that though God is with him at that moment, He will continue to be with him when he meets Pharaoh and brings Israel out of Egypt. In other words, its speaking of God’s timeless existence.
So event though EHEYEH is literally future tense, it can still be referring to present tense, as in everything God has said about Himself, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is who He said He is.
The Septuagint (LXX) and the Present Tense Rendering
Interestingly, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint (LXX), renders the future tense EHEYEH into the present tense Greek phrase ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (ego eimi ho on), which means “I am the Being” or “I am the One who is.” This translation choice reflects a theological understanding of God as eternal and unchanging.
There is an etymological connection between EHEYEH and the divine name YHWH, both deriving from the Hebrew root “hayah” meaning “to be,” “to cause to be,” or “to become.” ( (see NASBRE footnote on Exo 3:14). So the LXX takes the “Eheyeh” (“…who I AM.”) as a participle (which is a verbal adjective. E.g. someone who runs is a “runner”) of the verb “hayah”, “to be”. In other words, “hayah” is existence or being. The participle form of that is “the Existing One” or “the Being”,. In Greek, “eimi” is the verb meaning “existence” or “to be” and “On” is the participle form of that word meaning “The Existing One” or “The Being”, which is used in Revelation 1:8
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is (ὁ ὢν) and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” – Revelation 1:8
They’re basically synonymous, with one being a verb (existing) and the other a participle (the existing One). So in actuality, by the context, Jesus is using “ego eimi” as synonymous with “Ho On”.
Implications for John 8:58
By context, Jesus’ use of ἐγώ εἰμι in John 8:58 (“Before Abraham was, I am”) is closely tied to this rich theological and linguistic tradition. It signals that Jesus is not merely claiming existence but invoking the divine name, affirming His eternal, self-existent nature as “The Being” — the same God revealed to Moses in the burning bush.
Some may argue that the Jewish translators of the Septuagint were mistaken in rendering EHEYEH as present tense rather than future. However, this translation choice demonstrates that interpreting EHEYEH as present tense is not merely a Christian interpretive bias but is rooted in a historically and linguistically sound tradition.
Moreover, the fact that early Christians preserved the Septuagint text without altering ὁ ὤν to ἐγώ εἰμι indicates respect for this established theological vocabulary rather than an attempt to artificially strengthen Jesus’ claim.
ἐγώ εἰμι with no Predicate
In Greek grammar terms, when a verb like “to be” appears without a complement (no noun, adjective, or clause after it), we call that an absolute use. In the LXX, ἐγώ εἰμι (“I am”) sometimes is functioning as an absolute self-declaration—a bare assertion of existence or identity.
Isaiah 41:4
ἐγὼ θεὸς πρῶτος, καὶ εἰς τὰ ἐπερχόμενα ἐγώ εἰμι.
“I, God, the first; and into the things to come, I am.”
The voice is saying: “At the beginning, I am; in the future, I am.” Not “I was” and “I will be,” but “I am”—a present-tense that stretches across time like a rubber band that refuses to snap. Because the statement stands on its own—no predicate (“I am” but it doesnt say “I am what?”) is provided—it functions as what scholars call the absolute use. It’s an assertion of enduring existence. A proclamation that the divine identity doesn’t flicker with historical circumstance.
Isaiah 45:18
ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι.
“I am, and there is none besides.”
Here, the surrounding context lists God’s creative acts—forming the heavens, shaping the earth—but when the voice finally speaks directly, it doesn’t say, “I am the creator” or “I am the one who made these things.” It goes bare: “I am.” Again, no predicate, just existence and uniqueness. The second clause (“and there is none besides”) makes it explicit: existence here is not generic but exclusive.
At the simplest level, these absolute ἐγώ εἰμι declarations are markers of self-existence and permanent identity.
Hence when Jesus uses “I AM” with no predicate, He means that He is the one who is existence itself.
Objection: If God’s Name Is “I AM,” Why Doesn’t the LXX Translate Exodus 3:14 as “ἐγὼ εἰμί ἐγὼ εἰμί”?
Some argue that if “I AM” were truly a divine name, the Septuagint (LXX) would have translated God’s self-revelation in Exodus 3:14 simply as “ἐγὼ εἰμί ἐγὼ εἰμί” (“I am, I am”), thereby making “I AM” explicitly a proper name of God.
Response: The LXX Does Use “ἐγὼ εἰμί ἐγὼ εἰμί” in Other Places as a Divine Name
However, this objection overlooks that the LXX does render ἐγὼ εἰμί ἐγὼ εἰμί in other passages where God asserts His identity and authority. For example, in Isaiah 43:25 and 51:12, God declares:
“ἐγὼ εἰμί ἐγὼ εἰμί” — “I am, I am.”
This phrasing would have conditioned Jewish readers of the Greek Scriptures to recognize “ἐγὼ εἰμί” as a divine self-designation or name.
Moreover, in the New Testament, Jesus uses ἐγὼ εἰμί in ways that echo the divine self-identification of the Old Testament, especially in moments where He performs acts attributed solely to YHWH. For instance, during the event of Jesus walking on water, He reassures His disciples with the words:
“Do not be afraid, ἐγώ εἰμί” (Matthew 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20).
Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus uses “ego eimi” in several key statements (John 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5, 8), reinforcing the connection between His identity and the divine name.
These usages show that “ἐγώ εἰμί” functions not just as a simple phrase meaning “I am,” but as a profound declaration of Jesus’ divine identity consistent with Old Testament understandings of God’s name.
Objection: Jesus Is Only Claiming Pre-Existence, Not Eternal, Uncreated Existence
Some argue that in John 8:58, Jesus is simply stating that He existed before Abraham — not that He existed eternally or uncreatedly. They suggest that the passage doesn’t imply true timeless existence, only chronological priority.
Response: The Language in John 8:58 Emphasizes Eternal, Timeless Existence
First, the verb γενέσθαι used for Abraham literally means “to come into being,” “to happen,” or “to become.” This is a verb of origin or creation. In contrast, Jesus uses the present tense verb εἰμί (“I am”) to describe His own existence. This contrast highlights that while Abraham came into existence, Jesus’ existence is fundamentally different — ongoing and not bound by time, indicating an eternal, uncreated nature. In other words, the present tense verb “εἰμι” is meant to contrast γενέσθαι. So the existence of Abrahams (who came into being) is contrasted to Jesus’ existence who was, is, and will be, ie, an existence that is not bound to time, that is not creaturely.
Secondly, if Jesus had intended only to claim pre-existence without eternal status (a view similar to the Arian position), He would likely have used the imperfect tense “ἐγώ ἦν” (“I was”) to indicate past existence, “ἐν” being the imperfect tense of εἰμι. The fact that Jesus used, “εἰμι” again shows that Jesus is not merely saying that He simply existed before Abraham but that He has always existed. Jesus deliberately uses “ἐγώ εἰμί” (“I am”), which is present tense and emphasizes continuous existence. This choice reinforces that Jesus’ existence transcends time — He has always existed.
Objection: Jesus Didn’t Use the Past Tense Because the Present Tense Expresses Continuing Existence
Some respond that Jesus avoided the past tense ἐγώ ἦν (“I was”) because it wouldn’t fully convey that although He existed before Abraham, He still exists now — which the present tense εἰμί expresses more completely.
Response: This Explanation Undermines the Objection
This argument is unconvincing, because Jesus was physically present in the moment of speaking. Using a past tense verb to express prior existence would have been perfectly clear and sufficient. Anyone hearing Him say “I was” would understand that He existed then and was still there now. Thus, the deliberate use of the present tense strongly suggests a deeper theological meaning — that Jesus is affirming an eternal, ongoing existence beyond mere pre-existence.
Conclusion
While the Hebrew word אֶהְיֶה (EHEYEH) is often translated as “I will be,” it is important to recognize that many Jewish scribes understood it not merely as a future tense verb but as an expression of God’s present reality—His eternal, timeless existence as the One who simply is. This understanding aligns perfectly with Jesus’ statement in John 8:58. Unlike Abraham, who came into being (γενέσθαι), Jesus emphasizes His own timeless existence—He was always there, even before Abraham. By contrasting Abraham’s created nature with His own eternal being, Jesus reveals His divine nature. This connection beautifully complements the Greek rendering of Exodus 3:14, where “Ho On” denotes God’s timeless, self-existent nature. Together, these affirm that Jesus’ declaration in John 8:58 is a profound claim to eternal existence, echoing the divine name revealed in Exodus.
Objection: Jesus Is Only Saying He Was Prophesied Before Abraham
Some interpret John 8:58 as Jesus merely claiming that He was prophesied or foreshadowed before Abraham existed. They base this on verse 56, where Jesus says:
“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
So, they argue that when Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I am,” He’s simply referring to this prophetic insight, not eternal pre-existence.
Response: Jesus’ Statement Is a Direct Reply to Verse 57, Not Verse 56
This interpretation overlooks verse 57, where the Jews challenge Jesus:
“You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
Verse 58 is not responding to verse 56 but directly to this incredulous question in verse 57. Jesus does not correct their misunderstanding as He often does elsewhere; instead, He doubles down on His claim of having seen Abraham.
This refusal to clarify or soften His claim shows that Jesus is asserting something far beyond prophetic vision—He is affirming a real, eternal existence that transcends time.
How to Understand John 8:58 in Context
John 8:58 is one of the most direct claims to deity Jesus makes in the New Testament:
“Before Abraham was, I am.”
This statement, placed at the climax of an intense debate between Jesus and the Jews, is often used to argue for the pre-existence and divinity of Christ. However, the surrounding context—particularly John 8:39-59—reveals a deeper logic behind Jesus’ claim. Below is a structured way to use and defend this passage, especially when addressing objections and clarifying interpretations.
1. John 8:39–40 – The “Man” Who Told the Truth
Some argue that Jesus is merely contrasting Abraham’s righteous behavior with God’s messengers (“a man who has told you the truth”) with the Jews’ current rejection of God’s messenger, Christ—not claiming that Abraham interacted with Jesus Himself. However, Jesus says in verse 40:
“But now you seek to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.”
This passage is more than a general contrast—it centers specifically on Jesus Himself as the one whom Abraham did not try to kill.
- “A man” – While this could imply a general class of people, Jesus directly applies it to Himself: “Me, a man…” Jesus said “A Man” is telling the truth that “I heard from God”. The pronoun “I” in the sentence makes it clear that the “man” is specifically Jesus. If we interpret “a man” generically, we must ask: Who was this man who told Abraham the truth that Jesus heard from God? No such figure is recorded in Scripture. Jesus’ conversation starts from verse 31, “Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.” If Abraham received this same truth, who gave it to him?
- Secondly, if someone wants to argue that we can include others in “man”, Jesus obvisouly places Himself under this category. But Jesus is fully human. Even contextually, “man” must mean, “fully human by nature” because the text is about genealogy “Abraham is our father” (8:37-39). If we agree on this, then which “man” (fully human by nature like Jesus) appeared to Abraham to tell him the truth he heard from God and Abraham accepted him and not try to kill him? It can’t be Melchizedek because he didn’t tell Abraham anything apart from blessing him. The Angel in Genesis 15-17 certainly wasn’t fully human by nature but only human by appearance. The “men” of Genesis 18–19 were also “men” in appearence. So it must be the Pre-incarnate Son. The “man” in verse 40 must be Jesus alone.
- Anticipated Counter – But someone may respond with “But the Son wasn’t fully human when He appeared to Abraham so wouldn’t that disqualify your position too?” to which I would answer that my position is that Jesus is not contrasting “a man who has told you the truth…”; that is Abraham did not kill “a man who has told you the truth that I (Jesus) heard from God.” But rather that He contrasts “ME” in the verse “You seek to kill Me…this (“kill Me”) Abraham did not do.” And Jesus (the “Me”) existed prior to His incarnation. The part that says “a man who…” is just current additional information about the “Me” (Jesus). It’s like saying, “You claim to follow in the steps of your grandfather but you disobey me, a general who has led this army. Your Grandfather never did this.”. This does not necessitate that I was a general when I served along the grandfather. Likewise it does not necessitate that Jesus was “a man” when He appeared to Abraham.
2. John 8:56–59 – Abraham Rejoiced to See “My Day”
Verse 56:
“Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see My day. He saw it and was glad.”
Some suggest this refers to a prophetic vision Abraham had of Christ’s future. While this could be part of the meaning (I don’t doubt Abraham did have peopehtic visions of Messiah), the immediate context (vv. 39–40) shows the emphasis is on a direct encounter with Christ—a personal appearance, not merely a vision.
“My day” – Although true that it can refer to seeing a prophetic vision of the coming Christ (I don’t deny Abraham probably had prophetic visions of Christ), but as the context demands (39-40), it’s main focus is that Abraham rejoiced when Christ came to Him personally. The day that Jesus appeared to Him personally, Abraham rejoiced at that. And this is exactly how the Jews understood Him in the very next verse 57. The Jews understood Him as referring to seeing Abraham personally.
But even if were to agree that verse 56 is talking prophetically and the Jews misunderstood Him, the flow of the text demands that Jesus “follows the rabbit trail” and answers their question regardless. This is because Jesus did not correct them. This can have 2 outcomes:
1 – Jesus just didn’t bother to answer their question (“Have you seen Abraham”). But this makes Jesus commit logical fallacies like evasion or non-sequitur or fallacy of ambiguity or even the “irrelevant conclusion” fallacy (also known as ignoratio elenchi, occurs when an argument’s conclusion doesn’t follow from or address the issue raised in the premises. In essence, the argument presented shifts the focus to a different, often related, but ultimately irrelevant point, distracting from the actual issue at hand).
2 – Some might say, “Jesus did respond but as addressing the underlying misunderstanding, that He saw Abraham.” But this fails by the very fact that “Before Abraham was, I am” clarifies absolutely nothing. Jesus did not add the words “Before Abraham was, I am the chosen Messiah.” He simply said, “I am”. This would actually make Jesus the worst communicator on planet earth. No wonder why the Jews picked up stones to stone Him in the very next verse because, from their minds, He just answered by agreeing to their “misunderstanding”, that He saw Abraham. If the whole point was trying to get them to see that Jesus isn’t pre-existent, He did a terrible job. And this isn’t a “I speak in parables to keep their ears dull” type of situation either, otherwise Jesus wants everyone to think that He existed before Abraham when He actually didn’t which is deceiving.
In Conclusion, from the Unitarian perspective, Jesus must be doing one the 3 below:
- If Jesus intentionally answers unclearly to mislead Jews into thinking their misunderstanding is agreed upon, that’s deceptive and could be considered a fallacy of ambiguity or equivocation.
- If Jesus is honestly clarifying their original meaning but the language is naturally ambiguous, it’s not a fallacy, just a communication failure.
- If Jesus simply answers a related but different point, that might be a kind of evasion, which can be fallacious if it misleads.
But the reaction of the Jews—picking up stones to stone Him—shows they clearly understood Him to be claiming pre-existence and divinity. Jesus did not correct them, because He meant what He said.
If Jesus wasn’t claiming pre-existence, then His reply was one of the worst possible clarifications in history. But if He was, then the flow of the conversation and the Jewish reaction make perfect sense.
Early Church
Irenaeus – “And as He was the son of David, so was He also the Lord of David. And as He was from Abraham, so did He also exist before Abraham. John 8:58 And as He was the servant of God, so is He the Son of God, and Lord of the universe.” Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenæus, ch.52
Origen – “And we do not reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared, as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, Before Abraham was, I am.” Against Celsus, ch.12
Novatian – not considering this point, that as man could not come from heaven, so as that he might return there, He who descended thence must be God, seeing that man could not come thence. If Christ is only man, how does He say, You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world? But therefore if every man is of this world, and Christ is for that reason in this world, is He only man? God forbid! But consider what He says: I am not of this world. Does He then speak falsely when He says of this world, if He is only man? Or if He does not speak falsely, He is not of this world; He is therefore not man only, because He is not of this world. But that it should not be a secret who He was, He declared whence He was: I, said He, am from above, that is, from heaven, whence man cannot come, for he was not made in heaven. He is God, therefore, who is from above, and therefore He is not of this world..If Christ is man only, how does He say, I proceeded forth and came from God, when it is evident that man was made by God, and did not proceed forth from Him? But in the way in which as man He proceeded not from God, thus the Word of God proceeded, of whom it is said, My heart has uttered forth a good Word… If Christ was only man, how did He say, Before Abraham was, I Am? For no man can be before Him from whom he himself is; nor can it be that any one should have been prior to him of whom he himself has taken his origin. And yet Christ, although He is born of Abraham, says that He is before Abraham. Either, therefore, He says what is not true, and deceives, if He was not before Abraham, seeing that He was of Abraham; or He does not deceive, if He is also God, and was before Abraham. And if this were not so, it follows that, being of Abraham, He could not be before Abraham…” Treatise Concerning the Trinity
Gregory of Neocaesarea – “How could it be said that the Son of God who is before the ages, and He who has appeared in these last times, are different, when the Lord Himself says, Before Abraham was, I am; John 8:58 and, I came forth from God, and I come, and again I go to my Father?” Topics on the Faith, Topic 5
Cyril of Jerusalem – “20. Think not then of Him who is now come forth out of Bethlehem, but worship Him who was eternally begotten of the Father. Suffer none to speak of a beginning of the Son in time, but as a timeless Beginning acknowledge the Father. For the Father is the Beginning of the Son, timeless, incomprehensible, without beginning. The fountain of the river of righteousness, even of the Only-begotten, is the Father, who begot Him as Himself only knows. And would you know that our Lord Jesus Christ is King Eternal? Hear Him again saying, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad. John 8:56 And then, when the Jews received this hardly, He says what to them was still harder, Before Abraham was, I am. And again He says to the Father, And now, Father, glorify Thou Me with Your own self, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. He says plainly, before the world was, I had the glory which is with You. And again when He says, For You loved Me before the foundation of the world John 17:24, He plainly declares, The glory which I have with you is from eternity.
21. We believe then In One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, Begotten of His Father, Very God Before All Worlds, by Whom All Things Were Made.” Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 11
John Chrysostom – “But wherefore said He not, Before Abraham was, I was, instead of I Am? As the Father uses this expression, I Am, so also does Christ; for it signifies continuous Being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous . Now if they could not bear the comparison with Abraham, although this was but a trifling one, had He continually made Himself equal to the Father, would they ever have ceased casting stones at Him?” Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 55
Augustine of Hippo – “… But from the tribe of Judah there came Our Lord Jesus Christ. For He is, as the Scripture says, and as you have but now heard, out of the seed of David born of Mary. 2 Timothy 2:8 But as regards the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, wherein He is equal with the Father, He is not only before the Jews, but also before Abraham himself; John 8:58 nor only before Abraham, but also before Adam; nor only before Adam, but also before Heaven and earth and before ages: for all things by Himself were made, and without Him there was made nothing. John 1:3…” Exposition on Psalm 76, cf. Psalm 93
Athanasius of Alexandria – “How then is it that He says, Before Abraham was, I am, and I came down from heaven?’ the Arians on the other hand make response and say conformably, ‘How can He be Word or God who slept as man, and wept, and inquired?’ Thus both parties deny the Eternity and Godhead of the Word in consequence of those human attributes which the Saviour took on Him by reason of that flesh which He bore.” Discourse 3