The following will serve as a response to the article “I Am He” by Dr. John Ankerberg.[1]  All Scriptures are quoted from the New American Standard Bible.  All quotations from Dr. Ankerberg's article are indented. 

After a brief introduction, Dr. Ankerberg states the following.

In Isaiah 43:10, God says to Israel, "‘You are my witnesses,’ declares the Lord, ‘and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He’" (Hebrew: ani hu). "I am He" is a formula of a name that God uses to refer to Himself.

This is a heavy assumption about the Hebrew words ani hu.  These two pronouns are not unique and they are not a specialized form of Hebrew grammar.  In fact, one will not find any example within Scripture where these two words take on any type of unique meaning. 

The Hebrew word ani simply means I, while hu means he.   As a 3^rd person pronoun, hu naturally refers back to something within the context.  Within the normal, everyday use of a pronoun, it will refer back to something else, identifying the one spoken of by it.  To claim that this is some type of  “a formula of a name,” one must demonstrate that this pronoun falls outside of normal use so as to take such a meaning.  Dr. Ankerberg fails to provide any such demonstration.  

Reviewing Isaiah 43 we find that God has presented himself as the doer of many powerful works.  He identifies himself as the one that formed and redeemed Israel (vs. 1).  He has been their savior (vs. 2) and he has honored and loved them (vs. 3).  He is with them and he is the one that has formed them (vs. 7).  

After God identifies himself as the one doing these things he asks: “Who among them can declare this and proclaim to us the former things?”  God is asking if another can come forth and claim what he has claimed.  He calls either for somebody to be presented who can claim the works that he claims, or for them to confess that what he says “is true.” (vs. 9)

Examining verse 10 God uses ani hu, stating: “So that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he.”  Who is he?  The one doing all of those things that he claimed.  It is shown that no one else can make these claims so that they would understand for a certainty that he is the one who can properly make these claims.

You can find the ani hu used in Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:10, 13; Isaiah 48:12; and Jesus applied this title to Himself in Mark 13:6 and John 13:19.

Indeed we can find ani hu within those texts, but do they use the words as a divine name?  Dr. Ankerberg has not given any evidence in support of his position.

Considering Isaiah 43:13, the use of ani hu parallels what is seen in verse 10. God is claiming to be the one doing the things defined.  He is the one who has “declared and saved and proclaimed.”  The context, Isaiah 48:12, reads of God as the deliverer of prophecy.  Jehovah tells of how he warns his people but holds back from completely destroying them for the sake of his name.  Ani hu is used by God only to go back and identify himself as the one claiming to do these things. 

It is interesting that Dr. Ankerberg has seemingly changed from arguing that I Am is “a formula of a name” to a “title.”  One must ask what it really is supposed to be!  While it is true that Jesus made use of the Greek words egw eimi in the cited texts, it cannot be argued contextually that he used them as any type of title.  A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature confirms for us that the uses of ani hu in Hebrew and egw eimi in Greek by both God and Jesus are is not to be understood as a type of name or title, but that they are used with a predicate that is understood from the context.  This reference work states: “To establish identity the formula egw, eimi is oft[en] used in the gospels (corresp[onding] to Hebr[ew] ani hu Dt 32:39; Is 43:10), in such a way that the predicate must be understood fr[om] the context: Mt 14:27; Mk 6:50; 13:6; 14:62; Lk 22:70; J 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28; 13:19.”[2]

In Mark 13 we can determine the sense of egw eimi by consider the parallel text at Matthew 24.  Jesus stated that they would come saying, “I am he,” or “I am.” The predicate implied by the included “he,” as seen within the NASB, is “the Christ.”  Matthew 24:5 explains this meaning, saying: “For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ.”  John 9:9 uses egw eimi in a similar manner for the blind man, where there is no predicate, but the implied predicate, as seen from the context, is “the one who used to sit and beg.” 

An examination of John 13:19 is, if anything, more revealing than Mark 13.  Looking at verse 13 we read: “You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am.”  It is interesting that Dr. Ankerberg does not call attention to this verse as well, though perhaps he realizes that this would be damaging to his position.  When Jesus says, “for so I am,” he is referring to his being “Teacher and Lord.”  This is what he is and he is calling attention to this fact.  He repeats his claim in verse 14.  Beginning with verse 15 he provides for them “an example” of how they should act in view of how the one that is their “Teacher and Lord” acts.  He quotes from an Old Testament passage applying it to his situation prophetically, stating that he is “telling [them] before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, [they] may believe” that he is that one.  Who is he?  From the context, it would be their “Teacher and Lord.”  He foretells what will come so that they may believe that he is their Teacher and Lord.  Indeed, they have already accepted that he holds these positions, but this would come to serve as a confirmation of the fact.

It’s just like the "I Am" (‘Ehyeh of Exodus 3:14. Jesus applied this name of God to Himself in John 8:24, 28 and 56).

Now Dr. Ankerberg leaps from arguing that Jesus was meaning ani hu to arguing that he was also meaning the Hebrew verb ehyeh.  Which is it?  Perhaps Dr. Ankerberg has based his argument entirely upon the English wording of his translation.  If we follow the LXX at Exodus 3:14, Jesus certainly cannot be alluding to that text, for the words that identify God are ho wn, not egw eimi.  On the other hand, if we follow the Hebrew text literally, we would read in Greek esomai, the same Greek word used within the LXX when ehyeh is translated literally in Exodus 3:12.  As The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament shows, the proper translation is closer to “I shall be who I shall prove to be,”[3] not the “I am” that is provided by most English versions. 

In John 8:24 and 28 we find another situation that parallels what is seen in John 9:9 and 13:19.  Here Jesus states that they must believe that “I am he” or they will die in their sins.  Who is he?  Is this some type of proper name or title?  Nothing within the passage suggests that, though a clear predicate is provided within verse 12 that would be implied within these two verses.  There Jesus said: “I am the light of the world.”  This was a Messianic title (Isa. 9:2), showing that it was necessary that they believe that he is the Christ.   As for John 8:58, which Dr. Ankerberg mistakenly references as verse 56, this will be discussed later in this response.

God said, "I’m going to give prophecy. It will come true. And when you see it come true, you’ll know that I am God. I am He." You can find this same phrase (I am He–ani hu) throughout Isaiah in reference to God.

But when he says “I am he,” who is the “he” that God is speaking of?  Is it related to a “name” or a “title”?  Again, no.  Reading the text without a theological presupposition while applying normal rules of grammar and interpretation one finds that God is only claiming to be the one that delivers prophecy.

Now, knowing that, turn over to John 13:19. In John, Chapter 13, Jesus picks up on this and He says, "I’m telling you now"—He has just given some information about prophetic events—"I’m telling you now before it happens so that when it does happen, you will believe that I am" who? "that I am He."

Dr. Ankerberg is perhaps unaware that the pronoun “he” is added to the English translation of John 13:19 so as to provide a smoother English reading.  The sense is that the predicate is implied.  Contrary to Dr. Ankerberg’s claim, we find that the sense of “he,” that is, who he is, is seen within the context.  In the case of John 13:19, it is that he is “Teacher and Lord.” 

Who do you think the Jews thought Jesus was saying He was? There is no other way that you can get around that statement but to say that Jesus was saying, "I am the I Am, I am He." I’m the God who spoke to your forefathers in the Old Testament." Let me give you another one like that.

In the context of John 13:19 “the Jews” are not in view, so how are they supposed to have taken this a certain way?  Jesus was privately with his disciples. (Joh. 13:5)  They were Jews, but they were not “the Jews,” which is a term typically used for those opposed to Jesus.

They didn’t understand. "Jesus said unto them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.’ Then they took up stones to cast at him." Now, whenever I say a statement and the audience goes for the rocks to kill me, I always want to know, "What did I say?" Were they mad at Jesus because His grammar was bad? What did He mean when He said, "I am the I AM?" Okay? Here’s how you find out.

One cannot help but be absolutely amazed at the leap that Dr. Ankerberg makes.  Somehow, from Jesus’ words “Before Abraham was, I am,” we get that, “he said, ‘I am the I AM.”  We are supposed to be reading the text, not adding to it.

In context, the text is dealing with how Jesus could have seen Abraham’s day to know that “Abraham rejoiced to see [his] day.” (Joh. 8:56)  The Jews assume that Jesus cannot be 50 years old, and indeed, as a man, he was not yet.  So they ask how this can be.  What they do not understand is that Jesus existed before he became a man. (Joh. 17:5)  The sense of John 8:58 is properly defined by Kenneth McKay: "The verb 'to be' is used differently, in what is presumably its basic meaning of 'be in existence', in John 8:58: prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi, which would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since before Abraham was born', if it were not for the obsession with the simple words 'I am'. If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction.”[4]

Go back in the Old Testament to Exodus 3:14-15. Moses is standing at the burning bush. He’s out in the desert and God has just called him and said, "I want you to be the leader that’s going to take Israel out of Egypt." Moses is letting all this sink into his head and he gets a question. He says, "You know, when I get over there to the children of Israel and when I get over there to Pharaoh, they’re going to have a key question: Who sent you, Moses? And, God, I’d like to have a little idea of who you are and especially they’re going to say, ‘What is God’s name?’ So that’s the question Moses asked of God and the answer comes back, "And God said to Moses, ‘I Am who I Am and thus you shall say to the sons of Israel,’ "I Am has sent me to you."’" Who sent Moses? The I Am sent him. Furthermore, God said to Moses, "This is my name forever and this is my memorial name to all generations."

As was already mentioned, “I am” is not the best translation available for Exodus 3:14.  Recognizing this, it is difficult if not impossible to link Jesus’ words to this text, especially when no exegetical basis is given for such a connection.  The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia appropriately highlights the matter of this verse’s translation: "This has been supposed to mean 'self-existence,' and to represent God as the Absolute.  Such an idea, however, would be a metaphysical abstraction, not only impossible to the time at which the name originated, but alien to the Heb[rew] mind at any time.  And the imperfect 'ehyeh is more accurately tr[anslated] 'I will be what I will be,' a Sem[etic] idiom meaning, 'I will be all that is necessary as the occasion will arise... The optional reading in the ARV margin is much to be preferred: ‘I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE,’ indicating His covenant pledge to be with and for Israel in all the ages to follow."[5]  God was unwilling to define himself, so he used the verb ehyeh to show that he would come to be whatever was necessary.  The word was not a name or a title, but it was his way of revealing himself to his people.

With these points in mind, one must wonder why Dr. Ankerberg goes on to completely disregard the text.  He has edited the text to give it a meaning that is not there.  Notice what he states.

The I Am sent him. Furthermore, God said to Moses, "This is my name forever and this is my memorial name to all generations." 

It seems that Dr. Ankerberg wants his readers to belief that “I AM” is his “name forever.”  In fact, it is not.  Consider all of Exodus 3:14-15 from the NASB.   

14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" 15 God, furthermore, said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you ' This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations. 

Carefully take note of verse 15.  Is “I AM” what he says is “my name forever,” or something else?  We must recognize that “LORD” in capitals indicates that the divine name Yahweh or Jehovah is present.  This name, be it translated Yahweh or Jehovah, is his “name forever,” not “I am.”  What is provided in Exodus 3:14 is a revelation of God’s person, not a name or a title. 

Furthermore, from Acts 3 we can come to recognize that Jesus was not even the one speaking in Exodus 3:14-15.  It was his Father.  Notice this text:  

Acts 3:13 "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. 

Here we have an allusion to Exodus 3:15, where we are told of “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” and “the God of our fathers.”  Jesus is spoken of relative to this one, as “his servant.”  While Jesus may not always have been counted as a servant (Phil. 2:7), he would never have been the one to whom he is the servant of, which is the Father.  Therefore it is best to understand that the Father, not the Son or the Trinity, was the speaker in Exodus 3.     

So the Jews all down through the centuries, they realized that the memorial name of God was the "I Am" and Jesus said before Abraham was, I’m the "I Am." And they said, "That’s enough! Go for the rocks! He is claiming to be God!" Jesus claimed to be God in the absolute certain terms of the Old Testament that they knew. 

This is serious eisegesis on the part of Dr. Ankerberg.  Instead of allowing the text to speak for itself, he reads motivation into the attempted stoning that is never defined!  As is seen in Acts 3:13, Jesus was not the speaker in Exodus 3.  Would Dr. Ankerberg argue that Stephen claimed to be God when they picked up stones to kill him?  (Act. 7:56)  Or how about the Jews in their fear of being stoned if they denied that John’s baptism were from heaven?  (Luk. 20:6) 

Dr. Ankerberg’s article continues, but without the theological arguments here seen and so further review is not necessary. 

I am certain that Dr. Ankerberg is a fine person and that he is very sincere in what he believes, but sincerity does not mean that one is correct, as we can clearly see.  Hopefully these points will bring him to reevaluate his position on matters such as this before making improper arguments in the future.