The first of these statements is the ordinary, secular use of “I am”
as a means of self-identification (4:26; 6:20; and 18:5), similar to the
English: “It is I.” It can also have the related meaning of identifying a
person with something. For example, in 4:26 it indicates that Jesus identifies
himself with the title the woman is discussing (that is, “I am the one you are
talking about”). In 18:5, Jesus responds “I am (he)” when the arresting party
says that they are seeking Jesus of Nazareth.
. . .
The instances that I would list as simple self-identification (4:26;
6:20 and 18:5) have been proposed at times by various other scholars to be
instances of the divine “I AM.” The fact of this disagreement indicates the
solution is not an easy one. However, in my view, to attribute 4:26; 6:20 and
18:5 to the divine use over-theologizes the language of the Gospel. If the
Gospel contained none of the statements that are clearly the divine use, there
would be no reason to think that 4:26 and 6:20 were instances of it.
Moreover, if we compare the uses in 4:26 and 6:20 with that in 18:6,
we see that all occur in a narrative setting. Yet the meaning of the instance
in 18:6 is absolutely clear and its utterance physically affects those who hear
it. There is none of this in 4:26 or 6:20. Are we to imagine that Jesus utters
the divine I AM to the Samaritan woman and there is no effect whatsoever and
that he utters it to the disciples and there is no effect on them? Yet when he
utters it to the soldiers who have come to arrest him, they are thrown to the
ground. That seems implausible. (Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John: Commentary
on the Three Johannine Letters [The Eerdmans Critical Commentary 3; Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010], 324, 326)
