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
- 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
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 works 5). 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 Barrett 6) 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 Origen 9 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
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
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
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 -
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 theologies 18 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
"...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
"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
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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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.
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.
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,
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.