Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Daniel Wagner" <dan.wagner AT netzero.net>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <GregStffrd AT aol.com>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Cc: <dan.wagner AT netzero.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")


> In a message dated 05/11/2001 1:39:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
> dan.wagner AT netzero.net writes:
> 
> << > I agree with you that there are several ways this could have been 
>  > communicated, but I am not suggesting that God said, "I will be with 
> you," 
>  > but by defining *Himself* in this way the meaning conveyed was one that 
> would 
>  > give assurance to His people that as the one who would "prove to be what 
> he 
>  > purposes to be," 
>  
>  How does this conclusion, "prove to be what he purposes to be," relate to 
> the grammar of the Hebrew text as it stands? It's a true statement, i'll 
> grant, and fits with the context, but what relationship does it have with 
> the 
> grammar?
>  
>  Dan Wagner >>
> 
> 
> Moses' question was essentially, "Who should I say sent me?" YHWH's reply 
> was, literally, "I will be who I will be. . . . Tell them 'I will be' sent 
> you." Now, it seems to me that this response means that the Israelites will 
> know who He is by what He *will do*. By what he 'proves to be' in action on 
> their behalf they will know that He is God. "I will be who I will be" 
> leaves 
> unanswered the question of who sent Moses, but makes clear the fact that 
> the 
> answer will become manifest by what He purposes to do. They will know by 
> what 
> they will see, and what they will see is what God purposes to become. The 
> grammar says that God's identity is predicated on who he "will be."

So then why did He identify Himself is "I WILL BE WHO I WILL *BE*" rather 
than as "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL *DO*," which is easy enough in Hebrew with a 
different vocab word to give the transition to focus upon His action as proof 
of His character/identify?

In other words, again, how does your understanding relate to the *grammar* 
which actually exists in the passage?

Dan Wagner

>  My 
> understanding relates to the revelatory/future sense of 'EHYEH in a context 
> where identity and action are bound together. 
> 
> Greg Stafford



NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://www.netzero.net