This session of Transmillennial® 2006 addresses a foundational question in current-day and ancient theology. It is one that people have debated, fought over, and died for throughout the millennial. Today, it continues to drive much of the geo-political wrangling we experience in our world. The question I’d like to begin exploring is: who is God?

 

I’ve entitled this session, “Introducing God.” To begin addressing that question we’ll be grounded in one of the key texts of the entire Bible: Exodus 3. At the burning bush, God introduces Godself to Moses. And this early self-introduction of God helps set the stage for God’s ultimate and surprising eschatological self-introduction.

 

You’ll remember the background of the burning bush narrative. Forty years prior, Moses wanted to deliverer Israel from Egypt, but the Israelites were unwilling to submit to a murderer. Now in Exodus 3, Moses is 40 years older and shepherding his father-in-law’s flock of sheep. Meanwhile Israel remains enslaved in Egypt.

 

While leading the flock, Moses encounters the burning bush. In an amazingly understated fashion, the text quotes Moses as saying, “I must turn aside and look at this great sight, and see why the bush is not burned up.” I suspect that in his astonishment, Moses may have said something more akin to, “What the…”

 

At this point, Moses hears a voice originating from the bush that orders him to take off sandals. He is standing on holy ground, and nothing can interfere with his connection to that holy grounding. Moses complies and engages the voice in a dialogue.

 

In Exodus 3:6-8, the voice from the bush speaks and announces itself as God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. On this basis, God promises to deliver Israel from Egyptian oppression. In other words, God affirms that he is working on fulfilling his promises made to the fathers (Romans 15:8). Moreover, in 3:10, God commissions Moses to be the one through whom God would deliver the children of Israel from the hand of Pharaoh.

 

Notwithstanding the fabulous incident (including the fact that he is speaking with a voice emanating from an enflamed bush) Moses is reluctant and wants a sign. God agrees and gives one, but Moses is still unsure. So in Exodus 3:13, Moses asks for God’s “name.” This, Moses feels, will be the sign he needs to be successful.

 

Before looking at God’s response to Moses inquiry into the name, we should explore Moses’ question. Why would Moses consider knowing God’s name as a sign thereby assuring his success? Wanting to know God’s name may seem a little odd, especially in light of what is often called “Hebrew Monotheism”—the belief that there is one God and only one God. Names are generally given as tools of differentiation. Therefore it makes little sense for Moses to ask for God’s name if Moses believes that there were no other gods. However, the ancients, including ancient Hebrews, were not monotheists—especially in Egypt and Canaan.

 

But there is another sense, besides differentiation, that gives insight into understanding Moses’ desire to know God’s name. In ancient Egypt mythology (Moses was from Egypt), the Egyptian gods vied for power. In the Egyptian pantheon, knowing the secret name of a god offered magical power over others and even over the god. Say the name in the right way and the God acts as you desire.

 

Moses’ yearning to know the name of the deity speaking to him from the midst of the bush may have been an attempt to appropriate the name for exercising power.  If Moses could say the name, Moses could manipulate the god, or at least he could appropriate the divine power in order to carry out the mission of liberating the Israelites.

 

This may sound odd to us in our society, but in the Biblical context names were always associated with power and significance. Eve was the Mother of All Living. Abram transformed into Abraham. Sarai became Sarah. Jacob’s case is particularly interesting. He wrestled with the strange visitor, and Jacob would not let go until his opponent announced his name. Claiming it to be wonderful, the visitor changed Jacob’s name to Israel. The “deceiver” had become a prince of God.

 

So, Moses’ question can be seen in light of his context.  An Egyptian-educated Israelite on the run for murder is commissioned by an audible-yet-unseen deity to return to the scene of his crime in order to insist that the Pharaoh release the Israelites. Knowing the name of the deity might give Moses an upper hand—with Pharaoh and especially with Israelites whom Moses needs to win over.

 

In Exodus 3:13, Moses indicates that he is concerned with announcing the name of God to the Hebrews. The voice from the bush has already made an announcement about the divine identity in 3:6; this God’s self-identify appears to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But Moses believes that he will need more than that. He wants a further disclosure of God. But why?

 

It appears that the Israelites already had a sense of God as the God of the Fathers. At the burning  bush, Moses sees the beginning of a new program—or better yet the beginning of a new phase in God’s program; namely, Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. When Moses returns to Egypt with an announcement of liberation, this proclamation inaugurates a new mode (phase) of God’s relationship to Israel. We might look at this and say, “Nothing has changed. God was going to deliver Israel all along.” Perhaps. But something had changed: the specific historical setting. God remained God, and God remained committed to the Abrahamic promise. But Israel’s situation was new. Israel has never been delivered from Egypt before. Therefore, because Israel’s situation is new and unfolding, so is God’s.

 

The Exodus, then, is a new day and consequently calls for a new Divine Self-Revelation. Or as Walther Zimmerli describes it, God’s Self-Introduction. In the Exodus God reveals something previously unknown and this revelation comes in the form of the historical experience of the Exodus.

 

Consider Exodus 6:6-7. Here God speaks to Moses, affirming that the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) did not “know” God by the “name” YHWH. It is not that the word “YHWH” wasn’t known. It’s that they didn’t know God as YHWH in their experience because their situation had not called for it yet. We find this thought presented in Ezekiel 20, where YHWH through the prophet describes Israel’s knowledge of God as YHWH coming to fruition in the Exodus. “Thus says the Lord God: On the day when I chose Israel, I swore to the offspring of the house of Jacob—making myself known to them in the land of Egypt—I swore to them, saying, I am the Lord (YHWH) your God” (Ezekiel 20:5).

 

At the disclosure of the name to Moses, God is making Godself known by engaging Israel within this particular context of the Exodus, and the subsequent relationship between God and Israel will unfold accordingly. But what was “unknown” about God that this self-introduction of God reveals?

 

God answers Moses question…sort of. In Exodus 3:14-15, God’s response to Moses is ambiguous at best. “God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’ He said further, ‘Thus you shall say to the Israelites, “I am has sent me to you.”’ God also said to Moses, ‘Thus you shall say to the Israelites, “The Lord, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you”: This is my name for ever, and this my title for all generations.’”

 

On the surface, it appears that God tells Moses “My first name is YHWH, but you can call me ‘I Am.’” It may seem as if “YHWH” or “I Am” is God’s proper name. This may be the most popular interpretation of God’s name as announced at the burning bush. While many people are familiar with that phraseology, it raises a significant question: what does it mean?

 

In the name, we discover a three-fold declaration that is notoriously difficult to translate. It transliterated from the Hebrew: ehyeh aser ehyeh.  Usually in English this is translated as “I am that I am.” Or “I am who I am.” Paul Ricoeur points out that in this interpretation of the name the emphasis is usually placed on God’s being, which tends to be a Greek way of viewing God.

 

Since western languages take much their linguistic and underlying philosophical cues from the Greeks, we in the western tradition tend to place the emphasis of God’s name as a revelation about God’s being or God’s ontology.  Christian thinkers (notably Augustine) have speculated on God’s name and concluded that it reveals something intrinsic about God’s being. Augustine surmised that “I am” amounts to God being self-sustaining, unchanging, eternal, non-physical. All of these concepts were good Greek philosophical notions of what “being God” must entail, therefore they are culturally structured (or encoded) ideas about the very nature of God. There were simply no other ways to think about God in Greek cultural world.

 

We in the west derive our philosophical assumptions from the Greeks—and practically all of Western Christianity is grounded in Augustinian thought. As a result, we tend to perceive God in this way too: in terms related to God’s being and attributes. So when we come to Exodus 3 and hear “I am”, we hear God affirming eternality, self-sustainability, self-propagation. While this may be part of the Exodus 3 self-introduction, it is by no means all of it. In factExodus 3 is not the final and definitive statement on who God is. It is an introduction, albeit a significant one, upon which God builds the previous revelation to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Moreover, it allows God the possibility of looking forward to a fuller self-disclosure in due course. (More on that in 3.1.)

 

So, with that background, what does the name, YHWH or I Am, signify? As we mentioned, it is notoriously difficult to translate and to interpret. With that in mind, I’d like to offer three plausible (and related) renderings, three dimensions to this self-introduction.

 

The first is: “I who was, who am, and who shall be.” This may appear as a variant on the Augustinian approach. It suggests God as the one who was, is, and is to come. However, this signifies not only God’s being but also causation, potential, and goal. Paul alludes to this aspect of Godhood in Romans 11:36.

 

The second possibility originates with German theologian Hartmut Gese. It renders the name as: “I am as I shall show myself.” This construction serves at least two functions. One is that it sidesteps Moses’ question. In other words, the God who speaks to Moses will not be reduced to a magical formula—unlike Egyptian gods (which helps explain third commandment). Two, it indicates God’s openness to the future. God is not stuck in the past. “I Am” indicates God’s active dynamic presence—God reveals Godself in the appropriate way at the appropriate time. God continues to unfold as the relationship with humanity expands.

 

We understand this way of speaking in our own relationships.  For instance, in 1998, I took the name “Dad.” It was not until I became a dad that I could be known as Dad. And my “Dadness” continues to develop to this day. Perhaps sometime in the future I will be known as Grandpa, but until that time, it would be inappropriate to refer to me as Grandpa because I have not experienced Grandpaness yet.  So, I will be as I show myself at the right time on the proper occasion.

 

The third rendering (coming from the Aggadah) suggests that the Hebrew phrase means “to be with, to be like.” In this way, God announces, “I am like the one that I will be with.” “I will be with the one whom I am like.”  This opens some fascinating possibilities. It could be an affirmation to Moses: “I will be with you when you go to Egypt.” Or it can be seen as an assurance to Israel: “I will be with you in slavery, the Exodus, in future exiles because I am like you. You are like me. We’re in this thing together.”

 

Also, this sense of the name harkens back to Genesis 1:26, “Let us make adam in our image, after our likeness.” (We might hear a hint of this methodology in Matthew 1 when Joseph is instructed to call Jesus’ name Immanuel.)

 

So where des this leave us? Let’s summarize before moving forward. The “name” of God (YHWH, I Am) is not a “proper name.”  Instead, it is a “name” only insofar as it describes God’s relationship in leading Israel out of Egypt. Second, the name of YHWH is not simply a statement about God’s “being” or God’s eternality. While that may be included, it is not exclusive. Third, the name describes God’s relationship with Israel in the Exodus. Exodus is context for the name. Fourth, the name indicates that God reveals Godself at the right way at the right time. The introduction in Exodus 3 is not the final revelation of God. Instead it points to God’s promise for fuller self-introduction as the historical situation unfolds. Fifth, the (almost) unnoticed backdrop of this self-introduction is the conversation between Moses and God (and Israel and God). There is mutual giving and receiving. Moses does not cower, and God does not expect Moses to. There is face-to-face interaction that expresses intimacy with God, not isolation from God. “YHWH,” then indicates that God and Israel (and ultimately humanity) are in a mutually defining “I-Thou” relationship.

 

From here, we can explore two trajectories. One is the “eschatological” aspect of the name. The other is the “relational” aspect of the name.

 

Andre LaCocque points out, “to the extent God is transcendent, God’s love, care, and commitment transcend and overcome human ungodliness.” Another way of saying it is that God’s transcendence is manifest not in predicting the future, but in putting an end to sin and inaugurating and consummating the eschatological goal. Expressed in the eschaton, God would be all-in-all. We see this communicated in many Biblical texts, such as Isaiah 11:9, Zechariah 14:9, 1Corinthians 15:24-28.

 

One prime text related to the eschatological aspect of the “name” of God is Jeremiah 31. This is the famous “New Covenant” prophetic discourse. Let’s look closely at 31:31-34 and make four initial observations.

 

First, YHWH makes a declaration about some “coming days.” YHWH (I Am) the one Israel knew through the historical event of the Exodus is the one making the declaration. This is an eschatological promise made by the God of the Exodus. The God who delivered Israel in the Exodus event, announces another new phase of the divine program.

 

Second, YHWH declares a New Covenant. This may have been perceived as a radical promise in Jeremiah’s day. Perhaps we can’t imagine how scandalous it would have been. Maybe the closest thing in today’s Christian world would be saying: “Jesus came back 2000 years ago.”

 

Third, YHWH contrasts this New Covenant with the covenant given at Sinai. There are three significant points of differentiation. One, while Israel broke the Sinai covenant (v32) the New Covenant would be unbreakable. Two, the Sinai covenant was written on stone, but the New Covenant written on hearts. Three, in the Sinai covenant, one knew God through teaching; it was transmitted thru education (Shema).   In the New Covenant, this would not be the case because the New Covenant would be on a different order. God (and God’s name) would be known in a different way.

 

Fourth, all Israel would know God. It was in the Sinai Covenant (the Exodus) that Israel “knew” God as YHWH. However, in the giving of the New Covenant, Israel would have a new experience of God. This means that a new self-introduction of God would be necessary. God would be known in a new way by a new name. Because Israel and Judah found themselves in exile, they stood in need of a new phase in God’s promise, and this would necessitate a new name.

 

This is not to suggest that the name YHWH was ever incorrect. It was the right name at the right time of the Exodus. Likewise the new historical experience of eschatological deliverance would call for a new self-introduction that would transcend and include the first name and the Egyptian Exodus. This raises 2 questions: What is the New Situation? What is the New Name? Both the new situation and the new name relate directly to knowing God.

 

The New Situation is presented in Jeremiah 31:34. God would be known in all Israel. This may not seem like a new situation. Didn’t Israel and Judah know God from the Law and from the teaching of the priests and prophets? So what makes the situation new?   The newness is God’s forgiveness Israel’s iniquity and no more remembrance of Israel’s sin. The ultimate forgiveness of Israel’s sin would constitute the new situation. Therefore, the forgiving of Israel’s sin would constitute their “knowing” God. Israel’s knowing would be a result of God’s action—not their learning.

 

We find Jeremiah being quoted in Hebrews 8:8-13, where the first century writer links the removal of Israel’s sin with the work of Jesus and declares the Sinai Covenant was about to phase out.  Paul speaks of the same thing in Romans 11:26-27, where he quotes Jeremiah 31 (and Isaiah) in conjunction with the salvation of all Israel. The Deliverer comes out of Zion, God would banish ungodliness from Jacob, and this would be the covenant God makes to take away all Israel’s sin. This is not about a supposed mass conversion of Jews to Christianity. Rather, it is the work of God in removing Israel’s sin.

 

Moreover, the removal of Israel’s sin has extraordinarily broad implications—it would signify the reconciliation of the Gentiles and the proclamation of the “new” name of God amongst the nations. We see this foretold in places like Psalm 22:22, 27-28 (Psalm 22:22 is quoted in Hebrews 2:12). We also find it in Psalm 117, where the nations praise God for his hesed toward Israel. Why? Because God’s compassion to Israel ultimately results in God’s compassion to the nations. (Compare Matthew 12:18-21.)

 

So, the New Situation envisioned by Jeremiah 31 involves the removal of all Israel’s sin (and hence) the salvation/deliverance of all Israel, which does not exclude (but rather includes) the nations. This, then leads to the second question: “What is God’s New Name?”

 

There are multiple interrelated avenues for exploration here—all of which would be worthy of a conference or book all on their own. (One would be to explore the New Testament usage of “Abba,” but that is outside our purview in this session.)

 

For now, I would like to explore another avenue, based in the eschatological texts of Revelation 2:17 and 3:12. Here, we find a white stone with a new name being promised. Importantly, the one who receives the name would know the name. These texts often are interpreted as signifying that the one receiving the stone would be given a new name, a new identity. While that may be included in the sentiment, there is another possible layer to it. The reception of a white stone with a new name echoes to the Exodus and the reception of the stone tablets from the hand of YHWH. Here in Revelation, the eschaton would be marked with a “new stone” commensurate with a new name of God. This matches Jeremiah’s assertion that the New Covenant would be written on tablets of the heart, and it suggests that the one who would experience the eschatological deliverance would know the new name of God, just as ancient Israel knew God as YHWH in the Exodus (see Isaiah 56:5). 

 

The name is not spelled out, and we might find this upsetting or troubling. We want to know what that name is. But at this point we’d be well-served to pause for some self-reflection. Why do we want to know the name? Does that desire for knowing the name hearken back to Moses who wanted to know for his own purposes? Do we suppose that knowing God’s name will help us ward off evil or control the universe for our own purposes? God, generally, refuses to be molded into an image for examination. Beyond that, we find that the name (according to Jacques Derrida) is not the property of any one individual or religion.

 

However there are three “hints” to what the name in Revelation signifies. First, we see that the one who received the name would know the name. Remember the first-century setting related to those who would soon experience the eschatological deliverance.  (In connection to this, see John 1:12-13.) The firstfruits believers experienced God’s deliverance, similar to the Exodus generation. They, then, knew God’s new name by experiencing the new situation. The name suggests that God is the One who delivers the firstfruits, and, hence, the entire harvest.

 

The second hint concerning the name takes us back to Jeremiah 31. We recall that knowing the name was a result of God’s implementation of the New Covenant thereby removing Israel’s sin. When the iniquity would be removed, all Israel would “know” the name, from the least to the greatest.   At the same time, Jeremiah redefines knowing in a paradoxical manner, one that is not especially familiar to post-Enlightenment-era westerners. “Knowing” is no longer confined to individuals having a conscious awareness of God instilled through a pedagogical process. Instead “knowing” is God forgiving the sin of Israel, which has implications for all of the families of the earth. Subsequently the name intimates God as the One who delivers all Israel and blesses all families of the earth. This, of course, echoes the promise made to Abraham in Genesis 12.

 

The third hint pointing to the new name, takes us to Paul’s statements in 1Corinthians 13:12-13. “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.” In the context of spiritual gifts, Paul writes that in the transition time, he knew in part. Yet, when the fullness would arrive, he would know as he was already known—which he connects with love.

 

As a Hebrew of Hebrews, Paul looked forward to the deliverer coming out of Zion and bringing salvation to all Israel (Romans 11). In the act of God’s removal of Israel’s iniquity, Paul would know the name of God just as Paul was known by God—echoing Jeremiah 31. In this way, with the arrival of the “perfect” Paul’s knowing God would involve Paul being known (loved) by God in the removal of the covenantal trespass of Israel.

 

Paul (and the firstfruits first, then the entire harvest, each in their own order) would receive the “white stone” upon which the name of God was “written.” All from the least to the greatest would know that name in being known (loved) by God and in their own experience of deliverance. So, what is the name eschatologically speaking?  The name is known in that God has ultimately delivered Israel and blessed all families of the earth in and through God’s comprehensive love.

 

There is another sense in that we can explore the name: Relationally. We could make some suggestions from, say, 1John 4:16, “God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.” But it is seems safe to say that relationally speaking, not everyone has consciously experienced a relationship of love with God. People across cultural boundaries associate God with fear, war, punishment, eternal torment, bitterness, divisiveness, power mongering.

 

So for me to suggest that anyone who does not welcomingly/consciously/joyfully receive God with love does not know God would be presumptuous at best because as we saw in Jeremiah 31 and Revelation 2, knowing God is an act of God. Knowing God is being loved by God. And God knows (loves) all, from the least to the greatest.

 

But relationally speaking, we can turn things around. Rather than saying that to know God, you must know love, it may more appropriate to say that if you have known love, then you have known God.  Hence, you don’t have to go around teaching your neighbor, “Know God.” For all of them shall know Love, from the least to the greatest.

 

Love, it seems to me, is the eschatological self-revelation of God.  And this self-revelation of love continues to grow in our daily experience, individually and collectively. So, the name of God—Love—continues to find new expressions and meaning, new self-introductions as we experience and express love.

 

SOURCES:

Caputo, John D. (1997). The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without Religion.

 

Gese, Hartmut. (1981). Essays on Biblical Theology.

 

LaCocque, Andre and Paul Ricoeur. (1998). Thinking Biblically: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Studies.

 

Zimmerli, Walther. (1982). I Am Yahewh.

 

 

URL: http://www.presence.tv/cms/con-introducing-god.php

---

Top of Page

Email Article

Printer