What is saving faith?

Your interpretation is forced. You are not taking the immediate context into proper consideration. This same child has already been identified as "Immanuel" just two chapters early and therefore there is no reason not to translate the common name for God "el" as "God" here. The exact same name "Mighty God" is used only a few verses later by the same writer (Isaiah) for Yahweh - Isa. 10:21. The New Testament attributes the term "God" to this "son given, a child is born" many times (Mt. 1:23; Jn. 1:1; 20:28; etc.).

However, this term is not isolated from previous identification by Isaiah as "Immanuel" and "The Mighty God" and as you admit later, He is the Creator who is directly identified by John as "God" (Jn. 1:1,2) Who created all things.

Tell me, was this statement regarded as "obscure" by those who actually listened to it? No! They understood it perfectly to be the claim of the "I AM" in Gensis 3:14 and sought to stone him for blasphemy.

It is incredible that you would actually use the blind man's words as evidence to defend your bias??????? The contexts are so drastically distinct from each other that it is unbelievable that you would even attempt such a justification. I must conclude that you are not even willing to give this statement any kind of objective consideration.

1. The blind man's simply acknowledged he is the one they were seeking but Christ was answering a question concerning His own identity in regard to the person of Abraham.

2. The blind man never made any previous statement that he existed BEFORE Abraham but Jesus did.

3. The blind man was never asked "whom thou makest thyself?"

How can you even consider they are comparable????

Furthermore, if you were a Jewish Bible scholar as part of the audiance that asked this question:

Jn. 8:53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

and you heard Jesus respond:

"BEFORE Abraham was [ginomai - became] I am [ego eimi]"

Would you consider his response "obscure"? Considering the question and considering every word in his answer, there can be no question Who He is claiming to be IF you have any OBJECTIVE bone in your body.

1. That idea that he said "I was" defies the Greek grammar as the Greek as a common term for that.

2. Note the word "BEFORE" with the word "was" or literally "became" (ginomai) or came into existence.

3. Note the words "I am" [ego eimi] the very same terms used in the common version of that day (Septuigent) in Exodus 3:14.

4. Note the words "I am" is the only answer Christ gives to their question "Art thou GREATER....whom makest thyself?"

You call this response in this kind of context "obscure"???? The audiance who heard these words disagree with you assessment. You don't attempt to stone a person over an "obscure" statement.

Jn. 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him:

They undestood the contextual claim to be "ego eimi" in a context of "Before Abraham" to be nothing less than the claim of Exodus 3:14 as that is precisely the Greek term used in Exodus 3:14 in the common Greek version of that day.

Furthermore, that the Greek scholars of the Septuigent translated it in the PRESENT TENSE "ego eimi" instead of the future tense absolutely demolishes your argument that it might have been better translated by a future tense "I Shall be.' Why, because their common version did not use the future tense but the present tense "ego eimi." In addition, a future tense translation and understanding of Exodus 3:14 is absurd in consideration of the question Moses asked - "Who shall I say has sent me." To tell the Jews that would rob them of any PRESENT hope of deliverance as such a name would be kicking the ball down the road some time in the future.

What amazes me is your complete lack of objectivity that your willing to believe anything even to the rediculous in order to defend your bias.

Certainly, God says he "will be" with Moses as Moses has not yet departed and arrived in Egypt. However, the words "I AM that I AM" is a response to a question about the IDENTITY of Who has sent Moses. Moses is asking who shall I say has sent me to them???? For God to respond "I SHALL be what I SHALL be" is a complete ludricrous response to such a question. Such a response would give NO PRESENT HOPE to their situation but simply kick the ball down the road some place in the future.

Furthermore, the Jewish scholars that translated these words used "ego eimi" or the exact wors Jesus used to answer the very same question about who he was in John 8:58. They did not translate the Hebrew into a future tense.

There is nothing "obscure" between about the meaning of Exodus 3:14 or its relationship to John 8:58 - it is obvious to the Translators of the Septuigent which were JEWS and it is obvious to the audiance hearing Christ answer their question about his specific identity in John 8:58-59.

Exodus 3:14 is a direct response to the question about IDENTITY or WHO it is that is sending Moses. Note in the very verses you give whenever God IDENTIFIES Himself he NEVER uses the future tense but always the PRESENT tense words "I AM" -

Exodus 6:1-8 (KJV): 1 Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land. 2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name YAHWEH was I not known to them. 4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. 5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. 6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: 7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD.

The FUTURE tenses that you point to above are NEVER used to identify his Person but only to describe his ACTIONS. Exodus 3:14 is given to IDENTIFY HIS PERSON not his actions.


Put away your bias for a moment and consider all the evidence objectively. If you do, the evidence speaks LOUDLY that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest there is obscurity about either John 8 or Exodus 3;14.

 

This is a very biased account. First, he begins by making unqualified and unsupported statements. Who are the scholars he is talking about? His last paraphaph clearly indicates there are scholars who do not agree with this assessment.

Just as in Greek, the Hebrew tenses emphasize kind of action or completed versus incompleted action and the imperfect tense is the tense used to convey incompleted action and he admits the present tense "I AM" is perfectly consistent.

"Hebrew looks at verbs as either complete or incomplete actions" and the imperfect tense would be the verb to express continuous action and that is precisely the verb used in Exodus 3:14.

Furthermore, he fails to recognize that those who know the Hebrew langauge better than any modern Hebrewists - the translators of the Septuigent - did not translate Exodus 3:14 by the future tense or even the imperfect tense but the present tense "ego eimi" and most significantly, this is the tense used by Christ in a context that is a response to the question if he was greater than Abraham and exactly what is his identity. Those listening understood exactly what he was saying (unlike you who likes to claim it is ambigous).

Finally, the present tense conveys the nature of God much more forceful than a future tense. The Continuous Present conveys the idea of eternal, self-sufficient, immutability whereas the future tense conveys no such things.

The future tense does not provide any PRESENT gounds of confidence or hope and both Moses and Israel had been praying and waiting and needed something NOW not some undefined later deliverer.

You have not dealt with my arguments at all but simply side stepped them by this article. The person who wrote this article is ambiguous about many things. (1) Just what majority of Hebrew scholars is he talking about and who are they? (2) Who are those who oppose this view?

You could not deal with my arguments in John 8 so you side stepped them.

You could not deal with my argument in Exodus 3:14 in regard to the Septugent Hebrew scholars and so you side stepped them.

You could not deal with my argument in Isaiah 9:6 and so you side stepped them.

You throw some writing by some unnamed person who is ambiguous from start to finish and that is the best you can do???? There is simply no honest objectivity in your responses that I can see.

 

New International Version (©1984)

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
New Living Translation (©2007)
God replied to Moses, "I Am Who I Am. Say this to the people of Israel: I Am has sent me to you."

English Standard Version (©2001)

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

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.'"

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

God answered Moses, "I Am Who I Am. This is what you must say to the people of Israel: 'I Am has sent me to you.'"

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel, I AM has sent me unto you.

American King James Version

And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shall you say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.

American Standard Version

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Bible in Basic English

And God said to him, I AM WHAT I AM: and he said, Say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.

Douay-Rheims Bible

God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.

Darby Bible Translation

And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM. And he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.

English Revised Version

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Webster's Bible Translation

And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM: And he said, Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me to you.

World English Bible

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM," and he said, "You shall tell the children of Israel this: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Young's Literal Translation

And God saith unto Moses, 'I AM THAT WHICH I AM;' He saith also, 'Thus dost thou say to the sons of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.'


Barnes' Notes on the Bible

I am that I am - That is, "I am what I am." The words express absolute, and therefore unchanging and eternal Being. The name, which Moses was thus commissioned to use, was at once new and old; old in its connection with previous revelations; new in its full interpretation, and in its bearing upon the covenant of which Moses was the destined mediator.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

I am that I am - אהיה אשר אהיה Eheyeh asher Eheyeh. These words have been variously understood. The Vulgate translates Ego Sum Qui Sum, I am who am. The Septuagint, Εγω ειμι ὁ Ων, I am he who exists. The Syriac, the Persic, and the Chaldee preserve the original words without any gloss. The Arabic paraphrases them, The Eternal, who passes not away; which is the same interpretation given by Abul Farajius, who also preserves the original words, and gives the above as their interpretation. The Targum of Jonathan, and the Jerusalem Targum paraphrase the words thus: "He who spake, and the world was; who spake, and all things existed." As the original words literally signify, I will be what I will be, some have supposed that God simply designed to inform Moses, that what he had been to his fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he would be to him and the Israelites; and that he would perform the promises he had made to his fathers, by giving their descendants the promised land. It is difficult to put a meaning on the words; they seem intended to point out the eternity and self-existence of God. Plato, in his Parmenides, where he treats sublimely of the nature of God, says, Ουδ' αρα ονομα εστιν αυτῳ, nothing can express his nature; therefore no name can be attributed to him. See the conclusion of this chapter, Exodus 3:22 (note) and on the word Jehovah, Exodus 34:6 (note), Exodus 34:7 (note).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And God said unto Moses, I am that I am,.... This signifies the real being of God, his self-existence, and that he is the Being of beings; as also it denotes his eternity and immutability, and his constancy and faithfulness in fulfilling his promises, for it includes all time, past, present, and to come; and the sense is, not only I am what I am at present, but I am what I have been, and I am what I shall be, and shall be what I am. The Platonists and Pythagoreans seem to have borrowed their from hence, which expresses with them the eternal and invariable Being; and so the Septuagint version here is : it is said (z), that the temple of Minerva at Sais, a city of Egypt, had this inscription on it,"I am all that exists, is, and shall be.''And on the temple of Apollo at Delphos was written the contraction of "I am" (a). Our Lord seems to refer to this name, John 8:58, and indeed is the person that now appeared; and the words may be rendered, "I shall be what I shall be" (b) the incarnate God, God manifest in the flesh:

thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you; or as the Targum of Jonathan has it,"I am he that is, and that shall be.''This is the name Ehjeh, or Jehovah, Moses is empowered to make use of, and to declare, as the name of the Great God by whom he was sent; and which might serve both to encourage him, and strengthen the faith of the Israelites, that they should be delivered by him.

(z) Phutarch. de Iside & Osir. (a) Plato in Timaeo. (b) "ero qui ero", Pagninus, Montanus, Fagius, Vatablus.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geneva Study Bible

And God said unto Moses, I {n} AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

(n) The God who has always been, am, and shall be: the God almighty, by whom all things have their being, and the God of mercy, mindful of my promise.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley's Notes

3:14 And God said - Two names God would now be known by. A name that speaks what he is in himself, I am that I am - This explains his name Jehovah, and signifies, 1st, That he is self - existent; he has his being of himself, and has no dependence upon any other. And being self - existent he cannot but be self - sufficient, and therefore all - sufficient, and the inexhaustible fountain of being and bliss. 2dly, That he is eternal and unchangeable, always the same, yesterday to - day, and for ever: he will be what he will be, and what he is. 3dly. That he is faithful and true to all his promises, unchangeable in his word as well as in his nature, and not a man that he should lie. Let Israel know this, I am hath sent me unto you. A name that speaks what he is to his people. Lest that name I am should puzzle them, he is farther directed to make use of another name of God, more familiar.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

3:11-15 Formerly Moses thought himself able to deliver Israel, and set himself to the work too hastily. Now, when the fittest person on earth for it, he knows his own weakness. This was the effect of more knowledge of God and of himself. Formerly, self-confidence mingled with strong faith and great zeal, now sinful distrust of God crept in under the garb of humility; so defective are the strongest graces and the best duties of the most eminent saints. But all objections are answered in, Certainly I will be with thee. That is enough. Two names God would now be known by. A name that denotes what he is in himself, I AM THAT I AM. This explains his name Jehovah, and signifies, 1. That he is self-existent: he has his being of himself. 2. That he is eternal and unchangeable, and always the same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever. 3. That he is incomprehensible; we cannot by searching find him out: this name checks all bold and curious inquiries concerning God. 4. That he is faithful and true to all his promises, unchangeable in his word as well as in his nature; let Israel know this, I AM hath sent me unto you. I am, and there is none else besides me. All else have their being from God, and are wholly dependent upon him. Also, here is a name that denotes what God is to his people. The Lord God of your fathers sent me unto you. Moses must revive among them the religion of their fathers, which was almost lost; and then they might expect the speedy performance of the promises made unto their fathers.

 

Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh (often contracted in English as "I AM") is one of the Seven Names of God accorded special care by medieval Jewish tradition.[2] The phrase is also found in other world religious literature, used to describe the Supreme Being, generally referring back to its use in Exodus. The word Ehyeh is considered by many rabbinical scholars to be a first-person derivation of the Tetragrammaton, see for example Yahweh.

The very term "Ehyeh" means "existing" and it is the very definition of the word that brings Septuigent scholars and most translation committee scholars to translate it "I AM THAT I AM" as a declaration of ever existing.

In the Hellenistic Greek literature of the Jewish Diaspora the phrase "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" was rendered in Greek "ego eimi ho on", "I am the BEING".

Septuagint Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I am HE WHO IS (ho on): and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, HE WHO IS (ho on) hath sent me unto you.[3]

Philo : And God said, "At first say unto them, 'I am (ego eimi) THE BEING,'(ho on, nominative of ontos) that, when they have learnt that there is a difference between THE BEING (ontos, genitive of ho on) and that-that-is-not (me ontos), they may be further taught that there is no name whatever that can properly be assigned to Me (ep' emou kuriologeitai), to whom (oi) only (monoi) belongs (prosesti) the existence (to einai). (Philo Life Of Moses Vol.1 :75)[4][5]

ho On, "He who is" (Philo, Life of Moses I 75)

to On, "the Being who is" (Philo, Life of Moses II 67),

tou Ontos, "of Him that is" (II 99)

tou Ontos, "of the Self-Existent" (II 132)

to On, "the Self-Existent" (II 161)[6]

This usage is also found in the New Testament:

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, the BEING (ho on), and THE WAS (ho en), and THE IS TO COME (ho erchomenos), the Almighty (ho pantokrator).[7]

Rev 4:8 holy, Lord God Almighty, the WAS (ho en), and the BEING (ho on), and the IS TO COME (ho erchomenos).

The overall weight of scholarship is against the future tense rendition.

 

THE NAME OF GOD AS REVEALED IN EXODUS 3:14
An explanation of its meaning
K J Cronin


The first is that the only literal translations of the Hebrew ehyeh of Exodus 3:14 are "I am" and "I will be", upon which point there is no debate. The second is that although it has been claimed that the present tense of the verb 'to be' is never expressed by the imperfect of the verb root hayah (e.g. ehyeh), this is simply false. The third is that although some have suggested that the verb root hayah does not connote the meaning of 'to be' in the sense of 'to exist', this too is false. The first of these three points is commonly acknowledged and so requires no further attention. The latter two, however, do require some attention.

Starting with the second of the three points – i.e. the tense conveyed by the imperfect of the verb hayah – I will begin by quoting what Propp has to say in his notes on this subject in Exodus 1-18 (p.204). This is very easily done, because Propp has remarkably little to say on this very important subject, stating only in a single short sentence that: "The imperfect of hyh always refers to the future."[50] The only support he presents for this contention are two citations; one of them a paper written by Raymond Abba in 1961 entitled "The Divine Name Yahweh", and the other an essay written by Roland de Vaux in 1970 entitled "The Revelation of the Divine name YHWH". Because these two authors are Propp's chosen authorities in support of his contention, and as such are presumably considered by him to be sufficiently authoritative for that purpose, I will analyse only what these two have to say on the subject in order to demonstrate the error of his contention.


Dealing first with Abba, his statement on the subject reads as follows (bold type my own): "Others, taking the impf. Qal in the sense of a present tense, translate ehyeh as "I am" and Yahweh as "He is" – i.e. "the Self-existent one". Against this view two objections may be raised. First, in biblical Hebrew the present tense of this verb is never expressed by the imperfect but always by the perfect tense; the imperfect expresses the future. And second the verb hayah never means pure existence; rather it has the sense of "happening", "becoming", "being in a certain place or state", "being present"".[51] Just concentrating on the bold type for now, I suggest that you consult your Bible and consider the following comprehensive list of biblical verses in which the first person singular Qal perfect of hayah expresses the present tense meaning "I am". They are Job 19:15, Psalms 31:13, Jeremiah 31:9, Lamentations 1:11, Micah 7:1, and perhaps Job 11:4. And now consider the following comprehensive list of biblical verses in which the first person singular Qal imperfect of hayah (i.e. ehyeh) expresses the present tense meaning "I am". They are Ruth 2:13, Job 7:20; 12:4; 17:6 and of course Exodus 3:14.[52] You will notice that the present tense meaning of "I am" is expressed almost equally in biblical Hebrew by the perfect and the imperfect of hayah, and so Abba's statement to the contrary, in bold type above, is patently false. Hence Propp's contention that "The imperfect of hyh always refers to the future" is likewise false.

Moving on to De Vaux's contribution to this debate, it reads as follows: "The imperfect of hayah as a stative verb, 'to be', always has a future sense",[53] and he supports this contention with reference to the translation of ehyeh in Exodus 3:12, 4:12 and 4:15. However, his comments on Exodus 3:14b just a few lines later are strikingly at odds with this contention, reading: "It seems difficult to allow that, in Exodus 3:14(b) ehyeh should be translated by a future. In all the parallel texts which have been cited (i.e. Exodus 3:13, 4:12, 4:15), 'I shall be' is determined by an addition. One can say: 'I shall be this or that, I shall be with...like...for...', but one cannot say absolutely 'I shall be' in the first person, as this would suggest that the speaker does not yet exist.... It would seem that this future is only an apparent one".[54] So on the one hand De Vaux insists that the imperfect of hayah always has a future sense, which we have already established to be false, while on the other hand he acknowledges that the absolute ehyeh of 3:14b cannot be a future tense because to translate it as such is theological nonsense. However, he is determined to have the ehyeh of Exodus 3:14 translated as a future tense no matter what absurdity he must propose in order to have it that way, and so he proposes an "apparent" future tense. What, I hear you ask, is an "apparent" future tense? It is nonsense, plain and simple.

Moreover, in relation to the verses De Vaux cites in support of his contention, I would make the following observation. Although the ehyeh of Exodus 3:12 is commonly translated "I will be", this is a translational choice and is therefore based upon how the text is read and understood. I would suggest that the ehyeh of this verse would be far more meaningfully translated 'I am', when we bear in mind that the context of Exodus 3:12 is that of God assuring Moses of His presence with him, and so in this verse the preferred and correct translation of ehyeh is at least debatable, and is in my opinion 'I am'.

Moving on to the third of the three points identified above – i.e. that the verb hayah conveys the meaning of 'to exist' - I will begin by noting Abba's contention to the contrary in the extract of his paper quoted above, which reads as follows: "the verb hayah never means pure existence; rather it has the sense of "happening", "becoming", "being in a certain place or state", "being present"". He doesn't suggest any alternative word or phrase that might be used to convey the meaning of 'to exist', but Rosenzweig did, and Propp appears to have followed Rosenzweig's lead.[55][56] Before I consider their alternative suggestion, I will settle the immediate question under consideration. To this end, there is very good evidence from first to second century Jewish religious writings that the ehyeh of Exodus 3:14 was commonly understood to convey the meaning of 'to be' in the sense of 'to exist'. That evidence is to be found in Targums Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan, for which see Jewish Bible Translations above. There is also the witness of the Septuagint translation of the verse, in which ehyeh is clearly understood as 'to be' in the sense of 'to exist', for which see Exodus 3:14 in Early Translations above. Then there are the interpretations of Maimonides, Sforno, Halevi and Recanati, amongst others, to consider, all of whom understood ehyeh to connote the meaning of 'to be' in the sense of 'to exist', for which see Medieval Jewish Thought and Kabbalah above. And finally, there is no other word or phrase in biblical Hebrew that does convey the meaning of 'to exist', and so if it were to be literally and unequivocally conveyed in biblical Hebrew, then there would be no alternative but to employ the obviously suitable hayah. I believe, therefore, that we can say with complete confidence that the verb root hayah does convey the meaning of 'to be' in the sense of 'to exist', and Abba's contention to the contrary is false.

As for Rosenzweig and Propp's alternative suggestion referred to above, they are by their own admission guessing when they suggest that if the meaning of personal existence were to be conveyed in biblical Hebrew, then it would be somehow rendered using the personal pronouns ani/anoki (meaning 'I') and 'hu' (meaning 'he'). Such conjecture has no doubt been prompted by the manner in which the 'ani hu' declarations of Second Isaiah are translated into Greek in the Septuagint. However, 'ani hu' is a non-verbal clause that translates literally as "I he" and may or may not be rendered in translation as "I (am) he". It does not translate literally as 'I am' because the verb 'to be' does not occur in the clause and the third person masculine personal pronoun 'hu' does. Furthermore, there is in the Bible no phrase that exclusively employs a combination of the first person pronoun 'ani' (or 'anoki') and the third person pronoun 'hu' to unequivocally convey the meaning of 'I am' or 'I will be'. Hence their alternative suggestion falls.

 

THE NAME OF GOD AS REVEALED IN EXODUS 3:14
An explanation of its meaning
K J Cronin


The first is that the only literal translations of the Hebrew ehyeh of Exodus 3:14 are "I am" and "I will be", upon which point there is no debate. The second is that although it has been claimed that the present tense of the verb 'to be' is never expressed by the imperfect of the verb root hayah (e.g. ehyeh), this is simply false. The third is that although some have suggested that the verb root hayah does not connote the meaning of 'to be' in the sense of 'to exist', this too is false. The first of these three points is commonly acknowledged and so requires no further attention. The latter two, however, do require some attention.

Starting with the second of the three points – i.e. the tense conveyed by the imperfect of the verb hayah – I will begin by quoting what Propp has to say in his notes on this subject in Exodus 1-18 (p.204). This is very easily done, because Propp has remarkably little to say on this very important subject, stating only in a single short sentence that: "The imperfect of hyh always refers to the future."[50] The only support he presents for this contention are two citations; one of them a paper written by Raymond Abba in 1961 entitled "The Divine Name Yahweh", and the other an essay written by Roland de Vaux in 1970 entitled "The Revelation of the Divine name YHWH". Because these two authors are Propp's chosen authorities in support of his contention, and as such are presumably considered by him to be sufficiently authoritative for that purpose, I will analyse only what these two have to say on the subject in order to demonstrate the error of his contention.


Dealing first with Abba, his statement on the subject reads as follows (bold type my own): "Others, taking the impf. Qal in the sense of a present tense, translate ehyeh as "I am" and Yahweh as "He is" – i.e. "the Self-existent one". Against this view two objections may be raised. First, in biblical Hebrew the present tense of this verb is never expressed by the imperfect but always by the perfect tense; the imperfect expresses the future. And second the verb hayah never means pure existence; rather it has the sense of "happening", "becoming", "being in a certain place or state", "being present"".[51] Just concentrating on the bold type for now, I suggest that you consult your Bible and consider the following comprehensive list of biblical verses in which the first person singular Qal perfect of hayah expresses the present tense meaning "I am". They are Job 19:15, Psalms 31:13, Jeremiah 31:9, Lamentations 1:11, Micah 7:1, and perhaps Job 11:4. And now consider the following comprehensive list of biblical verses in which the first person singular Qal imperfect of hayah (i.e. ehyeh) expresses the present tense meaning "I am". They are Ruth 2:13, Job 7:20; 12:4; 17:6 and of course Exodus 3:14.[52] You will notice that the present tense meaning of "I am" is expressed almost equally in biblical Hebrew by the perfect and the imperfect of hayah, and so Abba's statement to the contrary, in bold type above, is patently false. Hence Propp's contention that "The imperfect of hyh always refers to the future" is likewise false.

Moving on to De Vaux's contribution to this debate, it reads as follows: "The imperfect of hayah as a stative verb, 'to be', always has a future sense",[53] and he supports this contention with reference to the translation of ehyeh in Exodus 3:12, 4:12 and 4:15. However, his comments on Exodus 3:14b just a few lines later are strikingly at odds with this contention, reading: "It seems difficult to allow that, in Exodus 3:14(b) ehyeh should be translated by a future. In all the parallel texts which have been cited (i.e. Exodus 3:13, 4:12, 4:15), 'I shall be' is determined by an addition. One can say: 'I shall be this or that, I shall be with...like...for...', but one cannot say absolutely 'I shall be' in the first person, as this would suggest that the speaker does not yet exist.... It would seem that this future is only an apparent one".[54] So on the one hand De Vaux insists that the imperfect of hayah always has a future sense, which we have already established to be false, while on the other hand he acknowledges that the absolute ehyeh of 3:14b cannot be a future tense because to translate it as such is theological nonsense. However, he is determined to have the ehyeh of Exodus 3:14 translated as a future tense no matter what absurdity he must propose in order to have it that way, and so he proposes an "apparent" future tense. What, I hear you ask, is an "apparent" future tense? It is nonsense, plain and simple.

Moreover, in relation to the verses De Vaux cites in support of his contention, I would make the following observation. Although the ehyeh of Exodus 3:12 is commonly translated "I will be", this is a translational choice and is therefore based upon how the text is read and understood. I would suggest that the ehyeh of this verse would be far more meaningfully translated 'I am', when we bear in mind that the context of Exodus 3:12 is that of God assuring Moses of His presence with him, and so in this verse the preferred and correct translation of ehyeh is at least debatable, and is in my opinion 'I am'.

Moving on to the third of the three points identified above – i.e. that the verb hayah conveys the meaning of 'to exist' - I will begin by noting Abba's contention to the contrary in the extract of his paper quoted above, which reads as follows: "the verb hayah never means pure existence; rather it has the sense of "happening", "becoming", "being in a certain place or state", "being present"". He doesn't suggest any alternative word or phrase that might be used to convey the meaning of 'to exist', but Rosenzweig did, and Propp appears to have followed Rosenzweig's lead.[55][56] Before I consider their alternative suggestion, I will settle the immediate question under consideration. To this end, there is very good evidence from first to second century Jewish religious writings that the ehyeh of Exodus 3:14 was commonly understood to convey the meaning of 'to be' in the sense of 'to exist'. That evidence is to be found in Targums Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan, for which see Jewish Bible Translations above. There is also the witness of the Septuagint translation of the verse, in which ehyeh is clearly understood as 'to be' in the sense of 'to exist', for which see Exodus 3:14 in Early Translations above. Then there are the interpretations of Maimonides, Sforno, Halevi and Recanati, amongst others, to consider, all of whom understood ehyeh to connote the meaning of 'to be' in the sense of 'to exist', for which see Medieval Jewish Thought and Kabbalah above. And finally, there is no other word or phrase in biblical Hebrew that does convey the meaning of 'to exist', and so if it were to be literally and unequivocally conveyed in biblical Hebrew, then there would be no alternative but to employ the obviously suitable hayah. I believe, therefore, that we can say with complete confidence that the verb root hayah does convey the meaning of 'to be' in the sense of 'to exist', and Abba's contention to the contrary is false.

As for Rosenzweig and Propp's alternative suggestion referred to above, they are by their own admission guessing when they suggest that if the meaning of personal existence were to be conveyed in biblical Hebrew, then it would be somehow rendered using the personal pronouns ani/anoki (meaning 'I') and 'hu' (meaning 'he'). Such conjecture has no doubt been prompted by the manner in which the 'ani hu' declarations of Second Isaiah are translated into Greek in the Septuagint. However, 'ani hu' is a non-verbal clause that translates literally as "I he" and may or may not be rendered in translation as "I (am) he". It does not translate literally as 'I am' because the verb 'to be' does not occur in the clause and the third person masculine personal pronoun 'hu' does. Furthermore, there is in the Bible no phrase that exclusively employs a combination of the first person pronoun 'ani' (or 'anoki') and the third person pronoun 'hu' to unequivocally convey the meaning of 'I am' or 'I will be'. Hence their alternative suggestion falls.

 

THE NAME OF GOD AS REVEALED IN EXODUS 3:14
An explanation of its meaning
K J Cronin


For the purpose of establishing how we would expect God to respond to this question, I would ask you to imagine yourself in an identical exchange, but with you in the place of God. Imagine it is you who is sending Moses on a mission to the Israelites, and that Moses is asking you what he should say to the Israelites if they ask him for the name of the one who sent him to them. The most natural and reasonable way to begin your response would be with a declaration of the name that you wanted Moses to convey to them. This would be naturally and reasonably followed by your instruction to Moses that he was to inform the Israelites that the one who bears that name has sent him to them. Your response would therefore fall into two parts. The first part would be some form of self-identification employing the name that you wanted Moses to convey, and the second would be your instruction to him that he was to respond to their question with that name. A self-identification is normally comprised of some form of self-address and a name, and would normally take the form "My name is x" or "I am x". We will assume you are of sufficient renown to employ the latter form of words, "I am x". If we now combine the two parts of your response, you would most naturally and reasonably respond to Moses' question with: "I am x. Tell the Israelites that x has sent you to them".

Now consider the exchange that took place between God and Moses in Exodus 3:13-3:15. Moses has asked God what he should say to the Israelites if they ask him for the name of the God who sent him to them. According to the above analysis, we would most naturally and reasonably expect God to begin his response to Moses with a Self-identification that would include the Divine name that Moses was to reveal to the Israelites. This would be naturally and reasonably followed by God's instruction to Moses that he was to inform the Israelites that that the God who bears that name has sent him to them. We have already identified two forms of self-identification that God might employ – "My name is x" and "I am x" - but in the Hebrew Bible God identifies Himself according to the latter form of words, as in "I am YHWH". Therefore, if God were to identify Himself to Moses using His Personal name Ehyeh, we could reasonably expect His response to correspond to the following declaration: "I am Ehyeh. Tell the Israelites that Ehyeh has sent you to them".

However, the Divine Self-identification "I am YHWH" is rendered in Hebrew with a non-verbal clause, employing the personal pronoun ani or anoki, meaning 'I', and the name YHWH, but without the verb 'to be'. Examples of this are the "ani YHWH" of Exodus 6:2 and "anoki YHWH" of Isaiah 43:11, both of which translate literally as "I YHWH" but are usually translated as "I am YHWH". And so if this form of Self-identification were employed by God in declaring His Personal name Ehyeh, we could reasonably expect that declaration to take a corresponding form, i.e. 'ani Ehyeh' or 'anoki Ehyeh'. Therefore, if God did commence His response to Moses with a Self-identification employing His Personal name Ehyeh, then the words Ehyeh asher Ehyeh do not conform to the Hebrew construction that we would expect such a Divine Self-identification to take, and so we apparently still cannot account for the dual occurrence of ehyeh in ehyeh asher ehyeh.

Nevertheless, this puzzle can be readily solved, and its solution leads us to the recognition of what I believe to be the most profound and remarkable words ever written, words so uniquely remarkable that I believe they can only be attributed to the historic architect of Judaism; the man we know as Moses.

The solution to the puzzle that is Ehyeh asher Ehyeh is to be found in two key insights into the words of Exodus 3:14. The first is that in response to Moses' question of Exodus 3:13, God first identifies Himself to Moses using His Personal name Ehyeh, as explained in the Textual Analysis of Exodus 3:13-15 in Part II of this website. The second key insight is that the declaration Ehyeh asher Ehyeh is equivalent to the Divine Self-identification "I (am) YHWH" when God identifies Himself using His Personal name Ehyeh instead of His proper name YHWH. The explanation for this is as follows.

A self-identification would normally be comprised of some form of self-address and a name, such as "I YHWH"/"I (am) YHWH". A self-address is a statement born of self-reflection. The purpose and effect of self-reflection is to bring to awareness knowledge of the one doing the reflecting. The purpose and effect of Divine Self-reflection is, therefore, to bring to God's awareness the knowledge He has of His Personal existence. On the occasion of God revealing to Moses His Personal name Ehyeh/I AM, it is reasonable to expect the Divine Self-reflection to have been perfect, because the Personal name is perfect, as established in Part 7 of the Explanation of the Meaning of the Name. This informs us that on the occasion of God revealing to Moses His Personal name Ehyeh/I AM, the Divine Self-reflection would have been identical to the knowledge that God has of His Personal existence. The following interim conclusion ends Part 6 of the Explanation of the Meaning of the Name: "'I AM' is the articulation in God of the knowledge He has of His Personal existence". Therefore, on the occasion of God revealing to Moses His Personal name Ehyeh/I AM, the perfect Divine Self-reflection was also articulated as Ehyeh/I AM. This in turn means that God's perfect Self-address either is or at least incorporates the Divine Self-reflection Ehyeh/I AM. However, because Ehyeh/I AM is recognisable as a complete form of Divine Self-address in Hebrew as in English, there is no place for the asher in this Self-address. Therefore, Ehyeh/I AM is the Divine Self-address when God identifies Himself using His Personal name Ehyeh/I AM.

We can now confirm that the Divine Self-identification employing the Personal name of God Ehyeh ought to include the twofold declaration of the word Ehyeh that occurs in Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, and we can thus confirm Ehyeh asher Ehyeh as the Divine Self-identification when the Personal name Ehyeh is used instead of YHWH. Moreover, we can confirm this even without translating the asher, because it is inconceivable that there could be a second meaning being intentionally conveyed in the twofold Ehyeh of Ehyeh asher Ehyeh.

Because the name and the Self-address are the identical word and identical in meaning, and because they are linked by a generic word of relation (for which see below), the declaration Ehyeh asher Ehyeh may be read equally correctly in the word-order "Self-address... asher... name" or "name... asher... Self-address". However, I would argue for the former of these two readings, because the most typical biblical Divine Self-Identification - "ani/anoki YHWH" - has the name following the Self-address.

As for the asher, it is described in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon as a "sign of relation" (BDB, p.81), which is its precise function in Ehyeh asher Ehyeh. Its presence ensures that the name Ehyeh is recognised as being in relation to the Self-address Ehyeh, rather than they being simply side by side, thus ensuring that the Divine Self-identification cannot be mistaken for a simple twofold utterance of the name Ehyeh, which it certainly would be without the intervening asher. I say it would be so misconstrued because it has been even with the asher, for example in the second interpretation in Exodus Rabbah 3:6 and in Mendelsohn's interpretation, for which see the Talmud and Midrash and Modern Jewish Philosophy in Part I of this website.

The asher is thus a sign of the presence of a relationship between the two Ehyeh of Ehyeh asher Ehyeh. Because asher is a generic sign of relation, there is no exactly corresponding word in English (BDB, p.83), and so we must search instead for an English relative word or phrase that fits the context. Having undertaken such a search, I have not found any lexically acceptable English relative word or phrase that when emplaced in "I AM asher I AM" makes of the declaration a recognisable Divine Self-identification. For that reason, I believe that the nuance of meaning in the asher of Exodus 3:14 is untranslatable into lexically acceptable English. It therefore makes most sense to retain the Hebrew asher in the literal English translation of Exodus 3:14, because that way it will mean the very same to the Hebrew reader as to the Hebrew non-reader who nonetheless knows the grammatical purpose it serves. I would therefore propose that Ehyeh asher Ehyeh should read as follows in literal English translation: "I AM asher I AM".

On the other hand, if Ehyeh asher Ehyeh is to be represented in full English translation, then I would recommend that it be represented non-literally, and with consideration only given to articulating its precise meaning, and so as follows: "I know Myself by My name I AM". This paraphrase of Ehyeh asher Ehyeh is totally unambiguous, and I believe closely approximates the precise meaning of Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, and is therefore perfectly suited to the task at hand.

With these translations, and equipped with a comprehensive understanding of why it is that Ehyeh asher Ehyeh translates in this way, and what it means, I believe the puzzle that was Exodus 3:14 has now been comprehensively solved. The words that God addresses to Moses in Exodus 3:14-15, in response to Moses' enquiry of Exodus 3:13, can now be confidently understood as equivalent to the following simple statement: "I know Myself by My name I AM. Tell the Israelites that I AM has sent you to them, and tell them also that they are henceforth to address Me and refer to Me by My proper name YHWH."

 

Your whole argument about Exodus 3:14 is irrevelant in our discussion of John 8:58 for the following reasons:

1. The common version of the day was the Septuigent not the Hebrew text

2. Jesus used the exact words found in the Septuigent in Exodus 3:14

3. Why would the Jews attempt to stone him for simply saying "I am he" when stoning was reserved for violations of the law requiring capital punishment.

4. His response was to the question "Are you GREATER than Abraham" and "whom makest thyself" if he merely replied "I am he" unrelated to these questions his response makes no sense and there is certainly no grounds for capital punishment.

5. However, if his response to "are you GREATER than Abraham" and "whom maketh thyself" is the "I AM" of the Greek Septuigent Exodus 3:14 then that is grounds for stoning in the eyes of the Jews.

6. When you take the overall context of the gospel of John then "I AM" must be the true reading as John begins his gospel with the declaration that he prexisted as "God" (Jn. 1:1) and in other cases of attempted stoning by the Jews it is the same charge that he made himself "EQUAL WITH GOD" (Jn. 10) and that John's purpose for writing his gospel was to confirm the confession of faith given by Thomas as "my Lord and my God."

 

Neither right or wrong. It can be translated either way. However, that is not the point. Context determines the proper translation. The Jews who were monthesists (non-trinitarians) translated it ego eimi in Greek. Jesus chose the Jewish translation. They understood the phrase to be a technical designation for the one true God and that is precisely how the Jews who listened to Jesus understood it.

What should bother you is that the Son of God opposes your alternative interpretation by choosing to quote directly from the Septuigent version instead of the Hebrew version and the Jews listening to him understood it so. You apparently believe uninspired modern commentators are a better source of authority than Jesus Christ or the Jews who knew Hebrew much better than any modern Hebewist.

You are correct concerning the structure of "I am" being simply "I - Yahweh." However, ehyeh means "existing". I believe you failed to read the articles by K.J. Cronin. I don't think anyone can overturn the evidence he presents in his article.

Yes, he is making the same claim here. However, his audiance did not understand that He was making this claim here. They did not understand who he was making himself to be nor the relationship he was claiming with the Father:

Jn. 8:25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou?
John 8:27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

Again, previous to this statement they still did not understand who He was making himself to be:

Jn. 8:53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

However, when Jesus repeated "I AM" in this response to that question they no longer misunderstood what he was saying but understood it completely and immediately attempted to stone him:

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

Here the context is different. The audiance is simply asking him if he was the one who opened the eyes of this blind man. However, I believe He is still making the very same claim of Exodus 3:14 but unbeknown to this audiance just as he was in John 8:24 but unbeknown to the audiance.

The power that accompanied the word "I am" should answer this question. The audiance may be unaware that He is claiming Exodus 3:14 but the power accompany the words demonstrates He is not merely making the claim but manifesting the power of that claim.