In this post I excerpt Dr. James R. White’s discussion of Jesus’ I AM statements. It is taken from his book The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, Revised & Updated, published by Bethany House Publishers, Grand Rapids, MI 2019, Chapter 6. I Am He, pp. 94-104.
John’s literary artistry was not limited to the prologue of his Gospel, nor was it confined to the direct assertion of the deity of Christ through calling Him “God” (1:1; 20:28). He found subtle ways of teaching this truth as well. One method that John presented, that the other Gospel writers did not use, is found in Jesus’ use of the phrase I am.
Look at these passages from the gospel of John:
“Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58).
“From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He” (John 13:19).
They answered Him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He said to them, “I am He.” And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them. So when He said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground. (John 18:5-6)
In each of these verses a particular Greek phrase appears: ἐγὼ εἰμί (ego eimi). The New American Standard Bible renders this Greek phrase as “I am He.” The fact that the word “He” is italicized is very important, for this means the word itself is not found in the Greek1 and is being supplied by the translators in an effort to smooth out an awkward English phrase. John makes sure, through the use of context, that we do not miss the point he is making by recording these words of Jesus. One might wonder, “Why don’t the other gospel writers pick up on this?” Mark does record an example of the phrase (Mark 14:62), but he does not emphasize it the way John does. There might well be a simple answer to the question. When Mark wrote his gospel, it was not his purpose to emphasize the same truths about Christ’s nature as John would decades later. It seems quite probable that John, with more time to reflect upon the events of the Lord’s ministry, found in these words an insight that later events and developments in the church proved useful and necessary.
The first question that we have to tackle is straightforward: how do you translate the phrase properly? This is not a controversy in most of the instances above. The vast majority of scholarly translations render it the same way: “I am He,” with the “He” in italics. But when we come to the clearest and most obvious of the passages, John 8:58, a few translations give a different rendering, emphasizing the idea that Jesus is merely claiming preexistence. How then should the phrase be translated at John 8:58? Once we consider this, we need to establish some Old Testament background, and then we can take all the appearances of the phrase in John as a group and determine what John is communicating to us.
How Should We Translate It?
There are a very small number of translations that avoid a direct translation of the phrase at John 8:58 (in particular). Moffat renders it, “I have existed before Abraham was born!” The Twentieth Century New Testament has “before Abraham existed I was.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation renders ego eimi as “I have been.”
Allegedly many of these translations are viewing the phrase as what Dr. A. T. Robertson called a “progressive present.”2 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 tense. John 15:27 would be a good example: “because you have been with me from the beginning.” The verb is in the present tense, but the context makes it clear that it is in reference to both the past and the present. Robertson 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 works3). 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 tense in this way would be in error.4
So why should John 8:58 not be rendered in this way? Why do so few translations follow this path? Because to translate it that way is to miss the entire context and content of what is being said! The vast majority of translators see, as do many commentators, that there is a clear differentiation being made here between the derivative existence of Abraham and the eternal existence of the Lord Christ. Many scholars rightly point out the same contrasting of verbs as seen in the prologue of John5 as well as the same kind of differentiation found in the Septuagint Greek rendering of Psalm 90:2. They also recognize that the response of the Jews would be rather strong if this was simply a claim of preexistence. 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, where the Jews pick up stones so as to kill Him.
The phrase was so understood by the early church as well. Irenaeus showed familiarity with it as “I am,”6 as did Origen7 and Novatian.8 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.”9 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.10
Old Testament Background of Ego Eimi
It happens all the time: we are in a hurry to make a point, so we jump from one point to another quickly, skipping a few necessary points in between. There’s always that one person in the bunch who stops you and makes you go back and trace your argument, step by step, rather than allowing you to condense things a bit and make better speed.
When dealing with theological issues, we often condense things and make connections that, in reality, take a little more proof than we have offered. This is nowhere better illustrated than in the connection that is alleged to exist between Jesus’ words in John 8:58 and the words of Yahweh in Exodus 3:14, “I am that I am.” You will find references to Exodus 3:14 in most commentaries on John 8:58, yet those who deny the deity of Christ cry “foul!” and argue that such an immediate connection can’t be made. The strongest argument they can present is that the ego eimi portion of Exodus 3:14 isn’t really the assertion of divinity: the ho ohn portion is (ho ohn being translated as “the Being” or “the One Existing”).
As far as the argument goes, this is true. However, the claim that Jesus’ words in John 8:58 (and the other passages) should be connected to Exodus 3:14 does not exist in a vacuum. There is a line of argumentation, a very solid one, that leads us from John 8 back through Isaiah to Exodus 3. We need to trace that path before we can make the statement that Jesus is, in fact, using a name of deity of himself in John’s gospel.
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 a particular Hebrew phrase, ani hu, in the writings (primarily) of Isaiah.11 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 use of ani hu by Isaiah is a euphemism for the very name of God himself. Some see a connection between ani hu and Yahweh as both referring to being.12 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, “In order that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He.”13 In John 13:19, Jesus says to the disciples, “From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He.”14 When one removes the extraneous words (such as the phrase that connects the last clause to the first) and compares these two passages, this is the result:
Isaiah 43:10: hina pisteusete … hoti ego eimi
John 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 performed and accomplished it, calling forth the generations from the beginning? `I, the LORD, am the first, 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 referenced above, in verse 22 we read, “Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; as for the former events, declare what they were, that we may consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming.” 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,15 or ignore it altogether,16 the evidence is overwhelming that this connection is intended by John himself.
Understanding John’s Message
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. 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!17 An interpreter who is unwilling to dismiss the words of Scripture as simply “tradition” (and hence nonauthoritative) 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.18
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,
Weigh the words, and get a knowledge of the mystery. “Before Abraham was made.” Understand, that “was made” refers to human formation; but “am” to the Divine essence. “He was made,” because Abraham was a creature. He did not say, Before Abraham was, I was; but, “Before Abraham was made,” who was not made save by me, “I am.” Nor did He say this, Before Abraham was made I was made; for “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;” and “in the beginning was the Word.” “Before Abraham was made, I am.” Recognize the Creator-distinguish the creature. He who spake was made the seed of Abraham; and that Abraham might be made, He Himself was before Abraham.19
But can the usage of ego eimi withstand that much weight? A large number of believing Christian scholars certainly think so. 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.20
B. B. 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 was 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
There simply 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 the context of 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 even repeats himself just to make sure no one can possibly miss the reason why the soldier fell back upon the ground:
They answered Him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He said to them, “I am He.” And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them. So when He said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground.
Twice John repeats the phrase ego eimi, emphasizing that it is the uttering of these words that causes the soldiers to draw back and fall down. Some have tried to say that the soldiers were simply amazed that Jesus would so boldly identify himself and that they stumbled in the darkness.26 But such is far beyond the realm of meaningful interpretation, for it not only reads a good bit out of the immediate text, but it also isolates this passage from the rest of John’s gospel. When 8:24, 8:58, and 13:19 are allowed to speak their peace, as well, the reason for the soldiers’ discomfort and humiliation is all too obvious. 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. We have asserted 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.
We might do well, then, with this understanding in mind, to look at Jesus’ words at John 8:24: “Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” Jesus here gives us the content and object of saving faith-real faith is that which focuses on 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 around Him during this conversation most assuredly would not have denied that He was a man–but that was not sufficient for faith. Some had only 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 who He says He is–the ego eimi–one will die in one’s sins.27 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.
CHAPTER SIX
1. The specific phrase ego eimi occurs twenty-four times in the gospel of John. Thirteen of these times it is followed by a clear predicate (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). Some of these instances would be John 6:35, “I am the living bread” or John 10:11, “I am the good shepherd” (ego eimi ho poimen ho kalos). Three 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” which is strangely reminiscent of the LXX rendering of Isaiah 52:6. In 6:20 it seems to be a rather straightforward self-identification to the frightened disciples in the boat. 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, we are left with seven uses that have been described as “absolute.” These would be John 8:24; 8:28; 8:58; 13:19; 18:5; 18:6; and 18:8. It is very significant that in each of these instances, the phrase comes at the end of the clause. We will note why it is important when we look at the usage of the phrase in the Septuagint.
2. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 879-880, describes the “progressive present”:
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., 119)…. It is a common idiom in the N.T…. In Jo. 8:58 eiui is really absolute.
3. See A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1932), 5:158-159.
4. Daniel Wallace in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 530-531, has commented on the translation of this passage:
The text reads: πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγώ εἰμι (“before Abraham was, I am”). On this text, Dennis Light wrote an article in defense of the New World Translation in the Bible Collector (July-December, 1971). In his article he discusses ἐγώ εἰμι, which the New World Translation renders, “I have been.” Light defends this translation by saying, “The Greek verb eimi, literally present tense, must be viewed as a historical present, because of being preceded by the aorist infinitive clause referring to Abraham’s past” (p. 8). This argument has several flaws in it: (1) The fact that the present tense follows an aorist infinitive has nothing to do with how it should be rendered. In fact, historical presents are usually wedged in between aorist (or imperfect) indicatives, not infinitives. (2) If this is a historical present, it is apparently the only historical present in the NT that uses the equative verb eiµi. The burden of proof, therefore, lies with the one who sees εἰμι as ever being used as a historical present. (3) If this is a historical present, it is apparently the only historical present in the NT that is in other than the third person.
The translators of the New World Translation understand the implications of ἐγώ εἰμι here, for in the footnote to this text in the NWT, they reveal their motive for seeing this as a historical present: “It is not the same as ὁ ὤν (ho ohn, meaning `The Being’ or `The I Am’) at Exodus 3:14, LXX.” In effect, this is a negative admission that if ἐγώ εἰμιs is not a historical present, then Jesus is here claiming to be the one who spoke to Moses at the burning bush, the I AM, the eternally existing One, Yahweh (cf. Exod 3:14 in the LXX, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. See the preceding discussion of the prologue of John, chapter 4.
6. Irenaeus, Against Heresies in Philip Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1983), 1:478.
7. Origen, Against Celsus in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1981), 4:463.
8. A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity in Roberts and Donaldson, The AnteNicene Fathers, 5:624-625.
9. Chrysostom, Homilies on St. John in Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 14:199.
10. Henry Alford, in his New Testament for English Readers (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1983), 2:547, 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.
11. Hebrew: אֲנִי־ הֽוּא. 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: Eerdman’s, 1971), 447, 473; by Merrill C. Tenney, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: John (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 99; and by F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1983), 193, 288.
12. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 473.
13. In the LXX this is rendered thus: ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ πιστεύσητε καὶ συνῆτε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι (hina gnote kai pisteusete kai sunete hoti ego eimi).
14. In Greek the last phrase is ἵνα πιστεύσητε ὅταν γένηται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι (hina pisteusete hotan genetai hoti ego eimi).
15. M. James Penton, “The `I Am’ of John 8:58,” in The Christian Quest (Winter): 1988, 64.
16. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of John’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1943), 614-615.
17. 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 theologies that are nearly unitarian, subordinationist, or so enamored with naturalistic rationalism as to be anti-supernatural. 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.
18. We will look more closely at the identification of Jesus as Yahweh in chapter 10.
19. Tractate XLIII in Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series I, 7:244.
20. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, 473. A footnote on the same page reads:
Ego eimi in LXX renders the Hebrew אֲנִי־ הֽוּא 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 hwhy (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).
21. B. B. Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950), 60.
22. Ryle, Expository Thoughts, 573.
23. Martin Luther, “Sermons on the Gospel of John Chapters 6-8,” in Luther’s Works, Jerislav Pelikan, ed. (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 365.
24. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament, 5:158-159.
25. William Hendrickson, New Testament Commentary: The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953), 67.
26. Greg Stafford, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended (Huntington Beach, Calif.: Elihu Books, 1998), 144, goes so far as to say that the falling back of the soldiers “need mean no more than that `the men who came to make the arrest … were so overcome by His moral ascendancy that they recoiled in fear.'” Stafford goes on to speak of the soldiers being “taken aback by his fearless demeanor.” Of course, men had been taken aback by the Lord’s pure moral stature many times in His ministry-but had never fallen over as a result.
27. This reality is virtually important when discussing the Trinity with those of other faiths, and especially when engaging our Muslim friends on this topic; Muslims struggle mightily with the idea of the Incarnation. It is accurate to say that Islam presuppositionally rejects the very possibility of Incarnation. Allah would never enter into His creation for any reason or purpose whatsoever. Hence, they reject the claim that Jesus is the Son of God in any sense whatsoever, often misunderstanding the Christians claim as entailing some kind of physical sonship (see esp. Surah 5:116 in the Qur’an for an explication of this; also, the author’s book, What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an, chapters 4 and 5, go into depth on this topic.) Yet Muslims are quick to claim an acceptance of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and as a great prophet of God who was virgin born and performed many great miracles in His life. Of course, the Qur’an denies that Jesus died upon the cross, and hence there can be no resurrection (Surah 4:157). But it is important to point out, in light of John 8:24 and the entire New Testament witness to Jesus, that believing in Him as a prophet or even as a miracle worker is insufficient. Jesus’ own words testify that unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins. It is just this claim of deity that Islam denies in its teachings about Jesus. (Ibid. pp. 207-210)
FURTHER READING
THE UNCREATED WORD ENTERS CREATION
Answering Islam Blog 
5 thoughts on “JESUS: THE I AM HE INCARNATE”