What Did Jesus Mean When He Said, “Before Abraham Was Born, I Am”?

When Christ declared: “Before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58), was he referring to the statement in Exodus 3:14, “I am that I am,” and therefore identifying himself with the “Jehovah” of that context? This is the question we will explore in this article.

In John chapter eight, there is a heated debate between the Lord and a specific segment of the Jewish community. He proclaimed himself as the “light of the world” (v. 12), but the Pharisees rejected the truthfulness of his testimony (v. 13).

Christ responded to their accusation, asserting that his testimony was true and that he came from the Father (vv. 14-20). He continued by accusing them of sin, a state in which many would remain until death (vv. 21-24). The Pharisees pressed him about his identity, and he reaffirmed that he had been sent by the Father. Furthermore, he subtly predicted his own death. Nevertheless, he confirmed that God was with him (vv. 25-29).

Jesus’ claims produced faith in many (v. 30). The Savior encouraged these believers to remain in his word. In so doing, they would know the truth and, by it, be set free (vv. 31-32).

Some of these Jews continued to vigorously protest, appealing to their lineage from Abraham (v. 33).

A Blistering Rebuke

Then, in a blistering rebuke, Christ contended they were slaves of sin and that only the Son possessed the ability to free them. He rebutted their claim that they were Abraham’s seed, declaring that their determination to kill him negated their boast. If they were the “seed” of Abraham in spirit, they would not be on the bloody course they were currently pursuing. Their ambition to kill him revealed that their actual father was the devil, who himself was a murderer from the beginning.

Jesus challenged them to convict him of sin. Of course, they could not document such an accusation. He concluded by suggesting that their unwillingness to listen to him, as he spoke on behalf of God, was evidence that they were not “of God” (vv. 34-47).

The Jews lashed out at him in rage, accusing him of being a Samaritan and demon-possessed. Earlier, they had hinted that he was “born of fornication” (v. 48; cf. 41).

Christ again affirmed an intimate relationship with the Father and claimed that those who kept his word would never see death (vv. 49-51). The Pharisees heatedly retorted with the argument that Abraham died. Did Jesus claim to be greater than the founder of the Hebrew nation (vv. 52-53)?

The Lord again affirmed his relationship with the Father. He accused them of not knowing the Father and labeled them for what they were—liars (vv. 54-55). He then contended that Abraham rejoiced to see “my day; and he saw it, and was glad.”

How Did Abraham See Christ’s Day?

Abraham saw Christ’s day in promise and in hope (Gen. 12:7). In addition, however, the patriarch communicated personally with the pre-incarnate Christ at the time of Isaac’s offering (see “the angel,” i.e., “the messenger” of Jehovah in: Genesis 22:11, 15-16; Hengstenberg n.d., 80-91; Funderburk 1975, 162-163).

The Jews rightly concluded that Christ was claiming an existence contemporary with Abraham (v. 57).

The Significance of the Verbal Tenses

Jesus then announced: “Before Abraham was born [an aorist tense verb], I am [ego eimi, — a present tense form].”

Christ used different verbal tenses to make a specific point. As Lenski observed: “As the aorist sets a point of beginning for the existence of Abraham, so the present tense ‘I am’ predicates absolute existence for the person of Jesus, with no point of beginning at all” (1943, 670).

The contrast between the verbs was dramatic. Abraham had a beginning; Jesus, as the eternal Word (John 1:1), never did.

The hostile Jews grasped the significance of the Lord’s claim and took up stones to kill him. However, his “hour” had not yet come, and they could not take him (vv. 58-59).

It is almost certain that Jesus was identifying with the Old Testament appellation, “I am that I am,” when he used ego eimi in John 8:58. As Kostenberger observed: “Jesus’ language here echoes God’s self-identification to Moses in Exod. 3:14” (2007, 459; cf. Tenney 1981, 99; Wallace 1996, 531). Coffman noted that Jesus “presented himself as one with Almighty God no less than a dozen times” in this chapter (1974, 242).

I think it is fair to say that Exodus 3:14 is the most elaborate and emphatic declaration of God’s affirmation of his eternal self-existence to be found in the Old Testament (cf. also Psalm 90:2). While other “I am” texts in the Old Testament are important to this point, mainly scattered in the latter portion of Isaiah (41-52), they are not as pronounced as this hallmark declaration in Exodus.

It is quite reasonable, therefore, to conclude that when the Jews responded to Christ’s affirmation with such intense hostility, intending to stone him if possible, that his words ego eimi had brought to their minds Exodus 3:14, and they immediately drew the correct inference that the Lord was identifying with the divine nature.

Did Jesus Abuse the Context of Exodus 3:14?

A compelling case can be made for the view that the divine Being who addressed Moses from the burning bush as the “I am” was the pre-incarnate Christ himself. In this context, the speaker is identified as “the Messenger of Jehovah,” “God,” and “Jehovah” (see above with reference to Genesis 22:11ff; see also Rawlinson 1961, 55ff; Laetsch 1956, 409-410).

If the Lord was identifying his use of ego eimi with Exodus 3:14, the abbreviated expression alone, lifted from the longer construct, was sufficient to make his point.

What many do not recognize is that when Christ (and the New Testament writers) quoted from the Old Testament, they were at liberty to:

• quote from the Hebrew text;
• cite the Greek translation (LXX);
• paraphrase either;
• employ a combination of both; or,
• abbreviate a text

An excellent study of these procedures is found in The Quotations of the New Testament from the Old Considered in the Light of General Literature. Professor Franklin Johnson of the University of Chicago wrote this scholarly work in 1895. Beale and Carson have edited a modern counterpart (see Sources).

The New Testament writers could and did, at times, frame an altogether new translation, intentionally changing words from the Old Testament text to make a unique point within a New Testament context. It was not uncommon at all for an inspired person to extract a limited phrase from a longer context when such was sufficient to make his point.

It ever must be emphasized that they were operating under the supervision of the Holy Spirit, who can modify his own words as he pleases.

Therefore, if Christ extracted a segment from Exodus 3:14 and applied it to himself in John 8:58, he did not need to explain to his audience that his use of ego eimi did not reflect the full complement of words found in the Exodus passage.

Therefore, when a preacher calls attention to the fact that the expression ego eimi is found in both Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58, with the same design in both passages, i.e., a declaration of the eternal self-existence of deity, he has not erred. He is quite within the framework of respectable biblical interpretation.