Does Exodus 3:14 Reveal a Timeless Name or a Dynamic Declaration of God’s Active Involvement?

Introduction and Overview

Exodus 3:14 has long been recognized as a profound statement in which Jehovah addresses Moses from the burning bush. Many translations have rendered the divine self-disclosure as “I am who I am,” while others have offered variations such as “I will be who I will be,” or “I am that I am.” Scholars have approached this passage in manifold ways, sometimes focusing on eternality, sometimes on God’s self-existence, and sometimes on a more active or future-oriented sense of becoming. Each approach has sought to capture the essence of God’s response to Moses, whose question in context was tied to how he would represent God to the Israelites and to the powerful Egyptians.

Exodus 3:14 (Updated American Standard Version) says: “God said to Moses, ‘I am what I am.’ And he said, ‘Say this to the sons of Israel: “I am sent me to you.”’” Yet the underlying Hebrew expression “אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה” (Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh) can carry a range of possible senses. The root verb “היה” (hāyāh) often means “to be” or “to become,” which supports the interpretation that Jehovah becomes whatever is necessary in order to accomplish His will. This article explores the broader historical and grammatical elements at work in Exodus 3:14, along with the theological implications for how God’s name underscores His active involvement in delivering and guiding His people.

The Context Leading to Exodus 3:14

Moses’ encounter with Jehovah at the burning bush occurs in the midst of the Israelite oppression in Egypt, at a time when Moses has fled after defending a fellow Hebrew. Exodus chapter 3 unfolds with Jehovah appearing to Moses in a flame of fire, commissioning Moses to return to Egypt to liberate his people. Moses then asks what name he should present to the Israelites, likely to confirm the authenticity of the one who sent him. The name “Jehovah” was not unknown, since Genesis 2:4 uses “Jehovah” in reference to God. Yet the burning-bush encounter provides a deeper revelation of God’s nature—an aspect that would reassure the Israelites that their God fully intends to rescue them.

Understanding how Moses and the Israelites already knew the name “Jehovah” is important. Moses is not asking, “What is your name?” in the sense that he or his people never heard it before. He is inquiring about God’s capacity to fulfill what He promises. This anticipates the question, “Who is this God who can confront Pharaoh and bring us out of bondage?” In verse 12, Jehovah assures Moses that He will be with him. In verse 14, God elaborates further: “I am what I am.” Some interpret this to mean pure timeless existence; others see it as an assurance of God’s active presence and power to become whatever is needed to accomplish His purposes.

Historical-Grammatical Considerations

The historical-grammatical method of interpretation examines the meaning of a biblical text by looking carefully at its historical setting and linguistic features. In the case of Exodus 3:14, the immediate context is the commissioning of Moses to deliver the Israelites. Historically, the people are enslaved, and Moses must stand against Pharaoh, the greatest earthly power of that time. Grammatically, the Hebrew phrase “אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה” involves a first-person singular form of the verb הָיָה (hāyāh), which frequently denotes becoming, coming to pass, or being.

Some interpreters prefer “I am who I am,” emphasizing God’s self-existence and unchanging nature. Others point to the possibility of translating the phrase as “I will be what I will be,” capturing the sense that God will reveal Himself in diverse ways according to what is required at any moment. The textual context makes it clear that the focus is on God’s readiness to act in human history, delivering His people and fulfilling His covenant. That readiness is not a static concept but a dynamic truth, demonstrating that He can manifest His power in whatever manner is necessary to accomplish His will.

Exploring the Meaning of “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh”

The Hebrew construction אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh) can be understood in various ways. Some translators see in these words a statement of eternal being or timeless self-identity. Others discern more of an active sense, aligning with the root idea of becoming. A grammatical approach acknowledges that “אֶהְיֶה” can mean “I am,” “I will be,” or “I will become.”

Throughout the account of Exodus, God repeatedly demonstrates His capacity to override the might of Egypt, providing plagues that expose Pharaoh’s vulnerability, dividing the Red Sea, and later supplying manna from heaven. These events underscore that God indeed becomes whatever He needs to be in order to protect and guide His people. Thus, from a historical-grammatical perspective, interpreting the phrase in an active sense fits well with how the narrative continues.

Assessing Common Interpretations

Some have seen Exodus 3:14 as the ultimate declaration of God’s self-contained existence. They draw from the notion that God depends on no one and exists eternally, which is indeed part of Scriptural teaching. They might quote passages such as Psalm 90:2: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God,” emphasizing that God’s being stretches without bound through past and future.

Others argue that Exodus 3:14 describes God’s willingness to become whatever His people need in any circumstance, thereby highlighting God’s active involvement in history. This perspective recognizes that the Hebrew verb can have a forward-looking sense: “I will be what I will be.” In a historical context where Moses needs divine assurance, such a translation highlights that the God speaking to Moses is fully capable of adapting to every challenge, fulfilling His promises to free and establish Israel.

The textual context near Exodus 6:2–8 also reinforces this dynamic emphasis, because God promises there that He will act and redeem Israel from slavery. Over and over, statements like “I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians” and “I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God” declare Jehovah’s capacity to fulfill His pledge.

Rejecting the “Multiple Meanings” Approach

An important distinction exists between recognizing that a Hebrew phrase may allow various translations and asserting that Exodus 3:14 has numerous unrelated interpretations. The historical-grammatical approach stands on the principle that a biblical text possesses a single meaning anchored in the original author’s intent. The nuance of “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” might be complex, but it still points to one overarching meaning that encompasses God’s nature and His readiness to accomplish what He has purposed.

Some voices might insist that all views are equally valid, speaking of the “richness of the passage.” Yet that approach can undermine the author’s intent by suggesting that the text can mean whatever the reader finds meaningful. This runs counter to the emphasis on authorial intent: the biblical author, guided by the Spirit, had a specific message to convey. In Exodus 3:14, that message pertains to Jehovah’s real capacity to fulfill His plan for the Israelites. The text’s meaning is not infinitely elastic. Rather, it is firmly anchored to God’s revelation to Moses, which underscores the divine power and resolve to liberate the Israelites.

How Reader-Centered Criticism Differs

Reader-centered methods place the primary focus on how a contemporary reader interprets the text, sometimes at the expense of the author’s original meaning. This can open the door to many divergent interpretations. Certain scholars champion the idea that each reader “creates” or “actualizes” the text’s meaning. This aligns with broader cultural trends that elevate individual autonomy above any authoritative statement, be it from a biblical author or the text itself.

In that viewpoint, a text like Exodus 3:14 can be reinterpreted to endorse an entirely new meaning never intended by Moses or the final shape of the book of Exodus. Such a stance views the text as “dead” until a reader breathes personal significance into it. This directly conflicts with the historical-grammatical perspective, which holds that the text is already meaningful based on what God intended to communicate through the original writer. The faithful interpreter seeks to uncover that meaning, rather than invent a new one.

Why the Author Must Determine the Meaning

The notion of respecting authorial intent flows naturally from ethical considerations. When someone composes a text, that person’s words are an expression of his or her mind and purpose. Taking that text and reading it to mean something foreign to what the author wrote is akin to misrepresenting or plagiarizing. Just as one would not tamper with a legal will or patent, one should not override the message that an author has embedded in a biblical text.

Robert H. Stein, in his discussions on biblical interpretation, underscores that ignoring the author’s intent robs the author of his creation. This resonates with believers who recognize that God’s Word is “inspired,” meaning that each biblical author, under divine guidance, composed a message intended for God’s people. The careful student of the Bible aims to comprehend that intended message. Exodus 3:14 offers a powerful disclosure of Jehovah’s identity and purpose, and it should be handled with seriousness rather than as a platform for personal or subjective readings.

The Dynamic Role of Jehovah in Exodus

A close look at the unfolding events after Exodus 3:14 reveals the dynamic nature of God’s involvement. Jehovah executes plagues that demonstrate His supremacy over Egyptian deities, leads His people across the Red Sea, and later provides manna, quail, and water in the wilderness. He then reveals His law at Mount Sinai, forging a covenant with the people. All of these actions illustrate that Jehovah is not a distant, unmoved deity; He actively intervenes and “becomes” what His people need—a deliverer, a lawgiver, a sustainer, a protector.

That dynamic quality is consistent with the idea that “I will become what I choose to become.” God’s being is not static or limited. He can manifest His power and assume roles that accomplish His will, from creative acts in Genesis to sustaining His covenant people in the wilderness. Faithful Israelites who witnessed these events would understand that the divine self-disclosure in Exodus 3:14 pointed to a God who makes things happen, rather than passively remaining aloof.

Linking Exodus 3:14 with Other Scriptural Themes

Although Exodus 3:14 is a major text for understanding God’s nature, numerous other passages in Scripture highlight similar truths. Jehovah’s words in Isaiah 46:9–10 affirm that He declares “the end from the beginning,” indicating that He brings about His intentions on the stage of history. Isaiah 55:11 states that His word “shall accomplish that which I purpose.” These texts converge on the theme that God’s self-revelation involves purpose, power, and fidelity.

In the New Testament, passages such as 1 Corinthians 10:1–4 allude back to the events of the Exodus, noting that Christ was figuratively accompanying the Israelites as they drank from the spiritual rock. Although the focus there is on Christ’s role, the underlying truth remains that God was actively providing for Israel. Such references show that the dynamic sense of God’s activity in Exodus 3:14 resonates with a broader scriptural testimony about divine involvement in human affairs.

Why “I Will Become What I Choose to Become” Carries Insight

Some question whether translating “I am what I am” or “I will be what I will be” really makes much difference. Yet the second rendering may highlight more clearly that Jehovah is not merely affirming eternal existence—He is pledging to act on Israel’s behalf. Consider how Moses might have felt standing before Pharaoh, who possessed military might and an empire. “I am what I am” might sound abstract, but “I will become what I choose to become” suggests an assurance of adaptive power, reminding Moses that the God sending him can accomplish the miraculous.

Furthermore, the plagues, the Exodus itself, and the subsequent wilderness experiences confirm that Jehovah assumed multiple roles: Liberator, Provider, Judge, Shepherd. The promise made at the burning bush proved true in every challenge. This underscores how a dynamic reading of Exodus 3:14 befits the entire Exodus narrative.

Responding to the Claim That Exodus 3:14 Has Many Meanings

Some liberal scholars or interpreters highlight the “richness” of the text, claiming it can yield many conflicting meanings. Yet such a stance often downplays the context of Exodus chapter 3 and the consistent portrayal of God throughout Scripture. The text’s complexity does not nullify the need for interpretive discipline. Biblical narratives often have depth, but that depth revolves around a single stable meaning that the author intended to convey.

When a reader decides that Exodus 3:14 can mean an infinite number of things, the text risks being reduced to an “inkblot,” a shape on which each person projects personal ideas. But if the text truly is God’s Word, then the interpretive task is to discern the meaning placed there by divine inspiration, not to invent a private or contradictory meaning. The richness is found in the many implications and applications that flow from the single meaning, rather than in an array of contradictory or arbitrarily concocted interpretations.

Balancing Eternity and Present Action

One might ask if affirming a dynamic sense of Exodus 3:14 detracts from the eternal, unchangeable nature of God. It does not. The scriptural witness testifies that Jehovah is unchanging in His moral character and faithful to His covenant (Malachi 3:6). He is also portrayed as capable of manifesting Himself as Deliverer or King or Judge, depending on the situation. These manifestations do not contradict His unchanging nature. Instead, they highlight His sovereignty over history. He can choose to be the refuge for those who trust in Him or the adversary of oppressive powers. He can become a pillar of cloud for guidance by day or a pillar of fire by night (Exodus 13:21).

Thus, a translator or commentator who prefers “I am who I am” can still acknowledge that God’s self-existence remains essential to His nature, while the text also conveys a dynamic dimension. Those who prefer “I will be who I will be” might emphasize God’s readiness to act in a variety of capacities, all consistent with His unchanging moral attributes. Both aspects reinforce God’s majesty.

Moses and the Israelites: What They Understood

Another question arises about how Moses and the Israelites would have heard the phrase in their ancient Semitic context. They were about to witness supernatural events in Egypt, culminating in deliverance. Likely, they recognized that Jehovah, the same God who had made a covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was revealing that He stands fully prepared to accomplish deliverance. Rather than giving them an abstract philosophical proposition, He was assuring them of His limitless capacity to fulfill His word.

In the chapters that follow, Moses repeatedly confronts Pharaoh in Jehovah’s name. When the Israelites see the signs and wonders, they realize that Jehovah’s self-declaration at the burning bush was not theoretical. It explained how the One they already knew by the name Jehovah is capable of manifesting power in many ways. The Hebrew mindset, shaped by a close tie to genealogies, covenants, and the worship of Jehovah, would readily appreciate that God’s name includes the dimension of “bringing to pass” or “causing to become.”

Potential Misunderstandings in Translation

A translator who chooses “I am” might unintentionally foster a reading that leans more on Greek philosophical categories of pure being. A translator who chooses “I will be” or “I will become” might convey the aspect of dynamic involvement but could risk overshadowing the nuance of eternal existence. Some might propose a hybrid rendering, “I am and I will be,” but that is less idiomatic in English.

In an attempt to respect both the context and the grammar, some translations add footnotes explaining the possible senses of the Hebrew. Others remain with the traditional “I am that I am” while acknowledging that the phrase can embrace more than the English suggests. Either way, the translator’s goal should be to stay as close as possible to the meaning intended in the original setting. This underscores the importance of methodical study of the Hebrew text, ancient contexts, and how the text relates to the entire Exodus narrative.

Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name “Jehovah”

Verse 15 continues: “God said moreover to Moses, ‘You shall say to the sons of Israel, “Jehovah, 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 forever, and this is how I am to be remembered throughout all generations.’” The name Jehovah appears many times in Genesis, indicating that God’s covenant people were already aware of it. Here, though, Jehovah connects His eternal name to the redemptive act He will perform in delivering the Israelites from Egypt, fulfilling what He promised to Abraham centuries earlier (around 1876 B.C.E. when the covenant was initiated).

The text clarifies that God’s identity as Jehovah is not a novel revelation, but the deeper significance of that name is being revealed. Jehovah is the One who can bring about His plans, from the promise given to Abraham to the eventual inheritance of the land of Canaan. This is consistent with the dynamic sense that the verb “to be” or “to become” carries. The meaning of Jehovah is tied to “He causes to become,” a name embodying God’s ability to manifest His will in creation and history.

Avoiding the “Richness” Argument That Ignores Context

Some might argue that Exodus 3:14 is so “rich” that one could see it as endorsing an array of contradictory ideas. Yet the historical-grammatical approach insists that while a text can be profound, it remains tethered to the author’s (and ultimately God’s) intended message. The user of a purely reader-centered approach could claim that any personal interpretation is valid. Yet Scripture consistently portrays itself as God’s authoritative word, not an inkblot awaiting each reader’s invention. Jesus himself asked, “Have you not read…?” (Mark 12:10), pointing to the idea that the text has a discernible meaning that can be understood when read properly.

Exodus 3:14 does not function as an invitation to unlimited reinterpretations. Rather, it reveals the character of Jehovah as the One who is both ever-living and supremely able to accomplish His covenants. That single meaning can be expressed in varied ways, but the meaning itself is stable, anchored in the historical context of Moses’ calling and the divine promise of redemption.

Dynamic Yet Eternal: Synthesis of the Themes

God’s eternity and self-existence form part of the overarching biblical teaching (Psalm 90:2, Isaiah 40:28), so the sense “I am” cannot be dismissed. Meanwhile, the narrative thrust of Exodus underscores the forward-looking power of God to intervene and deliver, so “I will become what I choose to become” also has merit. Combining these insights leads one to see that Jehovah, as revealed in Exodus 3:14, is eternal and unchanging in character while also active and sovereign in directing events. He can manifest as Protector, Redeemer, and Lawgiver, all consistent with who He inherently is. This does not reflect multiple contradictory meanings but rather a single, multi-faceted revelation of the same God.

Recognizing Implications Without Multiplying Meanings

Every passage of Scripture can yield significant implications for faith and practice. Exodus 3:14 underscores that Jehovah is not confined by human limitations or the might of any earthly power. It implies that His people can trust in Him to bring about salvation and fulfill His promises. That has direct application for believers who face oppressive circumstances, reminding them that God is fully equipped to act. Yet these implications flow from one central meaning, not from separate and contradictory interpretations of the text. The difference between legitimate implications and multiplied “meanings” is crucial.

How Exodus 3:14 Confronts Idolatry and Oppression

In the ancient Near East, nations often trusted in localized deities or credited their kings with divine status. The Israelites, by contrast, served Jehovah, who was not limited to a single territory or function. Exodus 3:14 effectively challenges Egyptian claims to divinity. Pharaoh is confronted by the God who can dynamically overcome nature, produce plagues, and alter political outcomes. No idol or human ruler can match the One who can shape reality itself. This theme reverberates throughout Exodus, revealing that the name and nature of Jehovah surpass every other contender for power or worship.

Why the Question of Authorship Matters

Moses is traditionally acknowledged as the writer of Exodus, with the events taking place around 1446 B.C.E. if one follows a literal biblical chronology. If the text is indeed from Moses under divine guidance, the meaning of Exodus 3:14 is locked to that historical setting. The reference is to Jehovah’s revelation to Moses and Israel, preparing them for departure from Egypt. If, however, one were to adopt a highly skeptical or liberal approach that sees Exodus as a later compilation with uncertain authorship, then the author’s intent becomes muddled in theories about multiple editorial layers. That can lead to the “richness” argument, where people posit numerous contradictory voices within the text.

The conservative perspective maintains that Moses, writing under guidance, conveyed a single coherent message: Jehovah alone is God, fully able to save, and the name that Israel already knew is now explained more deeply in its significance for their immediate deliverance and future. This single purpose undercuts the idea of multiple authors with divergent meanings.

Confronting Reader-Response in Practical Terms

Those championing a reader-centered approach might say, “What this verse means to me is…” By this, they sometimes imply that their private understanding, even if it contradicts the context, is equally valid. A responsible reader can indeed reflect on how a text applies to personal circumstances. Yet the meaning of Exodus 3:14 remains what it was when God revealed Himself to Moses. The text is not subject to endless manipulations that depart from its original intent.

If a liberal scholar insists on the “richness” of many possible readings, one can press them by re-stating their words in a way they did not intend, demonstrating that even they object when someone misinterprets their statements. That is precisely how the biblical author’s intent should be protected. It is unethical and disrespectful to claim that the original writer’s meaning can be ignored or replaced. The text belongs to the author, and ultimately, the message belongs to God.

The Application for Translation and Teaching

When translating Exodus 3:14, committees face the challenge of rendering the Hebrew in a manner that best fits the context. Some remain with “I am who I am” out of traditional usage, perhaps adding a footnote that it may be rendered “I will be what I will be.” Others may choose a dynamic translation that clarifies the forward-looking sense, though they must be mindful of the timeless aspect as well. Teachers and preachers must handle the text with respect for both the grammar and the theological context, showing that the real thrust is God’s commitment and capability to deliver His people.

Summing Up the Theological Significance

The theological weight of Exodus 3:14 rests in the revelation that Jehovah is not a passive observer but the living God who can shape events in dramatic ways. His name, known to the patriarchs, acquires a fuller dimension in this text, reaffirming that He is forever faithful and unlimited in how He can help His people. The self-disclosure at the burning bush prepares Moses for the monumental task ahead, reinforcing that the almighty God stands behind His promise to rescue.

Such a revelation remains central to understanding biblical theology. It teaches that God, though transcendent, is immanently involved in human affairs, shaping history according to His will. He will be the Redeemer, the Guide, the Judge, and the Sustainer. He will become whatever is necessary to keep His covenant and bring about His righteous objectives. In this way, the name Jehovah rings with both permanence and activity.

Conclusion

Exodus 3:14 does not present multiple contradictory truths but rather discloses a single, profound message: the God of the patriarchs, Jehovah, is fully capable of manifesting Himself in whatever capacity is required to fulfill His covenant with His people. The Hebrew phrase “אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה” underscores both God’s eternal being and His dynamic power to “become” what the situation demands. Moses is thus reassured that the One sending him to Pharaoh is not limited by human constraints.

The historical-grammatical approach to interpretation allows one to appreciate the active sense of the verb while affirming God’s timelessness. It also prevents the notion that one can fragment the text into a dozen incompatible meanings. Instead, it highlights that the verse serves a single pivotal function in revealing Jehovah’s nature and His readiness to deliver Israel.

“I am who I am,” “I will be who I will be,” or “I will become what I choose to become”—all revolve around the biblical truth that God truly is and has the sovereign ability to accomplish His will. Pharaoh’s might proves no obstacle, and the subsequent narrative shows how Jehovah’s power topples earthly empires, sustains a fledgling nation in the wilderness, and forms a covenant that echoes down through Israel’s history. In the final analysis, Exodus 3:14 stands as an enduring testament to Jehovah’s revealed identity, assuring believers of His unwavering capacity to fulfill every promise.

Sources In Defense

¹⁴ God said to Moses, “I am what I am” And he said, “Say this to the sons of Israel: ‘I am sent me to you.’” Exodus 3:14 has long been rendered “I am what I am,” yet a careful Historical-Grammatical analysis of the Hebrew text calls for renewed examination of how Jehovah chose to reveal Himself at the burning bush. The key expression, ʾehyeh ʾasher ʾehyeh, derives from the Hebrew verb hayah (“to be, to become”), which in the imperfect form often carries a dynamic, future-oriented sense. Rather than expressing abstract, philosophical self-existence in the Greek metaphysical sense, the phrase emphasizes active, covenantal faithfulness: “I Will Become What I Will Become.” In context, Jehovah is responding to Moses’ concern about His authority and identity before Israel (Exod 3:11–13). The divine name, therefore, is not a speculative statement about ontology but a declaration of purposeful action—Jehovah will prove to be whatever He needs to become in order to accomplish His redemptive will. This interpretation aligns with the immediate context, the broader Pentateuchal narrative, and the covenantal framework rooted in the promises made to Abraham in 2091 B.C.E. The name Jehovah (JHVH), linked etymologically to this verbal form, underscores God’s faithfulness to fulfill His word, particularly His promise to deliver Israel from Egyptian bondage (Exod 3:16–17; 6:2–8). Reconsidering Exodus 3:14, therefore, guards against importing later philosophical categories into the text and restores the emphasis to Jehovah’s self-disclosure as the living, acting, covenant-keeping God who progressively reveals His character through historical acts of salvation.

On the grammatical force of ʾehyeh ʾasher ʾehyeh (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה) in Exodus 3:14, the Hebrew imperfect (yiqtol) form of היה (hayah) regularly denotes incomplete or future action and may carry a durative or progressive nuance rather than a strictly present existential sense. See Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 513–33; Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, rev. ed. (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2006), 2:344–63; and E. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, trans. A. E. Cowley, 2nd English ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910), §107–108. Lexically, היה encompasses not only stative “to be” but also dynamic “to become” or “to come to pass,” supporting the translation “I Will Become What I Will Become” as grammatically viable. See Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, rev. by W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm, trans. M. E. J. Richardson (Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000), 1:224–25; R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 1:210–11; Willem A. VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 1:1033–37. Contextually, Exodus 3:12 (“I will be [ʾehyeh] with you”) immediately precedes the divine self-identification, reinforcing the future-oriented covenantal assurance of divine presence and action. The subsequent revelation in Exodus 6:2–8 clarifies that the patriarchs did not know Jehovah’s name in its experiential fullness—namely, as the One who fulfills His covenant promises through redemptive action—thus linking the name intrinsically to historical deliverance rather than abstract ontology. See Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, New American Commentary 2 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006), 101–09; John I. Durham, Exodus, Word Biblical Commentary 3 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 38–41; Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967), 36–41; Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 107–12; and John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 244–49. While the Septuagint renders the phrase ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (“I am the One who is”), reflecting a more ontological formulation, this Greek translation does not override the semantic and syntactical features of the Hebrew text itself, which, in its immediate literary and covenantal context, emphasizes Jehovah’s active, self-determined becoming in the accomplishment of His redemptive purposes.

You May Also Enjoy

How Should John 8:58 Be Translated?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS