A simple refutation of the Arian translation of John.8.58b:
'Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I AM.'
The Lord Jesus' direct allusion to Exodus 3.14, on at least 20 occasions, is a lovely and distinctive feature of John's inspired record*. Some seem almost incidental, like John.8.23 and 24 or 13.19, where the pronoun is provided in the English to cover terse Greek expression. Others, like His glorious 'I Am' claims, are more insistent, many are accompanied by His emphatic Amen, Amen, I am the Good Shepherd, I am the Light, but Who is the Shepherd, Who is our Light? Are there two gods, as the Arians claim, at John 1.1? That would violate the very first of the commandments (Deut.5.6-7). Ps.23.1 and Ps.27.1 provide the mysterious answer, the Divine Name.
Lest we should confuse the Father and the Son as one person, the Lord distinguishes Himself, yet still alludes to the One Name, 'I am the way.. no man comes unto the Father, except by Me', Jn.14.6. His use of the Divine name to assert His supremacy over death and life, near the fresh tomb of Lazarus especially underlines the allusion, given the context of Exodus 3 (a dead man walking, in a dead land, with a dead people and a dead bush) when God's name revives Moses and Moses' people. 'I am the Resurrection and the Life, he who believes in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live', Jn.11.25b.
In all these texts, the Greek expression is the simple present tense, ἐγώ εἰμί.
The treasury of the Lord's Temple
The Jehovah's Witnesses in their New World Translation rob the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ in many ways.
Sometimes audaciously and overtly by calling Him 'a god', Jn.1.1, or by following corrupt manuscripts to steal His crown glory by merely suggesting 'He' rather 'God' appeared in the flesh, 1 Tim.3.16. Sometimes the theft is slightly less obvious, by inserting the word 'other' five times into the text, a word not found in any Greek original, to suggest, He, like all that He creates and sustains, is also a creation of God, in Col.1.15+. In all this they are treading a well worn path to perdition, first systematised and defended by Arius.
No allusion to Exodus 3.14 is as plain, or as emphatic as John 8.58. The Lord may well have been speaking in Hebrew, not His mother's Aramaic, nor in pagan Greek, just as Paul later did, also in the Temple courts, Acts 21.40 and with the same purpose, to better fix the hearers' attention, Acts 22.2.
Not for the first time is He criticised for making Himself equal with God, Jn.5.18, or claiming Divine prerogatives, to forgive sin Matt.9.2-6, to judge all men John 5.22, to give eternal life Jn.6.32-5, to receive Divine worship, honour and glory Mt.2.1, 8.2, 9.18, 14.22. For by His own power and holiness, He does act, Acts.3.12-3, Jn.5.19.
Yet here He asserts His absolute Lordship over lordly Abraham, to whom even Moses looks for merit and standing (Ex.32.13, Deut.9.27), His preeminence and priority over every other claim,not by mere virtue of His being, but by asserting the Divine Name, I AM.
In Hebrew the words would be the word 'Ahieh' אֶהְיֶה, the same word is repeated three times in Ex.3.14. The classic Hebrew dictionary, collected by the reviver of modern Hebrew, Eliezer Ben Yehuda, and his son Ehud, writes that the simple 1st person singular, present tense of 'to be', Ahieh אֶהְיֶה, is a 'Name of God'. The Greek text is explicit and it repeats the first phrase of Greek translation of Ex.3.14, with which the John's readers were familiar, 'ἐγώ εἰμί'.
It is therefore no surprise that in absolute fury at what they perceived to be blasphemous, the scribes and their associates took up stones to destroy the Messiah.
Their modern day heirs have learned a subtler method to extinguish His record. The Jehovah's Witnesses and their companions, translate the verse, "Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been." In many ways, this is as shocking as 'the Word was a god'. It robs the reader of the allusion to the Divine Name, destroys the Deity of the Son and strips Him of eternal preexistence, leaving His glory cast down in the dust, with the same kind of preexistence that created Gabriel enjoyed to Abraham.
Upon what bald pretext do the heretics destroy the very same Name, which they claim for their sect? Their footnote is apparent in the link.
Their main claim is John 14.9, where the same words of the Lord in Greek are translated, 'Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?'. The Greek is, 'I am with you so long time', but the expression would seem wooden and clumsy in English, so its intent is captured. In Luke 19.22, 'Thou knewest that I was an austere man,' which might well be translated as readily, but more literally, 'I am an austere man'. However in every other one of the 128 instances of the use of εἰμί, the present tense is used in the NT. Why then revert to the past tense and a participle for this instance? If past here, why then not translate Rev.1.11, 'I have been Alpha and Omega', upon consistent use of the same prejudice?
The attempt to confuse the Unity of Deity, with strict identity of the Father and the Son, is an old trick, it is a straw man representation of the mystery of the Biblical, triune Godhead. Col.2.2.
Greek often uses the present tense to bring the narrative to life, and the Watchtower cites instances where a Greek present is translated as a past, this is not pertinent to John 8.58. One other instance is worth examining. Jn.15.27, 'because ye have been with me from the beginning.' The words for you have been are you are in Greek, ἐστέ, indicating the different way in which Greek grammar treats the present from English. However notice that both this clause and the John 14.9 are used in direct apposition to an expression of time. In John 8.58 the clause 'I Am' stands deliberately and starkly alone, in contrast to its introducing clause, 'before Abraham was'.
Other arguments
Is the Septuagint a useful guide?
The Septuagint (often abbreviated as LXX for the fabled seventy translators) is a Greek translation of the Hebrew text. There are different versions. The Vaticanus translation of the relevant phrase of Exodus 3.14, 'I am that I am' is 'ἐγώ εἰμί ὁ ὤν', literally 'I am the One Who is being'. The translation is interpretative rather than literal.Yet the exact expression 'Ahieh' אֶהְיֶה is translated as 'ἐγώ εἰμί', 'I am', in both languages, the key expression the Arian and semi-Arian versions lack.
Is the Hebrew equivalent of 'ἐγώ εἰμί' 'Ahieh' אֶהְיֶה or 'I Am'?
The Israel Defence Forces' version of the Tenach (the OT) contains the same words for Exodus 3.14, אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה 'Ahieh asher Ahieh' 'I AM that I AM', with no lengthy explanation in the footnotes. It's clear for the new reader, as some soldiers are, that this is a sacred Name and the root of the Divine Name, no lengthy explication is needed. Why then, in English, translate it, without the present tense, as I was or I have been or in some non verbal manner?
Does the Aramaic translation of the New Testament, the Peshitta, add any light?
Aramaic was the Lord's mother tongue and probably also of His Galilean disciples. It is close to Hebrew and sections of the OT are in Aramaic. The Peshitta gives the text as 'ܐܡܝܢ ܐܡܝܢ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟܘܢ ܕܥܕܠܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܐܒܪܗܡ ܐܢܐ ܐܝܬܝ' The relevant phrase is 'ܐܢܐ ܐܝܬܝ' 'I AM', the first person pronoun and simple present tense of the first person singular. Any other tense or the removal of this verb is inconsistent with the Aramaic translator's understanding of this text.
Does translating it as anything other than 'I Am' promote the dignity and distinct lordship of Christ?
On the contrary, recognising the Messiah as YHVH is an acid test of discipleship, 1 Cor.12.3, Jn.20.28-9, as enquiry with modern day Arians quickly confirms, by their denial. Weakening this citation undermines the confession of Christ. Arian sympathies lead to its removal.
The Messiah's claim to the Divine Name, as God's unique and only begotten Son, is just and appropriate, as every true believer knows, Mt.28.19.
*Perhaps the Saviour also alludes to the Divine Name in Mk.14.62 and in other places in the synoptics.
A later thought on this question. Is it possible the Lord was using Hiphil not Qal for the expression 'I AM', uniquely in this passage?
It would be an even more direct allusion to His Deity.
Last updated 10/11/24.
An appeal written to brethren at the TBS and SDHS about their modern Hebrew translations.
Another simple correspondence with TBS (modestly redacted to anonymise). page 2
