Replies

1. On Objections to ego eimi

There are so many other indisputable proofs of Christ’s full deity in Scripture I would almost be willing to let you have this one if you could only come up with a credible grammatical justification for doing so, but so far you have not. Let’s review the possible solutions:

A. Durative present in Greek rendered in English as a “Progressive Perfect.” This is what you are suggesting when you offer John 14:9 as your model solution:

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

However, this solution fails, because a durative present needs a connecting term of duration, often an adverb, that draws a continuous timeline between the two points in time being discussed. For example, in John 15

John 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

Note the syntax. This is literally “you are with me from the beginning,” which is good for the Greek reader but a bit awkward for the English reader, though not impossible. However, also note the duration connector “from” The disciples were there at the beginning, and they are still with him now, so “from then till now,” a classic durational expression.

The original Greek actually captures that idea more succinctly than the English, because the English does not have a durative present, so we have to improvise with our “progressive perfect.” But we can only justify doing that when the durative connector is present, as it is in the verse you suggested:

John 14:9 … Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?

… where a more literal rendering of the verb eimi could be

“Am I so long with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip?”

So you see, this is actually not too bad in terms of readability, and it preserves the present indicative of eimi. However, because there is a durational connector, “so long,” I can in good conscience use the so-called progressive perfect, “have I been,” reordered to account for the interrogative, to express duration.

But as you already know by now, there is no durational connector, no adverb of time, linking Abraham’s emergent existence with Christ’s timeless existence. In John 8:58, it’s all about contrast, not continuity. Therefore, the “durative present” solution fails.

B. Derive “I have been” as a “historical present.” However, this will not work either, because this is a dialogue, not a narrative, and eimi as a historical present is never in the Biblical text used in anything but the third person, regardless of the presence or lack of a preceding aorist infinitive (such as “Abraham came to be”).

C. Perfect indicative “I was.” But that would be impossible because there is no such tense for this particular verb, which also suggests that the language did not develop a strong need to use eimi as a perfect indicative anyway. This may be due to the availability of worthy alternatives (imperfect of eimi, and perfect of ginomai).

D. Find a really old manuscript in an Egyptian monastery somewhere that uses “ginomai” (“I came to be”) instead of “eimi,” because that would give you your inference of a beginning for Christ. However, we both know that is not likely to happen.

Conclusion:

Therefore, the best, most honest way to render John 8:58 is to be open about the disconcerting contrast in verbs:

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

This is most compatible with what is actually happening in the Greek, and it appears to be how the author wanted to be understood. Our “concern” for unmessy English cannot override God’s authority to say exactly what He wants to say, even if it is a bit attention-getting at times:

John 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

2. On an Excited Utterance, “My Lord and My God.”

In the law, a court may reject most kinds of hearsay evidence. But there are a few circumstances where some expressions are considered more reliable than others. One of these is the “excited utterance,” as it is called, where an individual just blurts something out under extraordinary conditions. The idea is this is really what the person is thinking, because they have had no time to prepare a calm and possibly less honest response.

Here we have an excited utterance of the highest order from Thomas, as he is confronted with what he thought was impossible, Christ alive again in the flesh:

Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. [28] And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Notice Thomas is not saying this to himself. To separate this exclamation from the person to whom it was clearly addressed is to do violence to the plain sense of the Greek. John, whom you recall wants to break us of our Gnosticism, tells us specifically that Thomas is saying this directly to the living Jesus standing before him.

But even without John’s helpful description, in Thomas’ own words we have the form of an address to a person, a vocative rendered as an articular nominative, which is a widely recognized idiomatic pattern used in the New Testament, the Septuagint, and classical Greek, as a valid form of personal address.

As for “seeing God,” neither Thomas nor any other believer in the deity of Christ claims that seeing Christ in the cloak of his human form is the same as seeing the Eternal One in all his heavenly glory, which if any man did see as a mere mortal, he would certainly die. As Pail says, we see now through a glass darkly, but a day will come when we will be able to stand before him and see him as he is, and not die.

(And not just 144,000 of us, but countless multitudes, all washed in the blood of the Lamb, all equal brethren in God’s house, because all saved by grace through faith alike, and not of works, lest any be tempted to boast.)

And does Jesus chide Thomas for this obvious and extreme offer of divine worship? Not at all. In fact, Jesus commends the faith of all those who will come later, who will not have the advantage of seeing Christ in person as Thomas did, yet in whose hearts will rise the same bright light of faith, and the same exact declaration of belief, which can only be made through the power of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus Christ is Lord.

3. On Exodus 3:14

I have already addressed how the connection between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 works. It is not direct, but runs through the Septuagint, and in particular a number of passages in Isaiah, where the Greek “ego eimi,” without “ho on,” is used repeatedly and formulaically of Jehovah. As that is more likely the context of Jesus’ Judean audience, that is also the probable source of their outrage at his clear declaration of eternal existence. They understood perfectly well what he was saying, and as I have demonstrated before, he never denied the charge of claiming to be God.

4. On Michael the Archangel.

I am still curious about whether you agree with the Watchtower Society that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, or perhaps some other named angel, and if so, what is your Scriptural case for that assessment. As I have provided you with extensive responses, and we are now into repeating patterns of questions and answers, I feel it would be only right and fair for you to answer my question.

Peace,

“In John 8:58, it’s all about contrast, not continuity. Therefore, the “durative present” solution fails.”

Uh, No. I have no objections to “ego eimi” as that is what the Greeks says. It's about context. As you've shown “eimi” or “este” if plural, although we read it as present literally in Greek it may be translated as that durative present (an action started in the indefinite past and continuing into the present.

So John 8:58, John 14:9, John 15:27 are all examples of the Greek using what would literally read as the present tense in English as a durative present. “have been” captures the sense of that durative present reasonably well.

“ego eimi” is one such durative as Jesus says he existed “from before Abraham” into the present.
Anyone who wants to read more theologically into that answer may but not based upon the language used.

There is no essential difference between “Have I been so long time with you” and “I have been from before Abraham”.
(John 14:9, 8:58)
Jesus doesn’t quote the LXX Ex.3:14 since it says, “Ego eimi ho on”, “I am the being (or one)”, he was talking about the time of his existence.

John 20:28.

Who is Thomas addressing? His Lord or His God, the Father?

He would not mistake one for the other even as Paul said there was “one God”, “the Father” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. 8:6)

Since Thomas was seeing the resurrected “one Lord, Jesus Christ not the “one God, the Father” whom no one can see, then Thomas exclamation would not imply he saw Jesus as deity.

Jesus “never denied the charge of claiming to be God.”

That's pretty thin. And as you're a lawyer I find it incredible that you would say such a thing.

4. On Michael the Archangel.

When I come back later today or tomorrow.