The Gospel Truth about John 8:58:

Answering Additional Arguments against the Deity of Jesus

 

This addition to my original article on the meaning of John 8:58 was added to address an attempt to refute the points made regarding the Greek word contrast between the "genesthai" Jesus applied to Abraham and the "eimi" Jesus applied to Himself.

The argument, quoted in its entirety, goes as follows:

"It has been argued that if a non-Trintarian position were possible of Jesus' words, he would have simply said GINOMAI, as he did of Abraham, but since he did not, his use of EIMI denotes eternal existence. Yet those raising this arguement continue to fail in understanding the PPA construction. The PPA denotes a state of being in progress from the moment it commenced up until the point it is stated. If Jesus had said GINOMAI, that would mean he was continually in a state of "coming into being" instead of simply existing. His use of EIMI indicates that he has been in the state of EIMI (existence) from when that existence began (eternal or not), up until his point of saying it. Thus, this arguement is found to be invalid."

(quoted from now inactive Jehovah's Witness website which used to be located: http://www.scripturaltruths.com/deity/iam/).

Now I'm going to try to ignore the fact that the author of this view forgets that great scholars and grammarians, as quoted in my original article, have dismissed his view for centuries. I have some knowledge of this person's comprehension of New Testament Greek, and I know for a fact that it is barely beyond the beginners stage. He is simply unqualified to make the claims above, and it is the height of arrogance and pride to assume that all of the scholars quoted on this passage "fail to understand the PPA construction." But let's examine the three main flaws in the argument.

First, as I stated previously, it is not clear or conclusive that John 8:58 is an example of a PPA (present of past action still in progress). Second, it is clear that it cannot be a PPA in the traditional sense because it would not make sense in context. Jesus didn't have to tell the people in front of Him that He was in existence up to the point He spoke. That was obvious. So Jesus could not have been saying the obvious. They knew He existed. What they may not have known, and what we need to know, is the kind of existence Jesus was referring to. This was laid out in painstaking detail in my original article.

Third, and finally, the argument that if Jesus had used the Greek verb "ginomai" of Himself it would have somehow meant that He was "continually in a state of 'coming into being' instead of simply existing" is simply an example of an argument from weak Greek knowledge. There are ways in Greek to make a verb have a "continual" sense, but the aorist tense that is used of "ginomai" applied to Abraham is not one of them. For that you may use the perfect, the present participle, the present infinitive, the imperfect, or the participle form in general. You can change the form of "ginomai" so that there is no necessary "continual" state of coming into being. Thus the arguer displays, once again, that he simply is unqualified to make statements about advanced Greek grammatical principles. It is not our arguments that are "invalid."

What's even more interesting is the fact that the same Greek verb (ginomai) used in John 8:58 of how Abraham came into being (or was created), is also used to show how "all things" and the "world" were both "made" (ginomai, came to be) in John 1:3,10. Is it any wonder that Jesus did not apply "ginomai" to Himself in 8:58? Depending on the context, the verb "ginomai" implies created existence, and if Jesus had not been created, it would have been wrong for Him to use that verb in the context of John 8:58 of Himself. To drive this point home even more, let's look at what the great scholar of old, John Calvin, had to say about John 8:58:

"...But he uses different verbs. Before Abraham was, or, Before Abraham was born, I am. But by these words he excludes himself from the ordinary rank of men, and claims for himself a power more than human, a power heavenly and divine...the perception of which reached from the beginning of the world through all ages. Yet these words may be explained in two ways. Some think that this applies simply to the eternal Divinity of Christ, and compare it with that passage in the writings of Moses, I am what I am, (Exodus 3:14.) But I extend it much farther, because the power and grace of Christ, so far as he is the Redeemer of the world, was common to all ages. It agrees therefore with that saying of the apostle, Christ yesterday, and to-day, and for ever, (Hebrews 13:8.)...So that this saying of Christ contains a remarkable testimony of his Divine essence...Nor do I disapprove of the opinion of Chrysostom, that the present tense of the verb is emphatic; for he does not say, I was, but I am; by which he denotes a condition uniformly the same from the beginning to the end. And he does not say, Before Abraham was, but, Before Abraham was made; which implies that Abraham had a beginning."

As a Jehovah's Witness, his interpretations are colored by his ties to the Watchtower organization. That is why the assumption of an existence for Jesus that "began" must be injected into the quoted argument above. If Jesus is eternal like the Father, then it is obvious that He could not also have a beginning like a created being. All that I've said above can be confirmed by basic Greek grammars, whether done by trinitarians or not, as long as the non-trinitarians are not overly biased against the trinitarian position.

Let us be more diligent and thorough in our study of the Scriptures and their true meaning. That way, we can know the truth, and the truth can make us free; whether it is from our sins or organizations that bind us with half-truths and falsehoods in the name of God. More on this as the need arises. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to send an email. God bless. :-)