The Divine Name?
And God said to Moses, I am the one being. And he said, Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, The one being had sent me to you. Exodus 3:14 LXX
I am the one being – Hinneni. “Here I am” is the common Hebrew expression for humbly identifying oneself in conversation. There is a Greek equivalent. Ego eimi is the Greek expression for self-identification. We find it in the mouth of Judas (Matthew 26:25), Paul (1 Timothy 1:15) and John the Baptist (John 1:27). Notice that the translation of this Exodus passage in Greek (the LXX) employs ego eimi. But ego eimi is not the divine name. That’s why the translators of the Hebrew text in the LXX added the Greek words ho on, rendering the expression “I am the one” or “I am the one being.” The addition of ho on was necessary in order to distinguish the common identifier from the special case associated with YHVH.
Here’s the point. Ego eimi is no grounds at all for the claim that when Yeshua uses it he is declaring himself to be God. Consistent exegesis of the phrase would require that John, Paul and Judas were also making the claim and that is obviously not true. And the Greek text of the New Testament does not add ho on. So why do some theologians suggest that in this instance Yeshua is employing the divine name? Because they read the text according to a theological commitment. What’s even more important is that the Greek rendition of the divine name is not ego eimi. Furthermore, “I am that I am” is not the proper translation of the Exodus passage from Hebrew. The Hebrew is a future tense, so that the statement from YHVH “was not intended as a name, but as a declaration of the certain fulfillment of all the promises of God.”[1] We can think of this in the context of Moses’ request for God to provide him with proof that he is actually being commissioned. YHVH replies, in effect, “After you have done what I ask you will know that I sent you because you will end up right here again.” The “name” is an announcement of fulfillment. As we have noted in the past, the Paleo-Hebrew combination doesn’t yield YHVH. The Hebrew is ehyeh asher ehyeh, literally Aleph-Hey-Vav-Hey). It’s difficult if not impossible to conflate the Hebrew announcement with the Greek identifier.
What did Yeshua mean when he used ego eimi? How about this: “I am the one you are speaking to (about).” That’s precisely the use of the term in John 4 when he addressed the woman at the well. He claims to be the Messiah, not to be God. Isn’t it likely that the same logic should be used when we read the other so-called “I AM” statements? Would any Greek reader in the first century (let alone any Hebrew speaker) think that ego eimi was a divine appellation? Obviously, not. So we must ask, “Why do some Christian apologists use this argument for the divinity of the Messiah?” The idea started somewhere. Do you know where?
Topical Index: ego eimi, I am, divine name, John 8:24, John 4:26
[1] John Pye Smith, Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, p. 161.
“The idea started somewhere. Do you know where?”
Not Neil Diamond?
( btw I hear he has Parkinson decease – a prayer for him should be welcoming)
Hi Guys. Please excuse my ignorance here as this is probably elementary for most of you. In light of the “one being” concept, what is the significance of the multiplicity expressed in Genesis 1:26 (“Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…” ). Thank you for your insights.
Take a car.
The Greek will see an item of steel.
The Hebrew will think transportation.
The Greek may call the car “GOD”, and erect an image of this idol.
The Hebrew will understand the car to be Abba; the fuel to be Ruach; the driver to be Messiah.
I think I am riding with Pieter on this one. It sounds like he might be getting somewhere.
Suggestion: Read all the Today’s Word entries for that verse and the surrounding ones on the web site. You can search for all of them on the home page. You can also look at the JPS Torah commentary on Genesis.
Possibly the Divine council. See Michael Heiser’s book The Unseen Realm.
No, I don’t know where. It is disturbing to realize, once again, that we have believed and taught things so blindly. The more I learn from you and others, the more complicated things get and I’m seriously wondering how one decides what to believe about certain issues, especially about the person of the Messiah. My question when listening to teachings or reading your TW’s is always, “What do I do now? How do I practically apply this in my life?” If Yeshua isn’t God, isn’t divine, how do I relate to him? Do I relate to him (talk to him, praise him?) or only to the Father? If he is “only” human, how can he say “lo, I will be with you always?” etc. etc. So many questions…Can we talk more about how we actually apply what we learn?
I decided to listen to Yeshua self on these questions.
There is only one good…. God.
Trust in God and trust in me.
As God sent me so do I send you.
The works I have done even greater you will do…
Do not kneel before me to worship me for I am a fellow servant, there is only one worthy of worshipping… God
That from the New Testament.
Anyone teaching something else may only be teaching half truths…
I learnt to accept that obedience to His teachings are not worshipping him but accepting that he is a true shepherd if I may add the only true one. He is the vine everyone else…
He is the way, the truth and the light… We do not worship these instruments we use them to safely walk our steps of faith…
Hi seeker
Your reference to:
” Do not kneel before me ..,,,”
Do you believe that was Yeshua speaking in Rev :19?
Maddie that is how I read the prophetic reason. But given if I read it in conjunction with chapter 22 the it seems as if it is referring to an angel. I do stand corrected thank you for the question.
Seeker, I read it as referring to an angel, too.
I and many others have had this same challenge, I.M. My response is to keep at it. As time, focus and effort in understanding builds and progresses you will arrive at some conclusions. Then again, hopefully, it will open you up to your own self generated questions. My background (Protestant stuff, mostly Baptist with the big (E)vangelistic flavor pretty much taught me to look only for black and white, clear, unassailable answers. The method and system of learning what Scriptures had to offer entailed putting everything in the Baptist Faith and Message in a box and defend it to death along with opposing and branding everything else for the devil, satan or from hell. By the way, that pretty much explains why it took me so long to realize I was so confused, frustrated and drab in my life. It is very hard work that many of us simply don’t want to invest. We want easy answers. Reading Scriptures to show ourselves approved is very, very, very hard work! Tenacity and faithfulness will eventually yield some comforting yet challenging results that find their way in to the practical part of life. Usually always included in sharing my journey’s story is that all the ‘stuff’ I had on my table of beliefs was thrown off the table and on to the floor. Methodically, painfully, and always with a struggle I picked up each item (doctrine, belief, idea) I formerly ‘bought’ and re-examined them one at a time for ever how long it took. Over time, I’ve eliminated much clutter. To conclude this story, I have much less remaining on my table now. Interestingly, however, is that the smaller pile of stuff, much more understood, now provides a much more solid and reliable amount of understanding that really does help simplify the whole challenge in life. I kept the good stuff and trashed the bad stuff.
Hope that helped a little.
Thank you Seeker and Michael. I appreciate your comments. The struggle is very real for many of us and that’s why it’s so important that we share how this new understanding affects our every day living. In my understanding, that’s what discipleship is all about.
I’m pretty sure it says “hayah asher hayah” or “I am that I am”, and not “hinneni” “here I am” in Ex 3:14.
It could also mean “I am what I am” or “I Am Who I Am”. But, I agree, it’s not hinneni, here I am.
As far as Yeshua’s use of ego eimi in John 8:58, I think the text is pretty clear, in context. Yeshua knew exactly what He was saying, as did those who wanted to stone Him. Very simply, before Abraham, “I was”, or “I existed”. That places Him on a Divine/Deity level at least and as an equal at best.
As a top-notch scholar I know says, “Words in themselves don’t really carry meaning. Meaning in context has words” Tim Hegg.
Hegg is absolutely correct. I’m working on a long comment in response to this TW, but I’ve got a lot of other things going on simultaneously at present.
Mark a question for you. If this verse in John 8:58 has such obvious meaning that Yeshua is claiming to be deity (a profound statement to a monotheistic audience including his own disciples), then why did Matthew, Mark and Luke ignore it? Also why does this obvious declaration not come up as a charge against Yeshua at his own trial… in fact the ONLY charge filed against him in court was the comment related to the destruction of the Temple.
I guess I would have to ask you. Are you trying to say that the witness of John loses credibility because it isn’t repeated by the others? If that’s the case then we’d probably have to toss the whole book because there are MANY things in it that aren’t in the other three.
I would also have to say that it appears apparent none of the disciples that we have writings from seemed to think there was a conflict in their monotheistic views. I mean they called Yeshua Kurios theos or theos many times. I know we sometimes like to discount that fact but, it is what it is and it says what it does even if we don’t like it or aren’t “getting it” ourselves. We simply don’t see that conflict in their writings.
As to the charges against Him. Well, for one thing, the Priesthood couldn’t very well risk killing Yeshua themselves, for any reason, so they had to appeal to the Roman law to get it done. IMHO what put the decision over the top was the claim Yeshua was the King of the Jews. Rome wasn’t gonna let that pass. They weren’t going to stand for another King, or Deity for that matter because Caesar was thought to be both. In fact, it was said they didn’t find any technically “legal” fault with Him. So, yes, the King/Deity issue was what it was about. So, yes, I think both those reasons played a big part.
I have a lot of “Greek” trouble with the chronology of John 8:58 (and later) that attempts to establish the equivalency of Yeshua with God as being the primary point upon which to make this case. This is not “one of MANY things” as you say. Yeshua as God would be a big thing, probably the BIGGEST thing of all to all the Jews, then and today. If that is the case, how could the other Jewish Gospel writers simply downplay or sidestep this in such a cavalier fashion? Why would they be content to leave it as if “unknown” to them or to be “revealed” later in this obtuse fashion, as John was the last Gospel to be written and there are no extant original writings of John?
Not very “professional”, credible or convincing to me.
What I meant was, it was one of many things that aren’t in the synoptic gospels. One could say that about all the books/letters though. However, that certainly doesn’t discredit them. That was my point on that. Textual criticism, I believe, shows it to say what it does. That’s MHO anyway.
I have zero struggle anymore with the fact and reality the Apostolic text we have was written in Greek. And those that wrote them didn’t seem to have either. We should take it for what it is.
I personally have no issue with you or anyone else that has trouble seeing Yeshua as God. I’m of the opinion that it isn’t something people are just gonna “get” by means of explanation. As unpopular as it may be here, I believe it’s something that’s shown. Not because someone is special but because someone seeks to search it out, studies it for themselves and earnestly pray about it. That’s not a cop-out or an attempt to avoid/evade. It’s just been my personal experience. Because yes, I absolutely struggled with it and studied it for quite some time. Personally, I think it has a lot to do with peoples definition of words/terms and traditional meanings attached to them. I really dislike the word Trinity but I also understand how they got there. To me, it’s clear from the beginning of scripture. And it’s obvious in the way translators had to struggle with translating the plurality of the word Elohim in Gen 1:26 ff.
Mark, I come from a long RCC background of decades of Trinity acceptance and heavy personal involvement but after trying to reconcile my concerns with extensive reading of the background behind the decisions of the 4th century RCC and personally knowing and understanding the politics of the RCC today up close and personal AND the power of the Roman Empire which was beginning to crumble, eventually I had to bet on one horse. The division between the Roman and Orthodox Churches and our alienated parentage with Judaism sealed the deal. Our first world western culture of power and glory ruled then as it does today!
If you want to understand the truth about anything, follow the money and the power and the glory. They don’t talk, they shout! Especially when you control the message and the media, it always has, almost always will. Luther would agree on this if nothing else.
This may not be biblical but this is my reality and I am very happy here with Skip et al.
I’m extremely thankful to not have had to cast off RCC or any church baggage. And to be very clear, I have the utmost respect and love for Skip’s journey, him as a person, this blog and those that participate in it. Or I wouldn’t do what I do here.
I totally get the 4th-century struggles and have looked at it quite a bit.
That said though, this wouldn’t be a place where people could really work out or talk through the awesome struggle of walking out our faith from a biblical worldview if we didn’t have diversity, differences of opinions and some respectful conflict. Heck, in my community, it can get fairly brutal sometimes but, we still love each other plus it helps to grow and mature.
The truth of the matter is, none of us would be here if it weren’t for all those different aspects bringing us to this point. I personally am very thankful for every single difficulty, problem or adversity my King has seen fit to bring me through in this life. And have learned to love who He has created me to be right now as well as look forward to seeing that progress in the future.
May we all learn to love the struggle and the journey.
I like your response about the ‘brutal’ aspect. I yearn for an environment where everyone is safe to get down and brutal in fighting to understand the truth without people getting all teared up, mad or leaving with hurt feelings. For the most part we’ve all mostly grown up as fragile twigs rather that sharp, swinging and ready a sword fight to sharpen the edges. THEN, after everyone is done, to be able to go chill out and have dinner together or whatever, friends to the end. More times than not, those arguing and presenting their cases haven’t truly studied up enough to speak intelligently enough to even had a sword sharpening drill. As soon as someone disagrees many just object, cry and leave never to return to the arena of discovery. It’s frustrating. Just gotta keep looking for people ready to walk the path of discovery with you.
It could better be described as “heated”. I’m very blessed to be in a community where most are very educated in the languages, history, culture and scripture. Like anywhere though people can maintain believes very strongly and passionately. As I think we should if, in fact, we’ve put in the work to search it out. But, yes, topics and conversations can get “heated”. Personally, I like that 🙂
There’s a difference between a congregation and a community. In a community, I honestly don’t think you get the option to just leave whenever you feel like it. If God has placed you then that’s where you are. Granted some things can happen where it’s probably best to leave but by an large, there just shouldn’t be too many things that can’t get worked out. Whereas in a congregation your not really that committed to it and may bounce from one place to the next every time something happens or comes up you don’t agree with. IMO, in those cases, it’s normally not the “community”, it’s probably the person.
But, yes, I’m very fortunate to be where I am. And I know how valuable that is. Over 4 generations and probably 95% or better have been homeschooled.
Don’t get me wrong though, we still have serious issues come about. We’re humans living in a fallen world and we’re not by any means exempt from every form of problems touching us, and it has. But, we go on, by the grace of our King to live to fight another day. Most are committed to seeking generational community. L’dor v’dor, from generation to generation.
For the record, I didn’t press the disagree button, just sayin… 🙂
LOL. I must have hit a nerve with at least two people though. I was not trying to offend. I thought I was simply asking a couple of questions. In my own journey years ago I was surprised that the sermons in the book of Acts given by Peter and the others exclusively talk about Messiah coming… that God sent him. Given that I was raised as a Baptist I would have expected a dramatic endorsement of the pivotal point in all history… that God Himself became a man (and in so doing as one pastor said “sent Himself”. ) Then I was surprised in my reading of the three Synoptics that none of them in my opinion argued that point. Rather they keep saying that Messiah came. So I found it interesting to read footnotes on John’s gospel that Yeshua/Jesus was repeatedly claiming that he was God. Then I wondered why at the end of John’s gospel he makes his case in summary that Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel not that he is God. If Yeshua had made all these claims to deity I wondered also why it was not raised at his trial. I came to the conclusion after years of personal study that none of the disciples would have agreed with Trinitarian doctrine at all. That is just my own conclusion. But I did ask in good faith why the three gospel writers who wrote some thirty years before John would not have mentioned Yeshua’s deity. Surely this is not a trivial point at all… and in my discussions with Jews it turns out to be THE absolute divide. Jews I have spoken with can understand the idea of agency but refuse to subscribe to God-man status for Messiah; then I noticed that twice in the book of Acts that Greeks proclaim a man to be god…Herod and later Barnabus and Paul but not the Jews. For the record I love the gospel of John. However I believe it rests on the same Torah foundation that the other writings do. I do intend to keep searching, studying and praying about these things… and trust my comments or questions do not offend anyone in the process.
You haven’t offended me, HSB. I think this discussion is absolutely vital, at the level that it is being held at – and your above questions are honest and earnest and reflect the issue at hand as far as I can tell (I am WAY behind on this one and scrambling to catch up) – and that people of good will should have been doing it all along, too.
I want to thank Skip for paying dearly to have it, too, as I know he has, and I also want to thank all here who have enough gumption in their convictions to not have to stand in a herd, either. If we can’t wrestle this to ground with prayer and love, who will?
Agree, 100%! This topic and this conversation are good and necessary. I hold the position that the entire text is to be struggled over. And we should learn to love that struggle. I think so anyway.
HSB, you certainly haven’t offended me. I took your questioning me in earnest.
Mark, this is a follow up to your comments and questions raised Jan 28 2:54pm post. I am cautious to post this since I received four thumbs down to the posting to which you replied. I thought a thumbs down meant offensive remark, more than simple disagreement. I did appreciate your following comments to me and Laurita. So what I share is again offered with respect.
I believe John’s gospel is a wonderful book. Clement of Alexandria said it filled in gaps in the other gospels. They had already been in circulation for approximately 30 years when John wrote. I don’t think the records all need to be the same. Yeshua taught some 40 plus parables. None of them are recorded in John… they had already been addressed by the others. On the other hand six of the seven miracles outlined in John are not reported in the other gospels. I am thankful John shared details to give us an even more comprehensive view of Yeshua’s ministry. Yet it remains that John is the ‘go to’ book used by Trinitarians. I have wondered why the earlier gospel writers focused on Yeshua as Messiah not on him being God… that information would have been a huge ‘game changer’. Personally I think even John focused on the Messiahship not deity of Yeshua. In John 11:27 Martha declares Youare the Messiah, The Son of God. That is the complete messianic title. She adds He who comes into the world. My NAS Bible is trinitarian but it reports for this last phrase The Coming One was the Messianic title. I don’t think Martha believed that Yeshua was actually God standing in front of her… but she certainly believed he was the Messiah of Israel.
You said They called Yeshua Kurios theos or theos many times. Can you help me with this. I am only aware of two places in NT where theos is connected with Yeshua. (Thomas in John 20:28 and Heb 1:8 which is quoting Psa 45:6 the coronation of the king). We could discuss those two references if you wished.
I completely agree with you that the religious authorities played up the Insurrection card with the Romans.
Thanks for your consideration of these comments/questions… and also for the tremendous work you do helping Skip and this website. God bless you for your efforts!
HSB,
I can provide a simplified answer. The Gospel of John has a different emphasis, and the reason given for execution is provided in John 19:7, which, paraphrased, is, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, for he made himself the Son of God” (cf. 5:18; 10:33; and also 8:58).
Craig: When the same religious officials said to Pilate We have no king but Caesar it was their attempt to paint Yeshua as a insurrectionist for which he subsequently was crucified. So when they say He made himself the Son of God the same thing is in play. Only Caesar was understood to be the Son of God by Roman authority…others were challengers to the throne. The religious leaders are less than pure in their motives here. As I have been informed on various occasions it was never a capital offence in Judaism to claim to be Messiah, the Son of God. That is the full title.
So, if being the Messiah = being “the Son of God”, then what was the issue in John 5:18 in which Yeshua was “calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”? The exact same verbiage for ‘making himself’ is found in the Greek in 19:7. And if Messiah = “the Son of God”, then why didn’t the narrator state that Yeshua’s interlocutors in 5:18 were offended by his implicit Messianic claim?
I’ve also read here a while back the claim that everyone is “a son of God”, so a claim that Jesus was “the Son of God” is nothing special. I’m not saying you’ve made the claim (I don’t recall who was making it), and I’m presuming you see a distinction. What exactly is that distinction?
Craig: here is a quick response typed on a very little keyboard in Mexico…. I also believe there is a distinction between a son of God and The Son of God. There were lots of anointed ones (Messiachs) but there is only one who is The Messiach. Kings like Solomon were anointed and God even refers to that relationship in terms of sonship. Yeshua is clearly The King of Israel and The Messiah and The Son of God. But none of these terms make him actually God. My understanding of John 5:18 is that the leaders resented Yeshua using personal terminology about Father when they only used collective “our Father”. The equality does not mean that Yeshua=God as meaning exactly the same… rather I think it has to do with authority and relationship. To me it is interesting that they never raise the issue of equality with God at the Sanhedrin trial.
Since my comment will be very long, I figure it’s best to break it up into two. While I continue working on the next part, here’s the first.
The transliterated hinnēnı̂, as found in Genesis 22:1,7,22, is given the gloss “behold!” in my software, and is defined in HALOT as a “deictic and interrupting interjection”, specifically meaning in these contexts “(someone who has been summoned announces his presence): Here am I!”. The LXX translates this Idou egō, which is an interjection followed by the pronoun “I”, and in its most literal sense, means “behold I/me!”. Both the Hebrew and the Greek are verbless.
The Greek egō eimi is a pronoun followed by a verb, meaning “I am”. By itself, the verb eimi means “I am” or “I exist”, for all Greek finite verbs also encode person and number. Thus, when the verb is preceded by egō it is usually emphatic: “I am”.
In English sometimes a person may simply say “I am” in response to a question, with the idea that the completion of the thought (the assumed predicate) comes from the context. For example:
This is what is at play in Matthew 26:25 and 1 Timothy 1:15 (John 1:27 does not really apply here, as it is switched eimi egō, and the egō may not even be original, i.e. there is a textual variant). In Matthew’s context, Yeshua had already stated that the one who dipped his hand into the bowl would be the betrayer, to which Judas responds mēti egō eimi, rhabbi, which is most literally “I am, Rabbi?!” [The initial word in this phrase, mēti, is a marker of a forthcoming question.] In classic Yeshua style, he replies sy eipas, which, in its most literal sense, means “You said”. In each case we would fill in the blanks thusly:
Judas: I am [the one who will betray you], Rabbi?!
Jesus: You said [it].
In 1 Timothy 1:15, Paul is calling himself “chief” sinner, but he doesn’t actually use the word “sinner”, as it is assumed from the context: hōn prōtos eimi egō: “of whom first/chief/preeminent I am”. This should be understood “of whom I am chief [sinner]”.
In John 4:26 we find egō eimi, ho lalōn soi = “I am [Messiah, called Christ], the one who speaks to you”. This context is not one ever used—as far as I know—to purport Christ’s divinity. But John the Gospel writer has a penchant for using double entendres, and he uses various “I am” statements with this in mind.
We find this in 8:24 and 8:28. In both cases, in my NIV 1984 the translators fill in the predicate with subscripted brackets: “I am ˻the one I claim to be˼”. In these instances, the predicate isn’t quite as easy to discern, to mentally ‘fill in’. The antecedent seems to be in 8:12’s “I am the light of the world…light of life”, plus the intervening context. Is John alluding to “I AM” here? It’s not definitive, but it’s possible. I submit that this provides a precursor to 8:58.
Continuing from January 28, 2018 5:15 pm:
In transliteration—copied directly from my software—the Hebrew in Exodus 3:14 is ʾehyeh ʾᵃšer ʾehyeh (like the TW). According to HALOT, the verb here means “to be, become”, and in the context of Ex. 3:14 means “with predicative: I shall be who I shall prove to be”. Now, I don’t know Hebrew, as I’ve stated here, but this seems to carry some interpretative element, as “prove” is not in this statement at all. Perhaps “I shall be who I shall be” is more accurate. But, then again, I see this in online interlinears as “I am who/that I am”.
In the LXX this is rendered Egō eimi ho ōn. We’ve covered the first two words above. The last two are the Greek article followed by the present active participle of eimi = being, existing. These form the predicate to “I am…”. These latter two words are sometimes used to open a dependent clause, carrying the idea “the one who is…” such as in the disputed clause at the end of John 3:13, which reads “which/who is in heaven” in the N/KJV, though it’s absent in the newer versions, because of a textual variant. In any case, the LXX of Ex 3:14 can be understood:
I am the one who/that which is existing
I am the one who/that which exists
I am who exists
I am the being/existing
The phrase “the one who/that which” above is an English accommodation in translating the article ho.
If we go further in Exodus 3:14, we find ho ōn yet again, just after “sons of Israel”: “The one who is has sent me to you”. Or, “The one who exists…” Or (clumsily), “The being/existing…” You probably get the idea. Egō eimi would not work here in the Greek, so the LXX translators did the best they could. The same rationale applies to the use of ho ōn in the beginning of the verse, as egō eimi ho egō eimi is nonsense in the Greek. Similarly, beginning a statement with egō eimi followed by “sent me to you” in Greek is nonsense. Thus, the LXX translators used the present active indicative form of the verb, followed by the present active participle (prefaced by the article) in the first part of the statement, and the present active particle (prefaced by the article) after “sons of Israel”.
We must wonder why the LXX translators didn’t choose the future form of eimi (esomai—see Luke 9:41, e.g.) if “I shall be” is the correct translation of the Hebrew. If you look online (see, e.g.: biblehub dot com/multi/exodus/3-14.htm) you’ll find that most all say “I AM WHO/THAT I AM…I AM…” for Ex 3:14. These are translated from the Hebrew, not the LXX.
Here’s how the CJB renders it: God said to Moshe, “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh [I am/will be what I am/will be],” and added, “Here is what to say to the people of Isra’el: ‘Ehyeh [I Am or I Will Be] has sent me to you.’”
I think the point is that the verb is to convey both present and future here: “I am what/who I shall be…I shall be”. That makes sense. Yet the LXX translators still could not have used the future form of the finite verb for the same reason they could not use the present form of the finite verb: it would make nonsense of the sentence. Thus, they used the article, followed by the present active participle (“The One Who exists…”)—which would connote both present and future (and past).
So, is Exodus 3:14 a statement of the divine name?
Going back to John: 8:58 does not fit the pattern of ‘fill in the predicate by the previous/immediate context’ as outlined in my January 28, 2018 5:15 pm comment.
prin Abraam genesthai, egō eimi
Before Abraham was born/came-to-be, I am
Yeshua’s words here are making a contrast between the aorist middle (past tense) verb of become/be born, with the present active form of be/exist. The reaction (8:59) of the ‘children of the devil’ (8:42-47) [had to throw that one in, in reference to Thurs/Friday’s TW] indicates that they understood Jesus’ meaning.
Then we also have the curious thing that happened in John 18:5-6 after Jesus said egō eimi. There’s an OT precedent for this sort of thing. In the following, I’ll source liberally from Raymond Brown’s Anchor Bible commentary on John (The Gospel According to John I-XII [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974], Appendix IV; bold added). This should be understood in light of my previous comments here:
Thank you, Craig. for reinventing a wheel we need to do ourselves, apparently.
I have been thinking a lot about the Name. A name is a person’s character. That character determines who the person is; the person does not determine the character. Thus, the great I Am is known by His character of self existence, or, life. It is not God Who has life; He is God BECAUSE He has life. When Yeshua makes the same claim to have His life (and, by extrapolation, all life) within Himself, His audience could not have mistaken what He was saying.
Some people here want to know why the first century believers were not fixated on the fact that Yeshua was God, if indeed He is. I think that is a valid question, not easily dismissed.
I propose that we examine the possibilities correctly. It may be another wheel on Pieter’s car?
Your “name” in 1st century Jewish culture was who you were, your reputation. Let your ‘yes’ mean yes and your ‘no’ mean no. Yet, Yeshua instructed us to do things in His name–as if He had ultimate authority.
And we must look at Exodus 3:14 in light of other Scripture. I’d forgotten about the Isaiah usage of “I YHWH” (without the verb) and its LXX translation of “I AM”. I think that is evidence that must be taken very seriously here.
Craig
Thank you for the in depth discussion this really makes ‘I am’ an interesting term used in the bible. As Laurita says you are helping us reinvent the wheel…
Skip,
The footnote to John Pye Smith’s work, Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, is incomplete. It comes in various editions, in various volumes. Can you please cite to the year and volume number? Thanks. [P.S., the citation does not exist on page 161 of the two volume set.]
I will have to look into this. Sorry. But I am 12000 miles away from my sources now.
Someone posted a comment on Larry Hurtado’s blog with a link to a dissertation detailing the use of the Divine Name in Scripture and associated literature during the Second Temple period (downloadable pdf): macsphere dot mcmaster dot ca/handle/11375/22823
As one would expect, it’s highly detailed, but the conclusion is fairly straightforward (page 303 of paper; 313 of pdf):
I wasn’t sure where exactly to place this comment, but I thought some would find it helpful.
Hi Craig, I have been researching the “Oneness of God” since we last discussed the Trinity issue. The most interesting I found is from Wyschogrod, (rhymes with disco-god), “the oneness of God is not a statement about the nature of God….. rather, it concerns the relationship of the God of Israel to Israel and the nations… There is no concept in Judaism which requires as much careful analysis as the oneness of God…. Much of this question hinges on the simple interpretation of Deut. 6:4 Sh’ma Yisrael …… of the six words in the verse, the one that has naturally attracted the most attention is the last, the word echad.. .… Now we must understand the Greek metaphysical tradition of oneness from Parmenidism thinking;-”
“the one that IT IS, and it is not and it is not possible for IT NOT TO BE, is the way of credibility, for it follows Truth; the other, that IT IS NOT, and that IT IS BOUND NOT TO BE; this I tell you is a path that cannot be explored; for you could neither recognize that which IS NOT, nor express it.” Parmenides here asserts the non-thinkability of non-being…. Once non-being is eliminated from our metaphysical vocabulary, difference is no longer tenable. A is different from B only because A is not B…. in short, an undifferentiated Absolute Being emerges in which no distinctions can be made and in which no change is possible…. The Absolute of Parmenides is thus without change, time, difference or otherness. It is an Absolute undifferentiated unity which is the reality behind the apparent world of change, time, otherness, and difference.
“Parmenides is reflected in Jewish thinking as early as the Saadia Gaonic period. “Book of Beliefs and Opinions” deals with the Oneness of God: that there does not exist another God beside the One God, that the one God is not corporeal, and that by referring to God as “living” “omnipotent” and “omniscient” we are not introducing mutability into his essence. (GK – I think NOT should not be in this sentence considering the following?) I am reading on Kindle ………first he goes on a bit, then he concludes…..
“anything that harbors distinction within itself is unquestionably a physical being.” A path that cannot be explored. Being has no coming-into-being and no destruction, for it is whole of limb, without motion, and without end, nor divisible, nor any lesser thing….
For Wyschogrod as with Maimonides as for Saadia, the absolute oneness of God is critical. “ we, the community of those who profess the Unity of a knowledge of the Truth – just as we do not say that there is in His essence a superadded notion by virtue of which He has created the heavens, and another one by virtue of which He has created the elements, and a third one by virtue of which He has created the intellects – so we do not say that there is in Him a superadded notion by virtue of which He possesses power, and another by which He possesses will, and a third one by which He knows the things created by Him. His essence is, on the contrary, one and simple, having no notion that is superadded to in any respect.”
If no attributes can be predicated of God, then we simply cannot say anything about Him, not even that He exists, that He is one, for existence and oneness are attributes. Maimonides concedes this. He is one without possessing the attribute of unity and we arrive at the position that denies the possibility of any speech about God but it is possible to say what He is not. So the bible has an absolute lack of interest in the problem of anthropomorphism. “Deut. 6:4 is not making a metaphysical statement. It does assert that the Jewish people is loyal to and recognizes God as only YWVH and no other God. It is an expression of loyalty to YHVH, of everlasting obligation to serve him and no one else. The correct translation is therefore; “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone.” The recitation of the Shema is referred to as “the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven” and what follows from that loyalty: obedience to His divine will as expressed in the Torah.”
So as a “Greek” but a wannabe “Hebrew” thinker, I cannot buy the Trinity no matter what is implied or written in English. Or Greek.
George,
Let me address your comment by pointing to the Hebrew and Greek in the Tanakh and LXX, respectively.
Deuteronomy 6:4 in Hebrew (transliterated):
šᵉmaʿ yiśrāʾēl yhwh ʾᵉlōhênû yhwh ʾeḥāḏ
Hear, O Israel! YHWH God, YHWH ________
The LXX of this verse (Swete’s, Rahlf’s, as well as Mark 12:29 after “Israel!”) is:
Akoue, Israēl; kyrios ho theos hēmōn kyrios heis estin
Hear, O Israel! LORD the God our, LORD one is
Hear, O Israel! (The) LORD our God, (the) LORD is one
The most important thing to observe here is that “YHWH” is translated kyrios, “LORD”, while “Elohim” is theos, “God”. I’ll return to this.
The first question to address is the translation of “echad”. While I can certainly understand a position making the claim that the context is not about metaphysics, the exegete cannot escape that this necessarily entails translating “echad” as alone rather than its usual one. I looked—not very intently, admittedly—yet I did not find the term rendered alone anywhere else. The usual term for alone (or only) is לְבַדּ֑וֹ, lᵉḇaddô (particle + noun), such as found in Gen 2:18; 32:25; 42:38; 44:20; Deut 1:9, 12; 8:3; 29:13. In Deuteronomy 32:12 there is also בָּדָ֣ד, bāḏāḏ (noun). Each of these is translated in the LXX as the Greek monos. Thus, I’d think that if alone were the correct translation in the Shema, we’d find monos in the LXX instead here.
Larry Hurtado has posted a few blog posts pertinent to this discussion. Dr. Hurtado notes that “YHWH” is consistently translated as kyrios in the LXX, without the article—just as it is in Deut 6:4 (see larryhurtado dot wordpress dot com/2019/05/07/yhwh-texts-and-jesus-a-follow-up/). Note that yhwh ʾᵉlōhênû of Deut 6:4 is found in identical form in Deut 5:6, as well. For our purposes here it is critical to read Hurtado’s reflections at the link just provided in the parenthesis. He gets more specific in a comment, which I’ll place here [though I fixed one typographical error]:
So, besides the issue of “echad” in the Shema, one must account for this attribution of “YHWH texts” specifically to Jesus in the NT (using kyrios without the article as translation for YHWH in the LXX and retaining same in the NT) .
Craig, thanks for your Greek explanation of the transliteration of the Greek words which I admire you for having given such consideration but your fallback on Hurtado is pretty lame if I may say so. He is a lightweight compared to Wyschogrod for Hebrew/Greek, Jewish/Christian biblical interpretations.
Read Abraham’s Promise and then come back to me with some meat on the bone.
George,
With all due respect, you’ve not addressed the issue regarding echad. Can you show me anywhere else this word means “alone” or “only”? The LXX translators were Hebrew scholars (not Greeks), and these scholars chose to translate the term as the Greek heis, which strictly means “one”. Now, the exegete can still take the position that Deut 6:4 is not about metaphysics, yet we’re then back to what “one” means in this context.
And denigrating Hurtado is merely an attempt to sidestep the issues I raised. Unless and until you or anyone else can explain why the anarthrous (without the article) kyrios, (“LORD”) used to translate YHWH in the Tanakh is applied to Jesus in the NT when directly citing these texts, then my position stands.
I didn’t really care to get into your quotes of Wyschogrod, since the grammar doesn’t seem to support his eisegesis. But now I’ll address a small part:
So, I suppose we must discard such passages as “God is love”, or “God is spirit”, then? And what do we make of YHWH’s self-description in Exodus 3:14?
What Wyschogrod describes is, in part, divine simplicity, something early Christians affirmed. God is not made up of ‘parts’, as if this part or that part makes up His ‘whole’. Trinitarians do not recognize God as 1/3 Father, 1/3 Son and 1/3 Spirit, any more than they think that “God is love” means God’s ontological composition is love.
Greek thinking: parts + parts = whole.
Hebrew thinking: must have whole first to have part(s).
Greek thinking: attributes make the man (or God).
Hebrew thinking: God makes His own attributes.
Greek thinking: form determines function.
Hebrew thinking: function predetermines form.
Greek thinking: when we talk about God, we are talking about THINGS (apples).
Hebrew thinking: when we talk about God, we are talking about actions (oranges).
Conclusion: Greeks and Hebrews probably are talking about different stuff, even if they happen to be using similar words.
Laurita,
I may not have been clear in my last paragraph. To early Christians the idea of divine simplicity affirmed that God was not made up of ‘parts’. Thus, in this respect, they didn’t align with ‘Greek thinking’ as per your first set. Just want to be sure I’m understood on this point.
Thank you, Craig, for the clarity. Indeed, I read it that way. Back when I thought I had to think about God as a derivative of His attributes (such as “non-changing”), I could not see where He had choices, either (for choice implies change, of course). His attributes LIMITED His actions, or choices. Indeed, my big issue with Parmenides ended up being that he left neither God nor us any room for true choice; but because choice is the only substrate for love, Parmenides’ god, therefore, could not be love. That’s when I dropped Parmenides as not being very useful for me.
Nowadays I am finding it more useful to think of God as not being limited by things like attributes. Instead, I find it better to think of Him in terms of all our descriptions of Him simply being the descriptions of what He is already doing.
Glad to clear that up. Even in early Christianity divine simplicity was used to affirm Trinitarianism. The two were not mutually exclusive. The Trinity was understood by the interrelationship of the “Persons” (other readers: let’s not start a semantic war over this term). Modern day proponents of the so-called “Social Trinity” take this too far, devolving into what amounts to tritheism (three gods). THAT is ‘Greek thinking’.
Doesn’t the word “love” MEAN “interrelationship”? If it is not an attribute that one can possess, but instead a description of an action BETWEEN subject/object: in other words, if love is not open-ended: if it all happens in between a lover (initiator) and a beloved (recipient), then the game just changed. If you think about it, love is not possible “alone” (um, would that be a ‘form’ of fornication?). Like life (which I think is just another word for love, for all life is only found in relationship with other life) we only find it in between.
Absolutely!
Craig, how early is “early”? 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century?
George,
So that’s your best attempt at responding?
Do you have an answer or not?
Perhaps once you answer any of the issues I addressed @ May 12, 2019 11:47 am, rather than just dismissing it en toto.
If you must, I will answer for you. There were no “early Christians”, there were only Jews that were being addressed by Yeshua intentionally because they understood Torah. Those who listened and HEARD his correct interpretations of Torah understood him perfectly when he spoke as in John 17 of oneness he was doing so as oneness in the spirit of God’s creative purpose for mankind, to love one another as I have been loved by You and as this was the primary PURPOSE for Yeshua being sent by God as his emissary to demonstrate love in ACTION, purpose. To demonstrate the POWER of God’s (and our) purpose for love and a creative life.
If anyone wants to interpret this as Yeshua being equal to God they are free to do so but they are completely mistaken, unlike the early Christians (oops), early Jewish correct interpreters of what Yeshua was saying about oneness of purpose, not the invention of the Trinity doctrine. John 17:22 “and the glory that thou hast given me, I have given to them, that they may be ONE, just as we are ONE, I in them and thou in me, that they may be perfected in UNITY, …..”
How many times does he have to repeat oneness, echad?
Craig, I don’t remember who it was that addressed an analysis of the sh’ma in a midrash but it went something like this; the first reference, “Hear O ISRAEL the Lord”, is the God of the Israelites while the second reference, “the Lord OUR God is one”, is the same God (of course) who is ALSO the God of the gentiles. That’s why the two “God” referents so to speak. But a Christian would never pick this up of course.
The beauty of learning oneness, echad, from a Jewish rabbi instead of a Christian theologian.
George,
I like the sentiment, and I don’t disagree in principle. Even the LXX could work with that interpretation, as it’s a bit ambiguous:
kyrios ho theos hēmōn kyrios heis estin
[the] LORD (the) God our LORD one is
Looking at this in and of itself, this could read, “[the] LORD, the LORD our God is one” because of syntactical ambiguity. That is, ho theos hēmōn (“our God”) could modify the second rather than the first kyrios, (“LORD”). But, this would run counter to its occurrences elsewhere. More importantly, even the Hebrew doesn’t seem to work.
While I’ve not checked every instance, in the Pentateuch when YHWH is paired with Elohim it’s always in the order YHWH Elohim. The Hebrew in the Shema is, of course, YHWH Elohim YHWH echad. Assuming the pattern found elsewhere applies here, then “Elohim” should be paired with the first YHWH, and the second paired with “echad”. To solidify this, when “YHWH Elohim” is translated in the LXX in other verses it fits the following pattern (all from Deuteronomy–kyrios is always the translation for YHWH):
5:2: kyrios ho theos hymōn = [the] LORD our God
5:6: kyrios ho theos sou = [the] LORD your God
5:9: kyrios ho theos sou = [the] LORD your God
5:11 kyriou tou theou sou = of [the] LORD your God
5:12 kyrios ho theos sou = [the] LORD your God
5:14 kyriō̧ tō̧ theō̧ sou = [the] LORD your God
5:15 kyrios ho theos sou = [the] LORD your God
Thus, in the Shema the Hebrew YHWH Elohim YHWH must be divided with the comma placed as such: YHWH Elohim, YHWH. Therefore the LXX should be understood with the comma in the same place:
kyrios ho theos hēmōn, kyrios heis estin
[the] LORD our God, [the] LORD one is
Now, if the midrash meant: “Hear O Israel! The LORD our God” [for Israel], “the LORD is one” [for Gentiles and Israel]”, then I can live with that.
Alternatively and tentatively, I’m even willing to see the last portion as “[the] one LORD is”, understood as akin to Ex 3:14 (LXX: “I AM [THE ONE] WHO IS…[THE ONE] WHO IS…”). The problem with that interpretation is, though it works in the LXX, the verb ʾehyeh (“be”) is missing entirely in the Hebrew of Deut 6:4.
Sh’ma. Michael Wyschogrod (MS) says of rabbinic midrash, “the key word is echad which is best translated in this context as “unique.” Israel attributes echad of God and God attributes echad of Israel. The Jewish philosophical tradition interprets the echad of Deut 6:4 to mean “one” in the metaphysical sense.
The JPS translation of the Hebrew Bible gives Deut 6:4 as “Hear O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone.” This translation, which I (MS) think is correct, reads the verse not as making a metaphysical statement about God, namely, that he is one and indivisible, but rather that God alone is to be worshipped to the exclusion of all other gods. Nevertheless, it is of the highest importance that our text has God attach the quality of echad, which Deut 6:4 attaches to God, to the people of Israel. If echad attributed to God means that only he is to be worshipped, then echad attributed to Israel means something comparable. Among the nations, Israel is God’s only betrothed. Even if Israel is unfaithful with other gods, God remains faithful to Israel. Israel will be punished but is never divorced (Isa. 50:1). As Paul affirms: “For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29).”
For me this means strict monotheism and no replacement theology, Torah for the Hebrews and Noachide laws for the gentiles running parallel paths in harmony as one, if I can use that word, in the worship of the God of Israel.
George, with all due respect, if you are going to limit the Gentiles to the so-called “Noahide Laws” then I think you may have to be prepared to give up your building safety codes and flush toilets (if you need, I can give you chapter and verse on those two) and most of the laws of every land, too, for most of them (that are any good, anyway) are based on Torah principles. In contrast, I think relatively few of them – that I have seen, anyway – are presently based on those Noahide Laws. Are you ready – as a Gentile – to do that?
Laurita, this is my understanding of the Noachide laws;
1. Do not profane God’s Oneness in any way.
Acknowledge that there is a single God who cares about what we are doing and desires that we take care of His world.
2. Do not curse your Creator.
No matter how angry you may be, do not take it out verbally against your Creator.
3. Do not murder.
The value of human life cannot be measured. To destroy a single human life is to destroy the entire world—because, for that person, the world has ceased to exist. It follows that by sustaining a single human life, you are sustaining an entire universe.
4. Do not eat a limb of a living animal.
Respect the life of all God’s creatures. As intelligent beings, we have a duty not to cause undue pain to other creatures.
5. Do not steal.
Whatever benefits you receive in this world, make sure that none of them are at the unfair expense of someone else.
6. Harness and channel the human libido.
Incest, adultery, rape and homosexual relations are forbidden.
The family unit is the foundation of human society. Sexuality is the fountain of life and so nothing is more holy than the sexual act. So, too, when abused, nothing can be more debasing and destructive to the human being.
7. Establish courts of law and ensure justice in our world.
With every small act of justice, we are restoring harmony to our world, synchronizing it with a supernal order. That is why we must keep the laws established by our government for the country’s stability and harmony.
What is yours?
I certainly don’t have a problem with any of that. I have a problem with LIMITING the human to JUST THAT. It is not possible to be fully human on just those laws. Even primitive animists and other pagans are doing a whole lot more Torah than just that, and certainly the civilized world could not run if it scaled back to just that. “Establish courts of law”? Laws based on what? If we went through and weeded out the Torah woven into all the courts of every land, we would not recognize civilization, for Torah is the only basis for humans to be able to get along. The Noahide Laws are only a start.
Want an example? When communism took over the Soviet Union, they tried to get as far away as they could from Torah: specifically the Ten Commandments. So, accordingly, they instituted a ten-day week (with one of those days off) because they calculated that the people would be more productive than those who ran on a seven day week. Well, production fell through the floor. Apparently, people cannot consistently work nine days straight without a break. They went back to a seven day week with a day off.
I am not limiting my belief to anything. My understanding of this may best be described as similar to Reform Judaism which I would call evolutionary Judaism.
As you know I am anything but a Jew but I reject many traditional Christian doctrines especially the RCC in which I was raised.
Here’s something I neglected to put forth when this TW was originally presented. Isaiah 45:19 has some verbiage pertinent to this discussion. The Hebrew ʾᵃnı̂ yhwh, “I [myself], YHWH”, or “I AM YHWH” is translated egō eimi egō eimi kyrios in the LXX. Taking as literally as possible, the Greek is “I am, I am LORD”, or “I am I AM LORD”. Keep in mind that in Greek eimi is a sentence unto itself meaning “I am”, and that adding the pronoun egō can be viewed as making it emphatic. Thus, doubling this as egō eimi egō eimi is either a redundancy for further emphasis or the second occurrence of egō eimi really means I AM as a Divine Name and/or as in Exodus 3:14.
For comparison, had the LXX writers wished to convey “I am, myself, LORD”, this would have been rendered egō eimi emautou kyrios.
This verse (Is 45:19) was not mentioned by Brown in my long quotation of him @ January 28, 2018 9:02 pm. In that comment, Brown provides further evidence that egō eimi may well have functioned as a Divine Name in the LXX as it translated certain YHWH texts.