The Yahweh Name

[TrevorL]

The Yahweh Name: Initial Declaration and Fulfilment
The following is a consideration of the Yahweh Name that was revealed in Exodus 3:14. It is hoped that the following comments will help to explain some of the language of both the OT and NT and the true role of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The Name of God was revealed to Moses in the following terms:
Exodus 3:14-15 (KJV): 14 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. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Most translations and commentators accept the present tense “I am that I am”, but notice in the margin of the RV (or ASV) and RSV, an alternative is given “I will be that I will be” or “I will be what I will be”, showing that some modern scholars suggest this alternative reading. Although not popular it appears that this future tense is the correct translation.

Not only modern scholars, Tyndale also translated this in the future tense.
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.
I also like his spelling, especially where he gives “wilbe”.

The word translated “I AM” in the KJV of Exodus 3:14 is the Hebrew word “ehyeh” and this is the same as in the earlier statement in v12, and here the translators give the future tense:
Exodus 3:12 (KJV): And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.
Not only does this fix the tense, it also introduces the concept that the Name of God is also associated with some future activity.

This future tense was to be the future activity by God acting to deliver Israel out of Egypt, so that Israel would become a people for His Name. They would be a living witness to the purpose of God, and a witness to the existence of God. The following passage emphasises this future work by God in delivering Israel and there is given a strong connection with the God’s Name which had been revealed:
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 JEHOVAH (or 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.

When Israel was delivered out of Egypt the Name of God remains the same, but the particular activity has been accomplished:
Exodus 15:1-3 (KJV): 1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. 2 The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him. 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
The future tense of God’s Name “He will be or become” had been accomplished, and Yahweh had become Israel’s salvation.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

The Yahweh Name: Additional Consideration of the Future Tense

As mentioned in the previous post the KJV translates Exodus 3:14 with the present tense “I AM” and this appears to be a deliberate change of Tyndales’ future tense “I wilbe” or “I will be”. I am not aware if there is documentation of any discussion between the KJV translating committee on this aspect.

Perhaps it could be considered presumptuous to prefer the future tense, when there is such a strong support of the present tense. Having a quick browse of my electronic copies in my Bible Program, the following translations also have the present tense: NIV, NASB, ESV, NRSV, NLT, CSB, NKJV, HCSB, LEB, NET, NAB, NCV, CEV.

I mentioned that the RV and RSV have the future tense as an alternative, and my print edition of the RV has: “or I Will Be That I Will Be”. Again I am unaware of any documentation of the translating committee on this aspect. Evidently someone on the committee suggested the future tense, but the RV committee decided against this change. It is interesting that the Hebrew scholar AB Davidson was a member or advisor of the RV translating committee and he has endorsed the future tense elsewhere. AB Davidson’s Hebrew abilities have been respected and some of his Hebrew books were published in new editions until recently.

The article by AB Davidson is in the Hastings Bible Dictionary Volume 2 page 199:
"The name is connected with the Hebrew ‘hayah’, ‘to be’, in the imperfect. Now with regard to this verb, first, it does not mean ‘to be’ essentially or ontologically, but phenomenally; and secondly the imperfect has not the sense of a present (‘am’) but of a future (‘will be’). In Exodus 3:10ff when Moses demurred to go to Egypt, God assured him saying, ‘I will be with thee’. When he asked how he should name the God of their fathers to the people, he was told Ehyeh asher Ehyeh. Again he was bidden say, ‘Ehyeh hath sent me unto you’. From all this it seems evident that in the view of the writer Ehyeh and Yahweh are the same: that God is Ehyeh, ‘I will be’, when speaking of Himself and ‘Yahweh’, ‘he will be’, when spoken of by others. What He will be is left unexpressed - He will be with them, helper, strengthener, deliverer."
Now this last comment by AB Davidson ties in with what I suggested that what God would do or be was that Yahweh would be their salvation, Yahweh would deliver Israel out of Egypt and bring them into the Promised Land.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Yesua888]

The Yahweh Name: Additional Consideration of the Future Tense

As mentioned in the previous post the KJV translates Exodus 3:14 with the present tense “I AM” and this appears to be a deliberate change of Tyndales’ future tense “I wilbe” or “I will be”. I am not aware if there is documentation of any discussion between the KJV translating committee on this aspect.

Perhaps it could be considered presumptuous to prefer the future tense, when there is such a strong support of the present tense. Having a quick browse of my electronic copies in my Bible Program, the following translations also have the present tense: NIV, NASB, ESV, NRSV, NLT, CSB, NKJV, HCSB, LEB, NET, NAB, NCV, CEV.

I mentioned that the RV and RSV have the future tense as an alternative, and my print edition of the RV has: “or I Will Be That I Will Be”. Again I am unaware of any documentation of the translating committee on this aspect. Evidently someone on the committee suggested the future tense, but the RV committee decided against this change. It is interesting that the Hebrew scholar AB Davidson was a member or advisor of the RV translating committee and he has endorsed the future tense elsewhere. AB Davidson’s Hebrew abilities have been respected and some of his Hebrew books were published in new editions until recently.

The article by AB Davidson is in the Hastings Bible Dictionary Volume 2 page 199:
"The name is connected with the Hebrew ‘hayah’, ‘to be’, in the imperfect. Now with regard to this verb, first, it does not mean ‘to be’ essentially or ontologically, but phenomenally; and secondly the imperfect has not the sense of a present (‘am’) but of a future (‘will be’). In Exodus 3:10ff when Moses demurred to go to Egypt, God assured him saying, ‘I will be with thee’. When he asked how he should name the God of their fathers to the people, he was told Ehyeh asher Ehyeh. Again he was bidden say, ‘Ehyeh hath sent me unto you’. From all this it seems evident that in the view of the writer Ehyeh and Yahweh are the same: that God is Ehyeh, ‘I will be’, when speaking of Himself and ‘Yahweh’, ‘he will be’, when spoken of by others. What He will be is left unexpressed - He will be with them, helper, strengthener, deliverer."
Now this last comment by AB Davidson ties in with what I suggested that what God would do or be was that Yahweh would be their salvation, Yahweh would deliver Israel out of Egypt and bring them into the Promised Land.

Kind regards
Trevor

Hi Trevor,
Thanks for the post and things to study : )

This is what I have uncovered:

"The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible was published in 1611, while William Tyndale's first complete printed English New Testament appeared in 1526, with a revised edition in 1534.

This means Tyndale’s version predates the King James Version by approximately 85 to 88 years. The KJV drew heavily from Tyndale’s work, with scholars estimating that around 84% of the New Testament and 76% of the Old Testament portions he translated were retained in the KJV."

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Yeshua888,

"The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible was published in 1611, while William Tyndale's first complete printed English New Testament appeared in 1526, with a revised edition in 1534.

I appreciate the information. I decided to look at the two Bible versions between Tyndale and the KJV. Both the Geneva Bible of 1560 and the Bishop's Bible of 1568 have rendered Exodus 3:14 with the present tense "I AM". Perhaps the KJV was only copying these, rather than deliberately altering Tyndale's translation. It is interesting that Robert Alter in his fairly recent translation gives both the Name of God in Hebrew and then the translation in English in the future tense: "Éhyeh-'Asher-Ëhyeh, I-Will-Be-Who-I-Will-Be"

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[David]

The Yahweh Name: Initial Declaration and Fulfilment

The name in Exodus 3:14 is powerful, but the overwhelming testimony of Scripture presents God as the eternal “I AM.” When Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am” ~John 8:58, the Jews understood exactly what He claimed and tried to stone Him for it. That fits the present-tense sense of self-existent, unchanging being.

God Himself calls it “my name for ever” and “my memorial unto all generations” ~Exodus 3:15. Yes, He acts in mighty ways to deliver His people, as in the Exodus, but the name reveals who He is in Himself, the eternal, faithful God who was, is, and always will be with His people. ~Malachi 3:6 (KJV) says plainly, “For I am the LORD, I change not.”

The future-tense idea has some linguistic support, but Scripture itself keeps pointing us to the great “I AM.” That seems to be the clearer emphasis across both Testaments.

Kind regards.

 

[David]

I appreciate the information. I decided to look at the two Bible versions between Tyndale and the KJV. Both the Geneva Bible of 1560 and the Bishop's Bible of 1568 have rendered Exodus 3:14 with the present tense "I AM". Perhaps the KJV was only copying these, rather than deliberately altering Tyndale's translation. It is interesting that Robert Alter in his fairly recent translation gives both the Name of God in Hebrew and then the translation in English in the future tense: "Éhyeh-'Asher-Ëhyeh, I-Will-Be-Who-I-Will-Be"

Great. You’re reading that word exactly right. You’re paying attention to the wording. That’s good. But don’t focus on the waves. It doesn’t matter which English version came before which other English version. The weight of this verse is not resting on the shoulders of translation history. It’s resting on Jesus.

When God declares who He is in ~ Exodus 3:14, He’s not teaching Moses grammar. He’s making a distinction between Himself and everything else in existence. The entire created universe will become. Everything created has changing seasons. Everything created needs something to continue existing. But God? He just IS.

While that Hebrew word has a sense of both “I am” and “I will be”, please don’t miss what God is communicating to us. He is not restricted by tense like we are.He is not currently becoming something He will later be. He is not growing, or changing, or improving. He exists outside of time fully God, fully complete, and fully present in the current moment. That’s why Jesus can say, “I am the LORD, I change not” ~Malachi 3:6. THAT is NOT poetry. That is FACT.

Fast forward to Jesus. When He declares “Before Abraham was, I am” ~ John 8:58. He’s not bragging about who got here first. He’s claiming that name. That identity. And the people listening to Him knew it. The religious leaders understood exactly who Jesus was declaring Himself to be. That’s why they reached for their stones. It wasn’t because they didn’t understand who Jesus claimed to be. They knew He was claiming to be God Almighty.

So does it matter if someone says “I am” or “I will be”? Does the absolute truth of who God is shift one millimeter? No. When God defines Himself, He’s not restricted by the past, present, and future tenses we use to try to make sense of our lives. He defines Himself as the eternally self-existent One who IS.

That is your anchor. Not which translator John translated from. Not which English translation came before the English you have in your hands. The anchor keeping you grounded is the character of who God says He is.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings David,

The name in Exodus 3:14 is powerful, but the overwhelming testimony of Scripture presents God as the eternal “I AM.” When Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am”

I appreciate your thorough two Posts, but I continue to hold on to the future tense in Exodus 3:14 mainly because of the context and partly out of my respect for the scholars who give the future tense, and I have only mentioned a few of these. Have you looked at the entry for the Ehyeh of Exodus 3:14 in the Englishman's Concordance, where it is placed, under the Future Tense category?

My interest in this subject was awakened when I was 19, 63 years ago. Do you want me to elaborate on this. Also as my Hebrew instructor stated in front of a disappointed audience, the present or perfect tense is found in Exodus 3:6, not in Exodus 3:14 which is the future tense or the imperfect tense.

I also have a different perspective of John 8:58 and compare John 8:58 with John 8:24 and John 8:28 and the theme running through John's Gospel of whether or not Jesus is the Christ and that Abraham foresaw the day of Christ together with his suffering and victory over sin..

The Yahweh Name: Yahweh's Character Revealed
The Yahweh Name is revealed in Exodus 3:14 in relation to the deliverance of Israel out of the bondage of Egypt and the promise to bring them into the Promised Land. Perhaps this salvation could be considered to emphasise Yahweh's Wisdom and Might in achieving this deliverance, but later on Yahweh reveals His merciful character and this is associated with the Yahweh Name:

Exodus 34:5–7 (KJV): 5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. 6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, 7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

While the above proclaims the Yahweh'Name and Character, Jesus, the only begotten Son of the Father, the development of the Yahweh Name, reveals this character in his person, in his teaching and ministry:
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Yesua888]

The name in Exodus 3:14 is powerful, but the overwhelming testimony of Scripture presents God as the eternal “I AM.” When Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am” ~John 8:58, the Jews understood exactly what He claimed and tried to stone Him for it. That fits the present-tense sense of self-existent, unchanging being.

God Himself calls it “my name for ever” and “my memorial unto all generations” ~Exodus 3:15. Yes, He acts in mighty ways to deliver His people, as in the Exodus, but the name reveals who He is in Himself, the eternal, faithful God who was, is, and always will be with His people. ~Malachi 3:6 (KJV) says plainly, “For I am the LORD, I change not.”

The future-tense idea has some linguistic support, but Scripture itself keeps pointing us to the great “I AM.” That seems to be the clearer emphasis across both Testaments.

Kind regards.

Thanks for that David : )

I am still not clear about OT, NT and God ...
Did God the Father inspire OT, and Did Jesus Christ inspire NT?
When we read the OT and read the word "God", is this The Father being referred to?
Or is the "God" that is referred to in both, the Trinity?

The verse Genesis 1:26 contains the phrase, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”
The following verse, Genesis 1:27, clarifies the result: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

This seems to answer my question?

 

[Yesua888]

Great. You’re reading that word exactly right. You’re paying attention to the wording. That’s good. But don’t focus on the waves. It doesn’t matter which English version came before which other English version. The weight of this verse is not resting on the shoulders of translation history. It’s resting on Jesus.

When God declares who He is in ~ Exodus 3:14, He’s not teaching Moses grammar. He’s making a distinction between Himself and everything else in existence. The entire created universe will become. Everything created has changing seasons. Everything created needs something to continue existing. But God? He just IS.

While that Hebrew word has a sense of both “I am” and “I will be”, please don’t miss what God is communicating to us. He is not restricted by tense like we are.He is not currently becoming something He will later be. He is not growing, or changing, or improving. He exists outside of time fully God, fully complete, and fully present in the current moment. That’s why Jesus can say, “I am the LORD, I change not” ~Malachi 3:6. THAT is NOT poetry. That is FACT.

Fast forward to Jesus. When He declares “Before Abraham was, I am” ~ John 8:58. He’s not bragging about who got here first. He’s claiming that name. That identity. And the people listening to Him knew it. The religious leaders understood exactly who Jesus was declaring Himself to be. That’s why they reached for their stones. It wasn’t because they didn’t understand who Jesus claimed to be. They knew He was claiming to be God Almighty.

So does it matter if someone says “I am” or “I will be”? Does the absolute truth of who God is shift one millimeter? No. When God defines Himself, He’s not restricted by the past, present, and future tenses we use to try to make sense of our lives. He defines Himself as the eternally self-existent One who IS.

That is your anchor. Not which translator John translated from. Not which English translation came before the English you have in your hands. The anchor keeping you grounded is the character of who God says He is.

David,

Please bear with me, as I have always grappled with the understanding of the use of the word "God" , expecially when used in the OT.

Romans 8:26 states that the Holy Spirit helps believers in their weakness because they often do not know how to pray as they ought. In these moments of uncertainty or inability to articulate desires, the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words, effectively communicating the believer's needs and aligning their prayers with God’s will. Which God's will HS is aligning with?

Romans 8:27 states, "And he who searches the hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." The phrase "he who searches the hearts" is a common biblical reference to God the Father, who has perfect knowledge of the human heart. The verse confirms that the Father knows the Spirit's intentions and that the Spirit's intercession is in perfect harmony with the Father's will. What is your understanding of this?

I still grapple with who to pray to, even though Jesus told His desciples to "pray to the Father", in his name through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is a bit complex for me to understand "though the power of the Holy Spirit" - is this God the Father's Spirit of Jesus's Spirit"?
Jesus feels more real to me that The Father, yet I know that He is real too.
I have prayed for clarity on this and I am still grappling to understand.

 

[Yesua888]

My interest in this subject was awakened when I was 19, 63 years ago. Do you want me to elaborate on this. Also as my Hebrew instructor stated in front of a disappointed audience, the present or perfect tense is found in Exodus 3:6, not in Exodus 3:14 which is the future tense or the imperfect tense.

I also have a different perspective of John 8:58 and compare John 8:58 with John 8:24 and John 8:28 and the theme running through John's Gospel of whether or not Jesus is the Christ and that Abraham foresaw the day of Christ together with his suffering and victory over sin..

This is the thought that crossed my mind ... could the future tense be referring to Jesus (God the Son) ... if you follow my questions about this, you will understand my confusion of the use of the word "God", whether it is referring to God the Father in most instances of the OT?

The Yahweh Name: Yahweh's Character Revealed
The Yahweh Name is revealed in Exodus 3:14 in relation to the deliverance of Israel out of the bondage of Egypt and the promise to bring them into the Promised Land. Perhaps this salvation could be considered to emphasise Yahweh's Wisdom and Might in achieving this deliverance, but later on Yahweh reveals His merciful character and this is associated with the Yahweh Name:

Exodus 34:5–7 (KJV): 5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. 6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, 7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

While the above proclaims the Yahweh'Name and Character, Jesus, the only begotten Son of the Father, the development of the Yahweh Name, reveals this character in his person, in his teaching and ministry:
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Yeshua888,

This is the thought that crossed my mind ... could the future tense be referring to Jesus (God the Son)

I do not accept the term "God the Son" as I believe in Sola Scriptura and this term does not appear in the Bible. I use the term that Jesus is the Son of God. Possibly the following may answer your question.

The Yahweh Name The Fulfilment in our Lord Jesus Christ
The initial fulfillment was not the ultimate completion of the Yahweh Name. God’s purpose with the earth was not complete with the salvation of Israel out of Egypt. God’s purpose was declared in the following, but sadly this was spoken at a time when the very generation that had been born through God’s deliverance failed.
Numbers 14:21 (KJV): But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.

The above raises the question of how and when will the earth be filled with the glory of God. One indication is found when the Psalmist uses the same words as Moses’ Song to speak of another deliverance:
Psalm 118:14-25 (KJV): 14 The LORD is my strength and song, and is become my salvation. 15 The voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tabernacles of the righteous: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly. 16 The right hand of the LORD is exalted: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly. 17 I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD. 18 The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death. 19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the LORD: 20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter. 21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation. 22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. 23 This is the LORDS doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. 24 This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. 25 Save now, I beseech thee, O LORD: O LORD, I beseech thee, send now prosperity.

The above is quoted at length to show that there was to be a greater salvation in fulfillment of the Yahweh Name. It is evident from the context that this salvation is by means of the suffering, crucifixion, death and resurrection of the man of God’s right hand, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

This greater deliverance is revealed even in the conception and birth of the child:
Matthew 1:20-21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

The meaning of the name Jesus is revealed: “for he shall save his people from their sins”. Was Jesus to be an independent Saviour? No, the name Jesus incorporates the Yahweh Name, Je-sous, Jo-shua, or Yah-Oshea. He was to be Yahweh’s Salvation. Here then is the extension or fulfillment of the Yahweh Name, Yahweh was to be, to become. He was to “become salvation” Exodus 15:2, in and through Jesus, the Son of God. Yahweh is the Saviour, Jesus is the Saviour. In other words Yahweh, God the Father is the Saviour through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Yahweh has become salvation.

Salvation is now offered in the Name of Jesus Christ:
Acts 4:10-12 (KJV): 10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

The subject of God’s Name has many other aspects, but I suggest the more we understand some of these aspects the more we will understand the subject as a whole. Here are a few examples of other aspects:

Psalm 9:10 (KJV): And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, LORD, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.

John 12:27–28 (KJV): 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Yesua888]

Greetings again Yeshua888,

I do not accept the term "God the Son" as I believe in Sola Scriptura and this term does not appear in the Bible. I use the term that Jesus is the Son of God.

TrevorL,
I won't go into all the rest that you so kindly put out there for me to read.
I stop here (above) and say, that perhaps "God the Son" is not written in Scripture, the Bible? However, is the Trinity (the word whicg apparently is also not written in Scripture?) not "God" with "three personalities": Father, Son and HS? Does that not mean that Jesus, being part of the Godhead, is God?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Yeshua888,

Does that not mean that Jesus, being part of the Godhead, is God?

I am not willing to discuss what you have written here. Jesus IS given the title "God" in various passages and each passage must be carefully considered. As far as the title "God" is concerned one of the exercises that our Young People's Class was given over 60 years ago was to mark in our Bible the different words in the OT translated "God" in the OT and this has helped in understanding the various places where these are used. We were instructed to not colour in "Elohim, but we were given different colours for other words such as El, Eloah, El Shaddai etc. We were also instructed to distinguish between the different words translated LORD, GOD and Lord.

One advance on this is to distinguish between the two different forms of YHWH, Strongs' #3068, #3069 and if understood it helps to avoid the erroneous form popular in old hymns and with the almost exclusive use by the JWs, "Jehovah". The introducton to Rotherham's Bible helps here.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[David]

I appreciate your thorough two Posts, but I continue to hold on to the future tense in Exodus 3:14 mainly because of the context and partly out of my respect for the scholars who give the future tense, and I have only mentioned a few of these. Have you looked at the entry for the Ehyeh of Exodus 3:14 in the Englishman's Concordance, where it is placed, under the Future Tense category?

This is where the weight of your argument shifts. You’re treating the concordance category as if it settles the meaning. It doesn’t. Even grammatically, scholars admit the translation cannot be decided by tense alone . That means we have to let Scripture interpret Scripture.

And when you do that, the Bible consistently pushes you toward identity, not just future action.

God says, “I AM… this is my name for ever” ~Exodus 3:14-15. That’s not just about what He will do for Israel. That’s who He is in Himself. Then you get, “I am the LORD, I change not” ~Malachi 3:6. That rules out the idea of God becoming something over time.

Then Jesus steps in and says, “Before Abraham was, I am” ~John 8:58. That locks it in. Whatever range that Hebrew word carries, Scripture applies it in a way that points to eternal, unchanging existence, not just future activity.

So yes, the concordance may group ehyeh under an imperfect or future category. That’s a grammatical observation. But grammar alone doesn’t define doctrine. The full testimony of Scripture does.

So I’m not dismissing your point about the verb form. I’m saying it’s not strong enough to override what the rest of Scripture makes clear. God is not becoming. God is.

 

[David]

Do you want me to elaborate on this.

No, that’s not necessary.

You’re pressing grammar and scholars, but you’re stepping past what God actually said about Himself. God didn’t reveal His name so men could debate verb tense. He revealed it to declare who He is.

“I AM THAT I AM… this is my name for ever” ~Exodus 3:14-15. That is not a God becoming something later. That is a God who is. Right now. Always. Unchanging. “I am the LORD, I change not” ~Malachi 3:6.

So let’s get honest. If you lean this into mainly “I will be,” you start shifting the focus from God’s eternal nature to His future activity. But Scripture never builds His identity that way. His actions flow out of who He is, not the other way around.

Then Jesus steps in and removes all doubt. “Before Abraham was, I am” ~John 8:58. He didn’t say, “I will be.” He didn’t say, “I became.” He said, “I am.” And the people listening knew exactly what that meant. That’s why they picked up stones.

This isn’t a harmless word game. This touches the very identity of God and the person of Christ. You don’t correct God’s self-revelation with a concordance category. You bow to it.

So I’m not going further down this path. The Word has already spoken clearly, and I’m standing there.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again David,

So I’m not dismissing your point about the verb form. I’m saying it’s not strong enough to override what the rest of Scripture makes clear. God is not becoming. God is.

A main part of your claim on Exodus 3:14 is based upon your understanding of John 8:58. I have stated in brief my different view of John 8:58. Abraham understood God as EL Shaddai and as the Most High El or Power. Referring to Exodus 6:1-8, what additional information is conveyed by God's new revelation of "I Am"?

If you lean this into mainly “I will be,” you start shifting the focus from God’s eternal nature to His future activity.

The immediate activity and context was the fact that God was going to deliver Israel out of Egypt and bring them into the Promised Land. He was going to fulfill the Covenant made to Abraham. The events of the exodus and Passover become the type of the deliverance available in Christ, the True Passover Lamb.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[David]

I do not accept the term "God the Son" as I believe in Sola Scriptura and this term does not appear in the Bible. I use the term that Jesus is the Son of God. Possibly the following may answer your question.

TrevorL, after carefully reviewing this thread “The Yahweh Name” and the direction it is taking, it is evident that you are presenting a carefully constructed argument that leads to the Christadelphian flavor of Biblical Unitarianism, a subordinationist position in which Jesus is not God in essence but is Yahweh’s instrument of salvation. The Father alone is Yahweh, and Jesus is merely the expression or fulfillment of that name, not its bearer by nature.

Key signs in your posts include:

• Insisting on the future tense of Exodus 3:14 (“I will be / He will be”) as God’s purpose being progressively realized through deliverance and salvation.
• Framing Jesus as “Yahweh’s Salvation” (Yah-Oshea / Joshua / Jesus) — Yahweh becomes salvation through His Son.
• Repeatedly stressing “Son of God” while explicitly rejecting the term “God the Son” (citing Sola Scriptura) and refusing to discuss Christ’s deity directly.
• Using detailed Hebrew word studies, concordances, Tyndale, A.B. Davidson, and older scholars to support this non-Trinitarian Christology.

You have held these views for 63 years (since you were 19) and are methodically seeding the forum with them under the cover of a “deep Bible study” on God’s name. This is not exploration; it is a prepared case.

I am also fully aware that you have posted this exact same thread (“The Yahweh Name”), often word-for-word, on multiple other Christian forums over the years, including TheologyOnline, ChristianForums, CARM, and others, where your Christadelphian views have been openly identified and discussed.

You stated when you joined that you had read our forum rules. Those rules do not permit the promotion of teachings that deny the full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. BTF is not a platform for quietly introducing or spreading Christadelphian / Biblical Unitarian doctrine.

You will not be permitted to spread these false teachings here. Your attempts to promote Christadelphianism or Biblical Unitarianism on BTF have resulted in immediate moderation action, including a ban if continued.

If you wish to participate in other discussions while fully respecting our statement of faith and rules, you are welcome to do so. Otherwise, this type of activity must stopnow
.
About Christadelphianism

About Biblical Unitarianism

David
(BTF Moderator / Administrator)

 

[Yesua888]

This is where the weight of your argument shifts. You’re treating the concordance category as if it settles the meaning. It doesn’t. Even grammatically, scholars admit the translation cannot be decided by tense alone . That means we have to let Scripture interpret Scripture.

And when you do that, the Bible consistently pushes you toward identity, not just future action.

God says, “I AM… this is my name for ever” ~Exodus 3:14-15. That’s not just about what He will do for Israel. That’s who He is in Himself. Then you get, “I am the LORD, I change not” ~Malachi 3:6. That rules out the idea of God becoming something over time.

Then Jesus steps in and says, “Before Abraham was, I am” ~John 8:58. That locks it in. Whatever range that Hebrew word carries, Scripture applies it in a way that points to eternal, unchanging existence, not just future activity.

So yes, the concordance may group ehyeh under an imperfect or future category. That’s a grammatical observation. But grammar alone doesn’t define doctrine. The full testimony of Scripture does.

So I’m not dismissing your point about the verb form. I’m saying it’s not strong enough to override what the rest of Scripture makes clear. God is not becoming. God is.

I'm wondering whether this play on grammar is to do with the "names" - referring to whom is to come?
Many verses seem to be referring to God the Father, where the name "God" is used ...
Then some verses refer to Jesus, and the name "God" is used ...

The New Testament frequently identifies God the Father directly as "God" in epistolary greetings and theological statements, while the Old Testament primarily refers to Him by the covenant name Yahweh (or LORD) rather than the generic title "God" (Elohim) when addressing Him as Father.
Romans 1:7: Paul addresses believers with grace and peace from "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ," explicitly identifying the Father as the source of God.
Ephesians 4:6: States there is "one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all," directly equating the Father with the one God.
1 Corinthians 8:6: Distinguishes the persons while maintaining monotheism: "for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things..."
In the Old Testament, when God is referred to as Father, He is almost exclusively identified by the personal covenant name Yahweh (translated as LORD in most English Bibles), rather than the generic title "God" (Elohim).

• Isaiah 63:16: "You, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name."
• Isaiah 64:8: "O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay and you are our potter."
• Deuteronomy 32:6: Moses asks, "Is this the way you repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is he not your Father, who created you?"

Direct Declarations of Jesus as God

• John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This foundational verse identifies Jesus (the Word) as divine, existing with God and being God from the beginning.
• John 20:28: After the resurrection, Thomas addresses the risen Jesus as "My Lord and my God!" Jesus accepts this worship without correction, affirming its truth.
• Titus 2:13: Paul refers to the future return of "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," directly applying the title "God" to Jesus in a single, unified phrase.
• Hebrews 1:8: God the Father addresses the Son, saying, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever." This is a direct, divine affirmation of the Son's deity, quoting Psalm 45:6.
• 2 Peter 1:1: The apostle Peter calls Jesus "our God and Savior Jesus Christ," placing "God" as a direct title for Jesus.

Just a another "slant" on the grammar argument or digression maybe?