THE REVELATION OF GOD - Exodus 3:13-15
WHAT IS HIS NAME?
3:13–22. God tells his name. 13. What is his name? Some commentators stress the use of mâ, ‘What?’ in this instance, rather than the idiomatic mî, ‘Who?’ They regard it as a question dealing more with God’s nature than with his mere title. We cannot assume that the Israelites were ignorant of the titles of the God worshipped by their patriarchal ancestors, and presumably also worshipped by them during their stay in Egypt (but see Joshua’s blunt words in Josh. 24:14). It is true that the word translated God could also be translated as ‘gods of your fathers’: but the singular possessive suffix in ‘his name’ shows that only one God is in question. Exodus 6:3 shows that Israel was quite aware that the patriarchs used the name El-Shaddai (RSV ‘God Almighty’) for God (cf. the proper name Ammi-shaddai in Numbers 1:12), along with many other titles. So the question of the Israelites does not spring from ignorance, nor is it a trick question framed to test Moses’ knowledge of the traditions of his own people. To ask the question, ‘Under what new title has God appeared to you?’ is equivalent to asking, ‘What new revelation have you received from God?’ Normally, in patriarchal days, any new revelation of the ancestral God will be summed up in a new title for him (Gen. 16:13) which will in future both record and recount a deeper knowledge of God’s saving activity. We may therefore assume that, in asking this question, they were expecting a new title for the patriarchal God.
tn Heb “And Moses said.”
44 tn The particle הִנֵּה (hinneh) in this clause introduces the foundation for what comes later—the question. Moses is saying, “Suppose I do all this and they ask this question—what should I say?”
45 sn There has been considerable debate about the name of Yahweh in the Pentateuch, primarily because of theories that have maintained that the name Yahweh was not known in antiquity (see also 6:3 and notes there). The argument of this whole section nullifies that view. The idea that God’s name was revealed only here raises the question of what he was called earlier. The word “God” is not a name. “El Shaddai” is used only a few times in Genesis. But Israel would not have had a nameless deity—especially since Genesis says that from the very beginning people were making proclamation of the name of Yahweh (Gen 4:26; 12:8). It is possible that they did not always need a name if they were convinced that only he existed and there was no other God. But probably what Moses was anticipating was the Israelites’ wanting to be sure that Moses came with a message from their God, and that some sign could prove it. They would have known his name (Yahweh), and they would have known the ways that he had manifested himself. It would do no good for Moses to come with a new name for God, for that would be like introducing them to a new God. That would in no way authenticate to them Moses’ call, only confuse; after all, they would not be expecting a new name—they had been praying to their covenant God all along. They would want to be sure that their covenant God actually had sent Moses. To satisfy the Israelites Moses would have had to have been familiar with the name Yahweh—as they were—and know that he appeared to individuals. They would also want to know if Yahweh had sent Moses, how this was going to work in their deliverance, because they had been crying to him for deliverance. As it turned out, the Israelites had less problem with this than Moses anticipated—they were delighted when he came. It is likely that much of this concern was Moses’ own need for assurance that this was indeed the God of the fathers and that the promised deliverance was now to take place.
46 tn The imperfect tense here has a deliberative nuance (“should”), for Moses is wondering what would be best to say when the Israelites want proof of the calling.
I AM WHO I AM
I am who I am (Heb. ’ehyeh ’ǎšer ’ehyeh): possibly ‘I will be what I will be’. This pithy clause is clearly a reference to the name YHWH. Probably ‘Yahweh’ is regarded as a shortening of the whole phrase, and a running together of the clause into one word. The clause certainly contains the necessary vowels, and the consonants come close enough. Indeed ’ehyeh (‘I am’ or ‘I will be’) is given as a form of God’s name in the second half of this verse. But this is almost certainly a Semitic punning assonance in explanation of the name, rather than the name itself, which appears in verse 15. ’Ehyeh, for instance, is never used as part of a proper name in the Old Testament. Davies rightly points out that since this is the only place in the Old Testament where there is any explanation of the meaning of the name YHWH, we ought therefore to take very seriously the association with ‘being’ which is clearly stated here. However, Noth rightly remarks that this is not ‘pure being’ in a philosophical sense, but ‘active being’ in terms of revelation. Granted, however, the general connection with ‘being’, what is the exact meaning? Simplest of all, does it mean that God exists, as opposed to idols without being? Along these lines, Hyatt sees ‘I am He who is’ as a possible translation: he also sees Hosea 1:9 as a possible reference to this meaning (in a negative sense). Does it mean ‘I am incomparable, inscrutable to human eyes’ (Exod. 33:19)? This, though true, would hardly be a further revelation. Or does it mean ‘I will only be understood by my own subsequent acts and words of revelation’? This would seem to fit the biblical pattern, for in all subsequent Israelite history God would be known as the One who brought Israel from Egypt (Exod. 20:2). The revelation of the name therefore is not merely a deep theological truth; it is a call to the response of faith by Moses and by Israel.
47 tn The verb form used here is אֶהְיֶה (’ehyeh), the Qal imperfect, first person common singular, of the verb הָיָה (haya, “to be”). It forms an excellent paronomasia with the name. So when God used the verb to express his name, he used this form saying, “I AM.” When his people refer to him as Yahweh, which is the third person masculine singular form of the same verb, they say “he is.” Some commentators argue for a future tense translation, “I will be who I will be,” because the verb has an active quality about it, and the Israelites lived in the light of the promises for the future. They argue that “I AM” would be of little help to the Israelites in bondage. But a translation of “I will be” does not effectively do much more except restrict it to the future. The idea of the verb would certainly indicate that God is not bound by time, and while he is present (“I AM”) he will always be present, even in the future, and so “I AM” would embrace that as well (see also Ruth 2:13; Ps 50:21; Hos 1:9). The Greek translation of the OT used a participle to capture the idea, and several times in the Gospels Jesus used the powerful “I am” with this significance (e.g., John 8:58). The point is that Yahweh is sovereignly independent of all creation and that his presence guarantees the fulfillment of the covenant (cf. Isa 41:4; 42:6, 8; 43:10–11; 44:6; 45:5–7). Others argue for a causative Hiphil translation of “I will cause to be,” but nowhere in the Bible does this verb appear in Hiphil or Piel. A good summary of the views can be found in G. H. Parke-Taylor, Yahweh, the Divine Name in the Bible. See among the many articles: B. Beitzel, “Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia,” TJ 1 (1980): 5–20; C. D. Isbell, “The Divine Name ehyeh as a Symbol of Presence in Israelite Tradition,” HAR 2 (1978): 101–18; J. G. Janzen, “What’s in a Name? Yahweh in Exodus 3 and the Wider Biblical Context,” Int 33 (1979): 227–39; J. R. Lundbom, “God’s Use of the Idem per Idem to Terminate Debate,” HTR 71 (1978): 193–201; A. R. Millard, “Yw and Yhw Names,” VT 30 (1980): 208–12; and R. Youngblood, “A New Occurrence of the Divine Name ‘I AM,’ ” JETS 15 (1972): 144–52.
48 tn Or “Thus you shall say” (also in the following verse). The word “must” in the translation conveys the instructional and imperatival force of the statement
THIS IS MY NAME FOREVER
The LORD. Here the full form of the divine name is used, YHWH, usually represented as LORD (in capitals) in English versions. The pious Jew of later years was reluctant to pronounce God’s name lest he incur the penalty for taking the name of YHWH in vain (Exod. 20:7). He therefore read the vowels of ’ǎdōnāy ‘my Lord’, with the consonants of YHWH, so producing the hybrid ‘Jehovah’ in English. This commentary follows one standard practice of writing God’s name as YHWH, in capitals without the vowels. Readers may please themselves as to whether they pronounce it as Lord, Jehovah or Yahweh. Perhaps the easiest way to understand what the name YHWH meant to the Jews is to see what it came to mean, as their history of salvation slowly unrolled. It ultimately meant to them what the name Jesus has come to mean to Christians, a ‘shorthand’ for all God’s dealings of grace.
49 sn Heb “Yahweh,” traditionally rendered “the LORD.” First the verb “I AM” was used (v. 14) in place of the name to indicate its meaning and to remind Moses of God’s promise to be with him (v. 12). Now in v. 15 the actual name is used for clear identification: “Yahweh … has sent me.” This is the name that the patriarchs invoked and proclaimed in the land of Canaan.
50 sn The words “name” and “memorial” are at the heart of the two parallel clauses that form a poetic pair. The Hebrew word “remembrance” is a poetical synonym for “name” (cf. Job 18:17; Ps 135:13; Prov 10:7; Isa 26:8) and conveys the idea that the nature or character of the person is to be remembered and praised (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 24).
51 tn The repetition of “generation” in this expression serves as a periphrasis for the superlative: “to the remotest generation” (GKC 432 §133.l).