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

JESUS: JEHOVAH OF HOSTS

Carmen Christi: A Reformed Perspective

BEYOND THE VEIL OF ETERNITY

The following is taken from Dr. James R. White’s book The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, Revised & Updated, published by Bethany House Publishers, Grand Rapids, MI 2019, Chapter 9. Jehovah of Hosts, pp. 131-139.

When I share the truth about the Trinity and the deity of Christ with Jehovah’s Witnesses, I often begin with something like this:

I believe in the Trinity because the Bible teaches the doctrine. No, the Bible doesn’t use the specific word “Trinity” any more than it uses the specific word “theocratic” or “Bible.” Instead, it teaches the doctrine by teaching the three pillars or foundations that make up the doctrine. The first such pillar is that there is only one true God, Yahweh, the Creator of all things. The second is that there are three divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father. Three persons who communicate with one another and love one another. Finally, the third pillar is the teaching that these three persons are completely equal in sharing in the divine Being. This would include the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. This is where we directly disagree. May I show you from the Bible how it teaches these truths?

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Trinity is nowhere to be found in Scripture, so they are quite confident that you will fail in attempting to support the Trinity from the Bible. So I press on:

I assume you would agree with me that there is only one true God, Yahweh, or as you pronounce it, Jehovah. I believe the name “Jehovah” refers to the very divine Being, the eternal God who created every thing. We can agree, I assume, that the Father is identified as Jehovah.¹ But I believe that the Bible identifies Jesus as Yahweh, as well, and the Spirit is the Spirit of Yahweh. Each of these three persons share the one divine name, Yahweh or Jehovah. May I show you a few passages of Scripture that make this identification?

At this point I can go to a large number of passages where the New Testament writers think nothing of applying to the Lord Jesus passages from the Old Testament that were written in reference to Yahweh.² But I have found two particular passages to carry the most weight in communicating this truth to those who believe that Yahweh is God, believe the Bible is true, but reject the deity of Christ: Hebrews 1:10-12 in comparison with Psalm 102:25-27, and John 12:3741 in comparison with Isaiah 6:1-10.

ETERNAL CREATOR

There can be no confusion about the intended meaning of the psalmist who penned these words in Psalm 102:25-27:

Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not come to an end.

The first thing to establish in fairly and honestly dealing with the passage is what it meant in its original context. The entire psalm is written about Yahweh. Verse 1 indicates it is a prayer to the LORD. The use of the all-caps form LORD is the standard English means of indicating that the underlying Hebrew term is Yahweh, or Jehovah. Some Bibles, such as the Jerusalem Bible, or the New World Translation published by the Watchtower Society, use the term “Jehovah” or “Yahweh.” Throughout Psalm 102 this term is found, indicating plainly that the psalm was originally written in praise of Yahweh. This is important, for it is the context of the words found in verses 25 through 27.

The psalmist speaks in these verses of the unchanging and eternal nature of Yahweh. He does so by contrasting the changing creation with the unchangeable Creator. One of the primary “evidences” God uses to demonstrate His unique nature and sole standing as the one true God is that He is the Creator.³ This is the case here. Yahweh founded the earth (Psalm 24:1; 78:69; 89:11; Proverbs 3:19; Isaiah 48:13), and the heavens are described as a “work” of His hands (Psalm 19:1). On the most basic level, then, the universe itself is a dependent creation, while God is eternal and unchanging. They are temporal and will pass away, but God is eternal, and He will “endure.” They are like an old garment that we throw away when it becomes old and useless. But He does not age. He does not change. His years have no number and will never come to an end. As Moses had said, “from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (Psalm 90:2).

Why is it important to focus on what this passage means? Because it is speaking of characteristics that are unique to the one true God. This will become vitally important when we look at the means some use to avoid the weight of these passages as they are used in the New Testament.

The writer to the Hebrews shows no compunctions in taking this passage from the Psalter–a passage fit only for describing the eternal Creator himself-and applying it to Jesus Christ. Here is how he does it in Hebrews 1:8-12:

But of the Son He says,

“YOUR THRONE, 0 GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.”

And,

“You, LORD,” IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH,

AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;

AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT,

AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP;

LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED.

BUT YOU ARE THE SAME,

AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.”

An entire string of Old Testament passages are presented, each intended to demonstrate the superiority of Christ. Verse 8 begins by introducing the words of the Father regarding the Son. Verse 10 continues the same theme, again giving us the words of the Father relevant to the Son. It is vital to understand that verses 10 through 12 are, in fact, addressed to the Son. It is Jesus who is addressed as “LORD” in verse 10, and it is His activity in creation, and His unchanging nature, that is revealed in the rest of the passage. The significance of this is clear when one realizes that the writer to the Hebrews is directly applying the passage from Psalm 102:25-27⁵ to the Son. The meaning of the original is beyond dispute. The fact that it is speaking of unique characteristics of the true God is likewise unarguable. Therefore, the fact that Hebrews applies such a passage to the Son tells us what the writer himself believed about the nature of Jesus Christ. One simply could not meaningfully apply such a passage to a mere creature, no matter how highly exalted.

What does it mean that the writer to the Hebrews could take a passage that is only applicable to Yahweh and apply it to the Son of God, Jesus Christ? It means that they saw no problem in making such an identification, because they believed that the Son was, indeed, the very incarnation of Yahweh.

The only way “around” this kind of direct identification of the Son as Yahweh is to point out that using an Old Testament passage of someone in the New Testament does not, of necessity, argue for identity of person. For example, in Hebrews 1:8, the writer applies a passage that was originally about one of Israel’s kings (possibly Solomon) to the Lord Jesus. Does this mean that Jesus is Solomon? Aside from the impossibility of such an identification in the first place, such an argument misses a very important distinction. The connection between the Lord Jesus and Solomon has to do with a shared characteristic: kingship. But kingship is not a unique attribute of Solomon. There have been many kings. So while citing a passage about Solomon of Jesus doesn’t make Jesus Solomon, citing a passage about a unique characteristic (creatorship, immutability, eternality) of Yahweh does make Jesus Yahweh, for no one else shares that characteristic. Being a king didn’t make Solomon who he was, but being eternal and unchangeable does define who Yahweh is.

Allow me to illustrate. If I wanted to identify someone as Solomon by using a citation from the Old Testament, I would not do it by citing a passage that is merely about Solomon as a king, for that would not prove identity but rather position. There were other kings, like David, or Hezekiah. Simply identifying someone as a king wouldn’t tell me which king I had in mind. If I instead applied a unique description of Solomon, that would convey identity. If I, for example, said that such and such a king had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3), who else could I be referring to but Solomon? That would distinguish which king I had in mind and would communicate identity. In the same way, if I were to merely call a person “loving,” I would not, by so doing, be identifying that person as God, even though God is, indeed, loving. God is love, but there are others who express love and are loving. It is not unique to God to love. But if I were to say that someone is eternal, the Creator of all things, and unchanging, that would communicate identity, for there is only one who is eternal, unchanging, and the Creator of all things. And this is what the writer to the Hebrews does in 1:10-12. Hence the error of the attempt to avoid the force of the identification of Jesus as Yahweh here in Hebrews 1.⁶

WHO DID ISAIAH SEE?

Toward the end of Jesus’ public ministry as recorded by John we find an incident where a group of Greeks seek out the Lord Jesus. The significance of the passage often goes right past us because we are looking more at the encounter than a little comment John tacks on to the end of his citation from Isaiah:

But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?” For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, “HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.” These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. (John 12:37-41)

The struggle with the meaning of the words from Isaiah often causes us to fly right past verse 41. Yet what does John mean when he says that Isaiah “said these things because he saw His glory and spoke of Him”? Who is the “Him” to whom Isaiah refers?

We have to go back a little to see that John cites two passages from the book of Isaiah. In verse 38 he quotes from Isaiah 53:1, the great “Suffering Servant” passage that so plainly describes the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. John says the unbelief of the Jews, despite their seeing signs, was a fulfillment of the word of Isaiah in Isaiah 53. He then goes beyond this to assert their inability to believe and quotes from Isaiah 6 and the “Temple Vision” Isaiah received when he was commissioned as a prophet:

In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called out to another and said, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.” And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke. (Isaiah 6:1-4)

In this awesome vision, Isaiah sees Yahweh (the LORD) sitting upon His throne, surrounded by angelic worshipers. The glory of Yahweh fills his sight. Isaiah recognizes his sin and is cleansed by the Lord, then commissioned to go and take a message to the people. But the message is not one of salvation, but of judgment.

He said, “Go, and tell this people: `Keep on listening, but do not perceive; keep on looking, but do not understand.’ Render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim, otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and return and be healed.” Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered, “Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant, houses are without people and the land is utterly desolate” (Isaiah 6:9-11).

John cites the heart of the message of judgment given to Isaiah and sees the hardheartedness of the Jews, who had seen the miracles of the Lord Jesus and heard His words of grace as the fulfillment of these words.

Then John says, “These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.” John has quoted from two passages in Isaiah, Isaiah 53:1 and Isaiah 6:10. Yet the immediate context refers to the words from Isaiah 6, and there are other reasons why we should see the primary reference as the Isaiah 6 passage. John speaks of Isaiah “seeing” “glory.” In Isaiah 6:1 the very same term is used of “seeing” the LORD, and the very term “glory” appears in verse 3.⁷ Even if we connect both passages together, the fact remains that the only way to define what “glory” Isaiah saw was to refer to the glory of Isaiah 6:3.⁸ And that glory was the glory of Yahweh. There is none other whose glory we can connect with Isaiah’s words.⁹

Therefore, if we ask Isaiah, “Whose glory did you see in your vision of the temple?” he would reply, “Yahweh’s.” But if we ask the same question of John, “Whose glory did Isaiah see?” he would answer with the same answer-only in its fullness, “Jesus’.” Who, then, was Jesus to John? None other than the eternal God in human flesh, Yahweh.

If the apostles themselves did not hesitate to apply to the Lord Jesus such unique and distinctive passages that can only meaningfully be applied to deity, to the Lord Jesus, how can we fail to give Him the same honor in recognizing Him for who He truly is?

A Special Text

There is another place where the apostolic identification of Jesus as Yahweh incarnated is found, but is almost never noticed. And for those of us involved in the defense of the faith, it is rather ironic that we have so often missed its clear witness.

Every apologist knows the words of 1 Peter 3:15: “But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to give a defense before anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is within you, yet with gentleness and respect.” But very few have noticed that Peter is quoting from, or at least directly alluding to, a particular passage from Isaiah in these words. The final words of verse 14, “Do not fear them, nor be troubled,” comes directly from Isaiah 8:12. So do not miss the import of the next verse:

It is Yahweh of hosts who you should treat as holy,

And He shall be your fear,

And He shall be your dread.   

Peter actually continues the citation of Isaiah right into verse 15, but we almost never see it! The “Lord” of 1 Peter 3:15 is Yahweh from Isaiah 8:13! If I could expand the translation then, “But in your hearts, honor (sanctify, set apart as holy) the Messiah (Christ) as Lord (kurios, in Isaiah 8:13, Yahweh), always being ready to give a defense. …” Here, writing to everyone in the congregation (not just elders), Peter is clearly giving everyday, “normal Christian living” instructions based upon the shared belief and reality  that Yahweh had entered human flesh as the Messiah, Jesus! The Christian’s everyday life was to be ordered by that astonishing reality! Few texts show how basic and fundamental this truth was in the early church.  

Chapter Nine: Jehovah of Hosts

1. For Mormons who reject this identification (Mormonism identifying the Father as “Elohim” and the Son as “Jehovah”), see such passages as Isaiah 53:6 and Matthew 22:41-45, where the Father is identified as Yahweh. See also James White, Letters to a Mormon Elder (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House Publishers, 1993), 67-75.

2. Here is a partial listing of other passages that can be developed along these lines:

Matthew 1:21; Psalm 130:8; Isaiah 35:4 [God will save His people]

Matthew 3:12; Revelation 6:16; Psalm 2:12; Psalm 76:7 [Fear God]

Matthew 5:18; Mark 13:31 [God’s Word is eternal; Jesus’ Word is eternal]

Matthew 25:31-46; Psalm 50:6; 59:11; 96:13 [God is Judge, Jesus is judge]

John 1:3; Isaiah 44:24 [Yahweh alone created all things]

John 1:7-9; Isaiah 60:9 [God is light] John 7:37-38; Jeremiah 2:13 [Yahweh the fountain of living water]

John 10:11; Psalm 23:1; 100:3 [The Good Shepherd]

John 12:41; Isaiah 6:1 [The vision of Isaiah-Yahweh’s glory]

John 14:6; Psalm 31:5 [God is truth]

John 14:14; 1 Corinthians 1:2 [Prayer to Jesus]

 John 14:26; 16:27; Romans 8:9; 1 Peter 1:11; Nehemiah 9:20; 2 Samuel 23: 2-3 [Spirit of YHWH/God/Christ]

John 17:5; Isaiah 48:11 [Will not give His glory to another]

Acts 1:8; Isaiah 43:10 [Witnesses of Whom?]

Acts 4:24; 2 Peter 2:1; Jude 4 [Who is our Master?] Romans 10:13; Joel 2:32 [Call on the name of…]

Ephesians 4:8-9/Psalm 68:18 [God leads the captives …]

Philippians 2:10-11; Isaiah 45:23 [Every knee will bow…]

Colossians 1:16, Ephesians 5:25, 27; Romans 11:36 [All things are to God …]

Colossians 1:17; Acts 17:28 [We exist in God]

Colossians 2:3; 1 Timothy 1:17 [Only wise God … treasure of wisdom]

2 Timothy 1:12; Jeremiah 17:5 [Trust in Yahweh-believe in Jesus]

Hebrews 1:3; 1 Timothy 6:15 [Jesus’ power-God is only sovereign]

Hebrews 1:10; Psalm 102:25 [Jesus is Yahweh] Hebrews 13:8; Malachi 3:6 [God changes not]

James 2:1; Zechariah 2:5 [Lord of glory]

1 Peter 2:3; Psalm 34:8 [Taste that Yahweh is good]

1 Peter 3:15; Isaiah 8:13 [Sanctify Yahweh]

Revelation 1:5-6; Exodus 34:14 [Glorify Jesus]

Revelation 1:13-16; Ezekiel 43:2 [God’s voice is the voice of Jesus]

Revelation 2:23; 1 Kings 8:39 [Jesus searches the hearts]

Revelation 3:7; Revelation 15:4 [God alone is holy]

3. See the discussion of this fact in chapter 3.

4. The New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses inserts the name “Jehovah” 237 times in the text of the New Testament. When the NT cites an OT passage that uses the name Yahweh, the NWT will use “Jehovah,” replacing the Greek term “Lord” or “God” that appears in the text. At other times, the NWT will simply remove the term “Lord” and replace it with “Jehovah.” The translation is inconsistent, however, in when it will insert the divine name. In a number of places, replacing “Lord” with “Jehovah” would teach the deity of Christ. For example, Paul says that no man can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3). Even though some of the Hebrew documents the Watchtower Society cites in support of their insertion of Jehovah have “Jesus is Yahweh,” the Society would not, of course, translate it that way. In the same way, if the NWT was consistent, they would have the word “Yahweh” here at Hebrews 1:10, replacing the word “Lord.” But this would teach the deity of Christ, hence, the replacement is not made.

5. The wording is almost identical to that found in the Greek Septuagint translation of Psalm 102:25-27.

6. This argument is put forward by Greg Stafford in Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended (Huntington Beach, Calif.: Elihu Books, 1998), 49-50. The circularity of Stafford’s arguments is illustrated by the comments that precede this discussion. In trying to avoid the plain teaching of Hebrews 1:10-12 that Jesus is the Creator of all things, Stafford notes that God created all things through the Son (Hebrews 1:2), and writes, “Clearly, then, in context Hebrews 1:10-12 could not be teaching that Jesus is the Creator, for here, in the opening words to the Hebrews, it is clearly stated that God made all things “through” His Son” (p. 48). This is circular argumentation, for it assumes the conclusion Stafford wishes to reach. It assumes unitarianism. The fact that the Son is differentiated from the Father is admitted by all. But unless one assumes that the term “God” must always and only refer solely to the Father (unitarianism), the entire argument collapses. The Son is the one through whom the Father made all things (Hebrews 1:2) and He is Yahweh, the eternal Creator, for the Father, Son, and Spirit are all identified as Yahweh. There is no contradiction between allowing both truths to coexist. Only the authority of the Watchtower forces Stafford to downplay the plain meaning of the one passage to uphold his unitarian interpretation of the other.

7. The connection is actually closer than first glance might indicate, for the Greek Septuagint (the LXX) contains both the verb form John uses in verse 1, eidon, and departing from the Hebrew text, it contains at the end of the verse the reading tes doxes autou meaning “the house was full of His glory.” This is the same phraseology used in John 12:41, ten doxan autou, (the accusative for the genitive) meaning “he saw His glory.” The use of the same phraseology makes the connection to the John [sic – Isaiah] 6 passage unbreakable.

8. Or, more likely, the term “glory” used in the LXX in verse 1.

9. Stafford insists that we look only at Isaiah 53 for the reference to John 12:41, but he does not deal with the verbal parallels to the Greek LXX. In fact, one will search in vain in Isaiah 53 for eiden/eidon being used with “glory”; and one will not find the phrase ten doxan autou or anything similar to it. The term “glory” only appears once in Isaiah 53, and that in a completely separate context. (Ibid., pp. 213-214)

FURTHER READING

THE UNCREATED WORD ENTERS CREATION

JESUS: THE I AM HE INCARNATE

Carmen Christi: A Reformed Perspective

BEYOND THE VEIL OF ETERNITY

JWS AGREE: ISAIAH SAW CHRIST!

JWS, PETER & CHRIST’S DEITY

NWT: A PERVERTED TRANSLATION