Introduction
13Then Moses said to God ‘If I went to the Israelites and was saying to them, “The God of your fathers has sent me to you,” and they asked me, “What is his name?” what should I say to them?’ 14 God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And he said, ‘So you shall speak to the Israelites, “I AM has sent me to you.”’ 15 And God spoke further to Moses, ‘So you shall say to the Israelites, The Lord (YHWH), the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.” This is my name for ever, this my designation in every generation. Exodus 3:13-15
The book of Exodus is one of the most important books when it comes to the reconstruction of the history of the people of Israel. The book is presented to the reader in two main parts that are God’s rescue of the people of Israel from Egypt and, bringing them to Mount Sinai in chapters 1-19 and a description of the covenant made with them at Mount Sinai from chapter 20-40 (Stuart, 2006, p. 19). In other words the divisions could be looked at, as the emancipation of the people of Israel from the submission of their oppressor who was the Pharaoh, to the submission to God and them being given laws as the people of God. Since some scholars assert that the book was written by Moses, it is important that we state that the book of Exodus is a continuation of Genesis in which we find God carrying out his promise to Abraham.For centuries humans have fallen victims of glorifying the tree rather than the roots that makes the tree what it is. By saying this, in this study we are going to looking closely at the dialogue between Moses and God in Exodus 3:13-15, especially the most enigmatic to be found in the Holy Scriptures, and try return back to its original meaning rather than its modern meaning that was influenced by Greek philosophy. Firstly we are going to look at the Exodus as a whole. Secondly we are going to see how Exodus 3 fits into the book of Exodus and it’s importance. Thirdly we are going to look at how this dialogue has been translated and interpreted over the centuries. Here we are going to focus on Plato’s philosophy of being and its influence on the early church fathers. In this section we are going to speculate what the text might have meant to the Hebrew and how the Greek interpreted it to mean.
Exegesis of Exodus
As mentioned above the book of Exodus is a continuation of the book of Genesis as it starts with the formation and redemption of the people of Yahweh and ends with the institution of the covenant and ethical and prophetic law of God by itself (Lange, 1876, p 6). The name’s original translation of this book from the Hebrew Bible is “And these are the names.” However, within those two divisions, the first part also has division within itself. The importance of the first part importance is that of a deliverance through suffering which happens to a deliverance marked by the institution and celebration of the passover. The importance of the second part of the first division is marked by the separation of Israel from Egyptians by the passage through the Red Sea, accomplished by the means of the pillar of cloud and of fire in chapter 16, celebrated in Moses’ song of victory and taking shape in the preparation for the theocratic covenant. The second part of division in itself has between divided into namely, the history of the first legislation of the institution of the covenant and if the order of the tabernacle together with the reception of the written law, the history of apostasy in the setting up of the golden calf, of the restoration of the covenant through chastisements and of the law renewed partly in the severer, partly in milder terms and finally into the history of the erection of the tabernacle by which Mt Sinai is brought within the congregation of God.
Importance of Exodus 3 into the whole book
In the second part of our study as mentioned, we are going to look at the importance of Exodus 3 and how it fits into the rest of the book. In Exodus chapter three we identify what a genre that plays a central role in the book of a divine theophany appearing on the mountain. According to Dozeman (2009, p 4), argues that this genre develops the theme of divine presence in Exodus. Other scholars like Carroll (1997, p 57) rather than witnessing the development of the divine presence, they witness the absent presence of the divine presence especially in the response of Exodus 3:14
However, I think it is important we state that Exodus 3 is part of the non-priestly sources and on top of it, it is a mixture of both sources E and J. The Interplay between Yahweh and Elohim in this chapter appeared throughout the non-priestly narrative as of other part in Exodus like chapters 18, 19 and 24. Some scholars attributed this literary issue to a later editor of the E source (Dozeman, 2009, p 100).
The part we are going to focus on is Exodus chapter 3:13-15 were Moses is commissioned to go to Egypt and emancipate the people of Israel from the Pharaoh and lead them to the promised land.
Exegesis on Exodus 3:13-15
God and Moses in verses 13-15 are engaged in a conversation pertaining the identity of God. This verse has evoked a long history of scholarly controversy and has been approached with so many oblique questions that it is extremely difficult to hear the text any more within its present context. However, the question in verse 13 has scholars in the last couple of decades question the importance it. According to Childs (1974, p 75) this question that Moses asked God pertaining his name on behalf of the Israelites contained both a request of information and an explanation of its significance. As a result of names playing a big role during this time, it was not wrong for Moses to ask such as question. The people of Israel might have wanted to know what this God would do for them now since their former relationship with the was through their forefathers, that is the patriarchal fathers.
Furthermore, Gerardo Sachs (2010) and Barry Beitzel (1990) assert that the question Moses asks God reveals mostly about Moses background and also his inquisitive human nature. Moses question to God in verse 13 according to Sachs (2010, p 244), was triggered by his upbringing at the court of the principal power of the time, at an Egyptian Pharaoh’s household and also he knew the power that a name carried. A name was known to carry something of a characterization or maybe gave forth to something that was going to happen in one’s life and this can be note in the first book of the Pentateuch, with :names like Abraham “the Father of a multitude of nations” (Gen 17:6) and Jacob “the supplanter,” just to say few. Thus, Sachs (2010, p 245) argued that Moses requested God’s name because it was believed that the name of a demon, spirit or deity in itself conveyed the essence, weakness and strengths of it. Earlier on, Beitzel (1990, 16) had argued for the same notion because Moses posed a question of character reference and not of nomenclature. With this in mind, we would like to propose another way in which the question can be read, in context with the argument made by the aforementioned scholars to “What type of a God are you?”
Moving on, God in verse 14 responded to Moses’ question and the response is divided into two parts (one part (v. 14 a) that is directed to Moses and the other part (v. 14 b) directed to the people of Israel). Due to the fact that Hebrew verbs do not have future, past nor present tense, Sachs (2010, pp 245-246) argued for four possible ways of understanding the tetragrammaton that was first written in Hebrew then later was translated into English from the Septuagint to “I am that I am.” The first translation for 14a was “I am who I am,” which in his explanation argued that it referred to the eternally unchanging Being. This term is still the used in the New Living Translation (NTL) Bible, American Translation, along with a few other bibles. Before we go any further, we would like to draw your attention to the philosophical thought of being as we find it important to show when Greek philosophy was entangled into this verse. As said earlier on, the Septuagint translation of v 14a was what led to the introduction of Being in theology. The early church fathers like Augustine and Aquinas fell to divine impassibility whereby they moved from history to ontology where this verse was concerned. According to Michael Allen (2009, p 179), it was these early church fathers that largely compromised the narratival particularity of revelation in v. 14a by uncritically embracing various Greek philosophical thoughts. Allen (2009) in his article Exodus 3 after the Hellenisation Thesis, explains how Plato theory of being was very influential in Augustine’s theology and how in almost each and every work of his, he applied that thought. He first looks at Augustine’s work Confessions, where after reading the divine revelation in Exodus 3 he went on to distinguish God from creation. Augustine would assert that creation was of a lower order and had no absolute being in itself neither were they entirely without being (Allen, 2009, p 186). In his other work City of God, we identify Augustine closely relates Platonism to Christians understanding of God. Augustine here shades light to the difference between real existence (God) and accidental existence (creation). He then further goes on to argues that Plato might have acquired his knowledge from the Holy Scripture or creation itself. Still looking into the City of God, Allen (2009, pp 186-187) identifies Augustine’s use of dualism thought of Plato and as a result he reads v. 14 as saying God alone exists eternally, this alone qualifies as creator of all nature, be it good or bad. In other words, Augustine’s doctrine of divine simplicity (that is, God’s simplicity is unchangeable) found it’s roots in Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. In Sermon 7 Augustine interprets the tetragrammaton as “I am who I am,” “I am eternal,” or “who cannot change.” Augustine argued that this was a negative name that Moses received in v. 14a, however God’s intent here was not to provide information about Himself so much as to limit the knowledge of God (Allen, 2009, p 188). Carroll (1994, p 47) also agrees with Augustine on the last argument on v. 14a, as he took the response that Moses got as quite dismissive and somewhat short-tempered. Furthermore we can speculate that he agrees with Augustine’s argument of the God not intending to provide information about Himself. Carroll (1994, p 47) finds this response playful rather than any serious linguistics because He remains unknown as was before His response, instead the answer of who God is, is to be found within the linkage of the fathers in the narratives of Genesis. Some scholars depart from that notion as they assert that because of the tetragrammaton he makes know His character to the people of Israel and Moses (Gianotti, 1985, p 38-39) Again, Augustine lays down his thoughts on Exodus 3 in his work Expositions of the Psalm. Augustine argues that the divine name functions negatively to qualify human speech about God by noting God’s qualitative distinction from creation. Lastly, Allen (2009, p 189) identifies Augustine’s understanding of the tetragrammaton in his work The Trinity. As a result of his belief and understanding in the trinity Augustine asserts that God peculiarly is. This means that Christians could speak if God only adequately as God has so granted, never assuming that words work perfectly but knowing that God has granted everything necessary for salvation. Therefore he refutes the notion of divine corporeality whereby God is conceived in body terms.
The second translation for v. 14a was “I am who I shall be,” which he argued that this way of self identification by God reflected fundamental constancy regardless of variation. The third translation for 14a was “I shall be who I am,” which he argued was the idea that evolution is inherent to the essence of God. This translation accommodates natural science (Darwin’s Theory of evolution) in attempt to reflect that religion does not refute science nor vice-a-versa. The fourth and final translation Sachs (2010, p 246) gives us for the tetragrammaton found in 14a was “I shall be who I shall be.” This he found to have two separate meanings which are “to everyone I am something else” and that God continuously realizes Himself. Pannell (2006) translates the tetragrammaton like that and he proposes that it should be read as a cohortative construction. According to this type of reading to the text, the tetragrammaton will interpret to, God can and will be known to Israel furthermore this knowledge will be the basis of relation between the two but this knowledge would not be the basis of either controlling or manipulating God (Pannell, 2006, p 353). Even though Pannell tries to put restrains to the impact of humanity can make on Yahweh, the first part of his argument contradicts that of Augustine and Carroll that God in v. 14 did not have intention of provide information about himself so much as to limit the knowledge of God. Other scholars before Sachs (2010) have opted to translate the tetragrammaton as “I cause what comes into existence.” However, to all the different interpretation we have been given by Sachs (2010, p 246), Schild (1954, p 296) asserts that the first “am” denotes identity while the second one expresses identity in accordance to some interpretations; existence according to others. For Carroll (1994) v. 14a reflects the phrase “I will be with you” in v. 12 thus reinforcing the futuristic aspect of the verb’s mode.
According to Carroll (1994, 52), the story of Moses could have been just as equal as other Old Testament prophet’s commissioning had it not been for its transformation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Instead of the Greek translators interpreting the tautology correctly, they chose to interpret the statement as an ontological claim. The futurity, dismissive mocking and playfulness of the tetragrammaton got lost in the translation thus introducing a different meaning to the text. The emphasizes on “I” led to fitting the story into the Aristotelian tradition of ontology. This led philosophers and theologians up until today to take about necessary being and pure being where this tautology is concerned.
Other scholars totally deny the argument that God replied Moses negatively, instead they assert that the answer Moses received was positive. Randall J.Pannell (2006, p 353) argued that although an ontology of divine being would be out of context in Hebrew canon, Exodus 3:14 portrayed divine freedom of self expression in response to the question in v, 13. Childs (1974, p 71) argues against the previous notion since in v. 14b you find a positive answer to Moses’ question.
However when we move on to v. 14b and 15 we can speculate that scholars have a consensus that the response he received there was so as to validate his commission to the people of Israel. This name given to Moses, according to Allen (2009, p 188) was a name of mercy. For scholars that take the posit that God gave out his name in v. 14, they go on to assert that v. 14 was a name for Himself whereas v. 15 was for the people of Israel and that clearly showed the limitation of humanity when it came to comprehend God.
Though they were other scholars who approached this text from relating the name to a cultic, some scholars decided to approach this text was from a form criticism analysis. Childs (1974, 67) was one of the scholars who was concerned with relating the commission of Moses with the name he got from God. He argued that this was a more helpful way in understanding the text than the aforementioned relation. He identified a similarity between Moses and other other prophets like Elisha and Elijah in light of that the is a link between being a true messenger and to prophesying in the name of Yahweh. According to tradition in the E source, the name Yahweh was first revealed to Israel in the Mosaic period where as in J tradition he was identified as the God of the Father. With this being said, we see the work of the redactor in the three verses we focus on in this study. He further argues that E traditions were influenced by the a later question how to differentiate between a true and a flash prophet. However, Childs (1974, 68) raises an interesting topic pertaining Moses’ question to God. Had the people of Israel forgot God’s name? Regardless, God gives out the answer in verse 15, an answer that would also validate Moses as a prophet commissioned by God to pass along a message to his people. Due to what had unveiled at the mountain of God, what was to follow was the new name (since the E tradition asserts that the name Yahweh was first passed on to Moses) that was going to be delivered to the Israelites who lived in Egypt while at the same time preserving the continuity of God’s history of revelation and also Moses’ role as a true prophet is validated by God’s one true name.
In conclusion we can assert that Brevard Childs and Augustine might have read Exodus 3:14 in the same light taking a posit that God’s naming shows His transcendence, necessitates analogical discussion of God, qualifies any claim to speak of God, and requires attention to God’s particular presence amidst Israel and in Christ to provide adequate identification of this elusive God (Allen, 2009, 196). This phrase however does not show any presence in the current moment when Moses and God are in a dialogue but however the is a promise of one in the future. According to Carroll (1994, p 53), who attempts to exegete the original text as it is, v. 14a is not the divine revelation of God but instead it is a simple evasive or ironic riposte to Moses following his question in v. 13. He suggests that should an exegete decided to work with that verse, they should refrain from using that English or Greek translation as their prolegomena as it is contaminated by philosophy. Rather they should start off from the actual Hebrew text, so as not to get mix history with the idea of ontology. I personally agree with Carroll’s argument on the interpretation of these verses. These verse gives people futuristic hope rather than the characteristic of God. There was no revelation that took place at the mountain of Horeb, instead the revelation was still yet to take place in Egypt. We hope we have managed to contrast the unknowable view, ontological view and the phenomenological view. Furthermore, I we have mapped out the distinction between the translation of these verses from a Greek (ontological) interpretation, to a Hebrew (simplicity) interpretation.
