I am not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, but in Corinthians 15:10 Paul says (But by the grace of God) I am what I am.” I don’t think you could say He was taking the Lord’s name in vain and it might be just a bit of a stretch to say that anyone making that pronouncement is taking the Lord’s name in vain.
To refer to yourself as the eternally existent I AM would definately be crossing that line.
Good point Candydawn – my post is a tad overstated! I perhaps should have said “I wonder if they know they’ve used a divine name.”
The Greek of 1 Cor 15 is a little different (eimi ho eimi rather than ego eimi), but probably the big difference between Paul and a self-exalting rapper is the phrase beforehand: “By the grace of God…”
Unless we’re aware that the LORD has defined us, then we do slip into delusions of self-creation.
Michael:
February 17th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Glen, it seems to me your post is more about recognizing and honoring God than about the failure of worldly people to understand approximate coincidental use of scripture. In that regard I believe you have done an excellent job. While reading and rereading, I am reminded of another aspect of this name and would appreciate your thoughts.
I have heard it taught that this name for God reflects Hebrew culture in that it defines a characteristic of Him. Like God changing Jacob’s well-earned name to “Israel,” or Jesus changing Simon’s name to “Peter,” this name of God (“I AM”) describes something very unique. God was not brought into existence, nor will He go out of existence, He just is. Considering that as truth, my question then relates to the future-tense translation you mentioned (“I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE.” ).
Were you to read the translations of those who have difficulty accepting Jesus as I AM (despite the clear expression of verses such as John 8:58), you would see they translate this using the future tense. (e.g. the Torah says “I will be what I will be” and the NWT says “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE”) I have even seen God described as “the Becoming One.” Am I simply nitpicking when I cringe at this, thinking “God never changes, therefore He can’t be something different tomorrow than He is today”? Perhaps I have staked out the position, “I AM THAT I AM…say…I AM sent me to you” is the best (only valid?) translation because I feel the other is used to mask Jesus’ identity.
Because you have expressed the revelation of God very beautifully, which of course supports the alternative translation, I welcome your perspective, if of course, you can make sense of my ramblings!
Well on a straight translation point, I WILL BE is the most straightforward rendering of this verb form (‘weqatal’ for Hebrew buffs). And it mirrors the use of it in verse 12: “I will be with you.” So I think we should be aware that this nuance is very much present in the Hebrew text, even if, overall, the NT (and Jesus!), when faced with the choice, plumps for a present tense translation (ego eimi).
So I’d argue that the future tense is a nuance that is clear in the original. But it’s obviously not so vital that NT authors felt they had to preserve it in the Greek.
But you raise the issue of whether the future tense would be problematic theologically. And I think the future tense becomes a lot less objectionable when you think of Yahweh as “the God of promise.” Just think of something like Exodus 6:6-8 where the phrase “I am the LORD” sandwiches 7 future tense promises of what the LORD *will* do. The LORD is, very much, the LORD who WILL do and be certain things for His people.
The god of Greek philosophy is changeless in a way quite unlike the promise-keeping constancy of the living God. Our God doesn’t change because He always fulfils what He says He will do – I think that’s quite a different concept to a philosophical immutability.
If we want to insulate God from all ‘events’ we might find ourselves locking Him out from the gospel! But no, our God *is* the God of the gospel.
So I’d be happy going with the present tense translation (after all, Jesus is!). But I think the future is also implied in the original and that this should not be seen as a threat (but actually as a boost) to a Biblical doctrine of God.
Candydawn:
February 15th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
I am not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, but in Corinthians 15:10 Paul says (But by the grace of God) I am what I am.” I don’t think you could say He was taking the Lord’s name in vain and it might be just a bit of a stretch to say that anyone making that pronouncement is taking the Lord’s name in vain.
To refer to yourself as the eternally existent I AM would definately be crossing that line.
Glen:
February 15th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Good point Candydawn – my post is a tad overstated! I perhaps should have said “I wonder if they know they’ve used a divine name.”
The Greek of 1 Cor 15 is a little different (eimi ho eimi rather than ego eimi), but probably the big difference between Paul and a self-exalting rapper is the phrase beforehand: “By the grace of God…”
Unless we’re aware that the LORD has defined us, then we do slip into delusions of self-creation.
Michael:
February 17th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Glen, it seems to me your post is more about recognizing and honoring God than about the failure of worldly people to understand approximate coincidental use of scripture. In that regard I believe you have done an excellent job. While reading and rereading, I am reminded of another aspect of this name and would appreciate your thoughts.
I have heard it taught that this name for God reflects Hebrew culture in that it defines a characteristic of Him. Like God changing Jacob’s well-earned name to “Israel,” or Jesus changing Simon’s name to “Peter,” this name of God (“I AM”) describes something very unique. God was not brought into existence, nor will He go out of existence, He just is. Considering that as truth, my question then relates to the future-tense translation you mentioned (“I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE.” ).
Were you to read the translations of those who have difficulty accepting Jesus as I AM (despite the clear expression of verses such as John 8:58), you would see they translate this using the future tense. (e.g. the Torah says “I will be what I will be” and the NWT says “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE”) I have even seen God described as “the Becoming One.” Am I simply nitpicking when I cringe at this, thinking “God never changes, therefore He can’t be something different tomorrow than He is today”? Perhaps I have staked out the position, “I AM THAT I AM…say…I AM sent me to you” is the best (only valid?) translation because I feel the other is used to mask Jesus’ identity.
Because you have expressed the revelation of God very beautifully, which of course supports the alternative translation, I welcome your perspective, if of course, you can make sense of my ramblings!
Glen:
February 18th, 2012 at 11:46 pm
Hi Michael,
Well on a straight translation point, I WILL BE is the most straightforward rendering of this verb form (‘weqatal’ for Hebrew buffs). And it mirrors the use of it in verse 12: “I will be with you.” So I think we should be aware that this nuance is very much present in the Hebrew text, even if, overall, the NT (and Jesus!), when faced with the choice, plumps for a present tense translation (ego eimi).
So I’d argue that the future tense is a nuance that is clear in the original. But it’s obviously not so vital that NT authors felt they had to preserve it in the Greek.
But you raise the issue of whether the future tense would be problematic theologically. And I think the future tense becomes a lot less objectionable when you think of Yahweh as “the God of promise.” Just think of something like Exodus 6:6-8 where the phrase “I am the LORD” sandwiches 7 future tense promises of what the LORD *will* do. The LORD is, very much, the LORD who WILL do and be certain things for His people.
The god of Greek philosophy is changeless in a way quite unlike the promise-keeping constancy of the living God. Our God doesn’t change because He always fulfils what He says He will do – I think that’s quite a different concept to a philosophical immutability.
If we want to insulate God from all ‘events’ we might find ourselves locking Him out from the gospel! But no, our God *is* the God of the gospel.
So I’d be happy going with the present tense translation (after all, Jesus is!). But I think the future is also implied in the original and that this should not be seen as a threat (but actually as a boost) to a Biblical doctrine of God.