It is not imagination to compare passages. Scripture teaches us to do exactly that. “Comparing spiritual things with spiritual” ~1 Corinthians 2:13. The Bible explains itself, so related passages are not unrelated when they speak about the same claim. Jesus’ statement cannot be isolated from the rest of Scripture because John himself explains who Jesus is: “the Word was God… and the Word was made flesh” ~John 1:1,14. And the reaction of the hearers confirms the meaning, since they attempted execution for blasphemy ~John 8:59 with the law in ~Leviticus 24:16.
So using multiple passages is not desperation. It is the method the Bible gives for understanding the Bible. You are trying to fix the sentence instead of facing the claim. If Jesus only meant “I existed” or “I was,” nobody would pick up stones. Plenty of prophets existed before others. But the moment He said it, “they took up stones to cast at him” ~John 8:59. Why? Because the law required death for blasphemy ~Leviticus 24:16. They heard a man taking God’s name.
God said at the bush, “I AM THAT I AM” ~Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not say, before Abraham I was. He said, “Before Abraham was, I am” ~John 8:58. Not bad grammar. A divine claim. And this was not a one time misunderstanding. Again He said, “I and my Father are one” and “the Jews took up stones again” ~John 10:30-31. They knew exactly what He was claiming.
So the question is simple. Either they tried to execute an innocent man for no reason, or Jesus openly identified Himself with the LORD. John settles it: “the Word was God… and the Word was made flesh” ~John 1:1,14. The grammar debate exists to soften the verdict. The text gives the verdict plainly.
Well, you have your opinion and again you come back with even more scripture unrelated to the subject at hand, as if it is support and convincing. It is not. It does not change the truth dial reading.
If this is all you have to write on explicitly John 5:58 and its context that you have not really covered, them I think you are done here.
So, let me dd more on the subject that you should consider seriously before I move on.
From my other post let me add this pertinent paragraph....
So, if one applies the same grammar logic to John 8:58, the phrase “πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι” sets a past reference point—namely, before Abraham was born. The present tense “ἐγὼ εἰμί” is then shaped by that past reference to indicate that Jesus’ existence began before Abraham was born and continued into the present moment. The natural outcome in idiomatic English is “I have been,” “I have existed,” or “I have been in existence since before Abraham was born.”
The Context of Exodus 3:14, again:
Translators who prefer “I am” in John 8:58 often appeal to Exodus 3:14, claiming Jesus was echoing YHWH’s self-declaration to Moses. However, the phrase in the Septuagint is “ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν” rather than the simpler “ἐγώ εἰμι” of John 8:58. Furthermore, Exodus 3:14 addresses Moses’ question about God’s name, revealing that name in the next verse as “Jehovah” (Exodus 3:15). The Jewish religious leaders in John 8:58 did not ask Yeshua about the divine name; they asked about Abraham. Hence, the direct context of John 8
is not Moses at the burning bush but Yeshua’s extraordinary claim to have existed before Abraham was born. And by implication, yes, with other associated scripture, greater that him.
Additionally, if Yeshua had directly pronounced the Tetragrammaton or literally said “I am YHWH,” the text would likely be more explicit. The immediate thrust of John 8:58 is the statement that YHWH’s existence predates Abraham, not a direct recitation of the name revealed to Moses.
So why the Jews Tried to Stone Him..?
One might ask why the Jews picked up stones if Jesus was merely declaring preexistence. Jesus had, on multiple occasions, placed himself in a position that rivaled their religious traditions. In John 5:18, they sought to kill him for calling God his Father, making himself equal in authority. In John 8:58, he declares that he has been alive since before Abraham’s time, a stunning claim if they believed he was just an ordinary man. They deemed it blasphemous or outrageous that a man not even fifty could claim an existence dating back thousands of years. This was enough for them to consider stoning him. The text
does not say they exclaimed, “He used the divine name,” but rather that his statement was so offensive they felt it warranted immediate lethal action. The claim’s audacity was enough to provoke such a response.
[1]
Digressing a bit, as it's so important to understand this point...
Scholars and translations supporting "I have been," "I existed," or "I was" in John 8:58 emphasize that the Greek verb
eimi (ἐγώ εἰμι) in this context, when paired with the temporal clause "Before Abraham was born" (
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι), indicates a
state that began in the past and continues into the present. This grammatical construction is known as a
Present of Past Action (PPA), where the present tense verb denotes ongoing existence from a past starting point.
"I have been" is considered a valid and accurate rendering by scholars such as
Edward Goodrick and
Moulton, who note that the present tense in Greek can express duration from the past into the present.
"I existed" appears in translations like the
Living Bible and
Goodspeed, reflecting the idea of pre-human existence.
"I was" is used in some interpretations, though it may not fully capture the ongoing nature of the existence.
Now on the so-called 'Church Fathers'...
The early Church Fathers never explicitly linked John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I am") with Exodus 3:14 ("I am who I am"). This connection became popular only around the last 400 years, mainly due to
English translations and later theological interpretations.
The Claim:
The Church Fathers discussed
both John 8:58
and Exodus 3:14, but
never linked them together.
Gregory of Nazianzus, Irenaeus, Novatian, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian wrote about John 8:58 in the context of Yeshua’s existence before Abraham
but not as a declaration of equality with YHWH.
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Ananias, and Hippolytus of Rome discussed this passage in relation to (true one) God’s self-existence but never associated it with Yeshua's words in John 8:58.
Early writers did not connect his words w/ Exodus 3:14 even when discussing the
"I am" statements of Yeshua, and also because the English language was not yet invented yet, that did cause a ‘loop-hole’ and utter confusion with an incorrect translation of ‘I am.’
Why Didn’t They Link These Verses?
One reason is that in the original biblical languages,
the wording just simply does NOT match.
In the
LXX (Greek OT), Exodus 3:14 reads
"ego eimi ho ōn" ("I am the one who is")
But at
John 8:58, Jesus simply says
"ego eimi" ("I am" or “I have been”).
The phrase
ego eimi is also used
non-divinely in other places in the New Testament (e.g., John 9:9, where a blind man says, "I am he,” or John 14:9 where Jesus uses it just as he does at 8:58)
Since the wording in Greek was
not identical, early Christian writers didn’t see a strong linguistic basis for linking them.
The connection we see today has been influenced by later
English translations, which made "I am" stand out more prominently.
When Did This Connection Become Popular?
The explicit linking of John 8:58 w/ Exodus 3:14
only became mainstream about 400 years ago.
Reformation-era theologians began making more direct connections between the OT and NT to support Trinitarian arguments that were emerging.
Matthew Henry was one of the first well-known commentators to popularize this interpretation. (
Make no mistake; it is an interpretation)
English translations helped shape how readers perceived the connection, which reinforced the idea that Jesus' words in John were meant to echo YHWH’s words in Exodus 3:14.
Later...
[1] (ANDREWS, 2026)
