The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his075/jw21.lzh/JW21.TXT

Text File | 1991-07-07 | 30KB | 471 lines

CUL:The meaning of "Ego Eimi" in the Gospel of John

Purpose and Meaning of "Ego Eimi" in the Gospel of John In Reference
to the Deity of Christ

   The Gospel of John has come under great fire in recent centuries for
its incredibly high Christology. On this basis alone certain
form-critics have rejected the book as having any historical
authenticity whatsoever, assuming (without foundation) that such a high
Christology could only have evolved after quite some time of
"theological formulation" and hence placing its writing well into the
second century. Fortunately, not all scholars share the same unfounded
presuppositions. The person of Christ as presented in John's Gospel is
indeed of an exceptionally high character - John asserts that Jesus is
"the Word become flesh" (John 1:14). He says that this Word is eternal,
has always been "with" God (pros ton theon) and indeed shares the very
being of God (John 1:1). John describes Jesus as the unique God
(monogenes theos) in John 1:18. He portrays Jesus saying that He is the
way, the truth, and the life - that man's very life and salvation is
dependent upon his relationship with Him (a claim nothing short of
blasphemy for a mere created being!), and the Gospel climaxes in
Thomas' confession of Jesus as his "Lord and God". Though the evidences
of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ are numerous in this book, one
set of these evidences has always fascinated theologians. Jesus
utilizes the specific phrase ego eimi of Himself frequently in John's
Gospel, and a number of times He does so in a pregnant way, not
providing any immediately identifiable predicate. John's recording of
these sayings is also significant, as he provides rather obvious
settings for these sayings, emphasizing their importance. Is there a
significance to this phrase? What is it's purpose and meaning? Does
this phrase present yet another aspect of the Deity of Christ? This
shall be the topic of the following investigation.

   Usage of ego eimi in the Gospel of John The specific phrase ego eimi
occurs 24 times in the Gospel of John. Seventeen of these times it is
followed by a clear predicate.1 Some of these instances would be John
6:35, "I am the living bread" (ego eimi ho artos tes zoes) or John
10:11, "I am the good shepherd" (ego eimi ho poimen ho kalos). 3 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" (ego eimi, ho lalon soi) which is strangely
reminiscent of the LXX rendering of Isaiah 52:6 (ego eimi autos ho
lalon). In 6:20 it seems to be a rather straight-forward
self-identification to the frightened disciples in the boat.2 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 usages, we are left with 7 usages that have been described as
"absolute".3 These would be John 8:24, 8:28, 8:58, 13:19, 18:5, 18:6,
and 18:8. It is these seven passages that make up the bulk of the
discussion concerning the use of ego eimi by John. For the sake of
accurate examination, the transliterations of these phrases are
provided below:

   John 8:24: ean gar me pistuesete hoti ego eimi John 8:28: tote
gnosesthe hoti ego eimi John 8:58: prin Abraam genethai ego eimi John
13:19: hina pisteusete hotan genetai ego eimi John 18:5: legei autois
Ego eimi John 18:6: hos oun eipen autois Ego eimi John 18:8: eipon
humin hoti ego eimi

   John uses this phrase of Jesus more than any other writer. The
phrase does occur in Mark 14:62-64 as well, however. It is to be noted
that in the above list, the phrase itself comes at the end of the
clause in each instance. This will have significance when the
Septuagint background of John's usage is examined. The main verses that
will undergo examination here are 8:24, 8:58, 13:19, and 18:5-6. In the
author's translation these passages read as follows:

   John 8:24: "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins,
for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." John
8:58: "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham
was born, I am." John 13:19: "From now on I tell you before it comes to
pass in order that when it does happen, you may believe that I am."
John 18:5-6: "They answered Him, "Jesus the Nazarene." He said to them,
"I am." And Judas also, the one who betrayed Him, was standing with
them. Therefore when He said to them, "I am," they went backwards and
fell upon the ground."

   Translation of ego eimi Before the exact meaning or significance of
ego eimi in John's gospel can be adequately addressed, the proper
translation of the phrase must be determined. There are a very small
number of translations that avoid a direct translation of the present
indicative ego eimi. Moffat renders it, "I have existed before Abraham
was born!" The Twentieth Century New Testament has, "before Abraham
existed I was." Kleist and Lilly have "I am here--and I was before
Abraham!" C. B. Williams gives "I existed before Abraham was born."
Schonfield renders the last clause "I existed before Abraham was born."
And the spiritist Johannes Greber (who claimed to get his translation
through a spirit medium!) has, "I am older than Abraham." The Jehovah's
Witnesses' own translation, the New World Translation, renders ego eimi
as "I have been". Allegedly many of these translations are viewing the
phrase as what Robertson calls a "progressive present". Robertson
writes,

   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., p. 119)...It is
a common idiom in the N.T. In Jo. 8:58 eimi is really absolute."4

   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. John 15:27 would be a good example: "because
you have been with me from the beginning." The verb, este, is in the
present tense, but the context makes it clear that it is in reference
to both the past and the present, or, as Moulton said above, it
"gathers up past and present time into one phrase." Robertson correctly
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 works5). 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 in this way would be in
error. So why should John 8:58 not be rendered in this way? Why do so
few translations follow this path? Because to so translate is to miss
the entire context and content of what is being said! The vast majority
of translators see, as many commentators do, that there is a clear
differentiation being made here between the derivative existence of
Abraham and the eternal existence of the Lord Christ. That this is
understood by the translators of our modern editions can be seen from a
look at the translations that render this phrase either as "I am" or "I
Am" or "I AM":

   King James, New King James, New American Standard Bible, New
International Version, Philips Modern English, Revised Standard
Version, Today's English Version, Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible,
American Standard Version, New American Bible, Douay, Young's Literal
Translation, Berkeley Version, Norlie's Simplified New Testament, New
Testament in Modern English (Montgomery), New Testament in Modern
Speech (Weymouth), Wuest's Expanded Translation, Amplified New
Testament, New Testament (Swann), Aldine Bible, Four Gospels (C. C.
Torrey), Confraternity Version, Four Gospels (Rieu), New Testament
(Knox), Concordant Literal New Testament,

   Anchor Bible, Rotherham, Holy Bible in Modern English (Fenton),
Bible in BASIC English, Better Version (Estes), Sacred Writings (A.
Campbell), New Easy-to-Read Version, New Testament for the New World

   This writer is not aware of a single version, produced by a team or
group of scholars, that renders ego eimi at John 8:58 in a perfect
tense. Even those who do not see here a reference to the Deity of
Christ (such as Barrett6) do not change the translation to something
else. Rather, many scholars rightly point out the same contrasting of
verbs as seen in the prologue of John (between the aorist ginomai and
the imperfect en) as well as the same kind of differentiation found in
the LXX rendering of Psalm 90:2.7 They also recognize that the response
of the Jews would be rather strong if this was simply a claim of bald
pre-existence. 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. The phrase was so understood by the early church as well. Irenaeus
showed familiarity with it as "I am"8 as did Origen9 and Novatian.10
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."11
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. Alford 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."12

   Old Testament Background of ego eimi An extensive discussion of this
topic is beyond the scope of this paper.13 Suffice it to say that the
position taken by this writer reflects a consensus opinion of many
scholars, that being that 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 the Hebrew phrase ani hu in the writings
(primarily) of Isaiah.14 It is true that many go directly to Exodus
3:14 for the background, but it is felt that unless one first
establishes the connection with the direct quotation of ego eimi in the
Septuagint, the connection with Exodus 3:14 will be somewhat tenuous.
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 usage of ani hu by Isaiah is
as a euphemism for the very name of God Himself. Some see a connection
between ani hu and Yahweh as both referring to being.15 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, "that you may know, and believe, and
understand, that I am He" (personal translation). In the LXX this is
rendered thus: hina gnote kai pisteusete kai sunete hoti ego eimi. In
John 13:19, Jesus says to the disciples, "from now on I tell you before
it comes to pass in order that when it does happen, you may believe
that I am." (personal translation). In Greek the last phrase is hina
pisteusete hotan genetai hoti ego eimi. When one removes the extraneous
words (such as hotan genetai which connects the last clause to the
first) and compares these two passages, this is the result:

   Is. 43:10: hina pisteusete ... hoti ego eimi Jn. 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 done this and carried it
through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD,
- with the first of them 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 references above, in verse 22 we read, "Bring in your
idols, to tell us what is going to happen. Tell us what the former
things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome.
Or declare to us the things to come..." 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,16 or ignore it altogether,17 the data seems strong that
this connection is intended by John himself by his usage.

   Johannine Usage of ego eimi - Interpretation 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, hence, 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! 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 theologies18 that are nearly unitarian, subordinationist,
or so enamored with naturalistic rationalism as to be
antisuper-natural. An interpreter who is unwilling to dismiss the words
of Scripture as simply "tradition" (and hence non-authoritative) 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. 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,

   "...the whole unhappiness of the Jews was not that they had sin, but
to die in sins...In these words, 'Except ye believe that I am,' Jesus
meant nothing short of this, 'Except ye believe that I am God, ye shall
die in your sins.' It is well for us, thank God, that He said except ye
believe, and not except ye understand."19

   But can the usage of ego eimi withstand that much weight? Though
being a "scholar" does not guarantee infallibility in judgment, it
should at least provide assurance of factual understanding. Given this,
the scholars seem to feel that it can. 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." (in a
footnote on same page:) "ego eimi in LXX renders the Hebrew ani hu
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 Yahweh (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)."20

   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 has 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

   This writer feels that there 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 correlation with 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 repeats the phrase in verse six to make sure that the reader
understands the reason for the soldiers' falling backwards. And why
would the soldiers fall backwards if not for the awesomeness of the
words of Jesus? Some of the naturalistic explanations brought forward
for this incident are so ludicrous as to be absurd. 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. It has been well said 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.

   Conclusion It could fairly be admitted that an immediate and
unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14 is
unwise. The connection that is much more properly traced is the one
given here, that of ego eimi/ani hu as found in Isaiah. The connection
between Isaiah and Exodus 3:14 is so obvious as to be undeniable. We
have seen that John uses ego eimi in more than one way - the majority
of the time providing a predicate. Even these are astounding in their
majesty in regards to the person of Christ. Here Jesus is said to be
the way, the truth, and the life; the light of the world; the bread of
life; and the good shepherd, each of which it should be noted, has
parallels to statements made by Yahweh in the Old Testament. But the
bulk of this paper has been devoted to those passages where the phrase
is used in a specific sense - in an "absolute" sense. Upon examining
these we have seen that they find their origin and background in the
book of Isaiah's usage of the Hebrew term ani hu and its translation as
ego eimi in the LXX. We have seen the close parallel between Isaiah
43:10 and John 13:19, both in form as well as thought content. We have
also seen how the context of the passages themselves - the setting and
teaching of the entire book of John - makes the identification of ego
eimi and its resultant presentation of the deity of Christ inevitable.
We have seen how John purposefully emphasizes these phrases, helping us
to grasp their significance. In closing, we might do well to look,
then, with this understanding in mind, at Jesus' words at John 8:24:
"unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." Jesus here
gives us the content and object of saving faith - faith, real faith is
that which comes to 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 about Him during this conversation most assuredly would not
have denied that He was a man - but that was not sufficient for faith.
Some had just 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 whom He says He is - the ego eimi - one
will die in one's sins. 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.

   1. These are: 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. 2. See F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John,
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1983) pg. 193. 3.
Philip Harner, The "I Am" of the Fourth Gospel, (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1970) pg. 4. 4. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New
Testament in the Light of Historical Research, (Nashville: Broadman
Press, 1934) pp. 879-880. 5. See A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the
New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1932) 5:158-159. 6. C.
K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John. (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1978) pg. 342. 7. See J. C. Ryle, Ryle's Expository
Thoughts on the Gospels, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,
n.d.) pg. 573 as well as A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New
Testament 5:159. 8. "Irenaeus Against Heresies" in Philip Schaff, The
Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers, 14 volumes. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1983), 1:478. 9. "Origen Against Celsus"
in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10
volumes. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1981)
4:463. 10. "A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity" in Roberts
and Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:624-625. 11. Chrysostom,
"Homilies on St. John" in Schaff, The Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers,
14:199. 12. Henry Alford, New Testament for English Readers, (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1983) 2:547. 13. See
Harner, The "I Am" of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 6-36. 14. 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: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1971) pp.
447, 473; by Merrill C. Tenney, The Expositor's Bible Commentary: John,
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1981) pg. 99; and by F. F.
Bruce, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing
Company, 1983) pp. 193, 288. 15. Morris, The Gospel According to John,
pg. 473. 16. M. James Penton, "The "I Am" Of John 8:58" in The
Christian Quest, Winter, 1988, pg. 64. 17. R. C. H. Lenski, The
Interpretation of John's Gospel, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing
House, 1943) pp. 614-615. 18. 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. 19. As quoted by Ryle,
Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, pp. 531-532. 20. Leon Morris, The
Gospel According to John, pg. 473. 21. B. B. Warfield, The Person and
Work of Christ, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950), pg.
60. 22. Ryle, Expository Thoughts, pg. 573. 23. Martin Luther, "Sermons
on the Gospel of John Chapters 6- 8" in Luther's Works, Jerislav
Pelikan, editor, (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959) pg.
365. 24. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, 5:158-159. 25. William
Hendrickson, New Testament Commentary: The Gospel of John, (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953) pg. 67.