Biblical Hebrew Forum

[GregStffrd AT aol.com]

In a message dated 05/12/2001 4:40:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
dan.wagner AT netzero.net writes:

<< 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? >>


Because he is not what he does, but known by what he does. As I said, 


> "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."
 


They will know him by who he 'will be,' and who he will be will *manifest* 
itself by what he does on their behalf. The idea of 'becoming' inherent in 
this use of 'EHYEH does not relate to some ontological change, but a 
manifestation of who he is, which in the immediate and larger context of his 
dealings with his people in their present condition relates to his actions on 
their behalf. 

On the contrary, "I am I AM" not only has no grammatical support (for either 
the first or second use of 'EHYEH [nor is there compelling evidence for the 
second use of 'EHYEH that is not a proper noun but with a verbal 
(existential) present sense]), but also has no obvious contextual basis. 

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


I have explained that twice now. But, and this is curious in light of what 
happened in our other thread, the one and only sentence you omitted from your 
quote of my last response to you on this point was, 

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

I am not sure why this one sentence was omitted from your quotation, 
particularly in light of your above question. But the grammar of the passage 
is quite consistent with the translation, "I will be who I will be," a 
translation which has significant meaning in this context. 

At this point, given the two selective quotes of my material which omit 
explanations of my points that relate to the primary issues in view, I think 
it's best that I discontinue this conversation. I have said what I wanted to 
say; but, if you care to explore it further then I will consider what you 
have to say and respond if new ground is under consideration. 

Thank you for sharing with me your thoughts and interests in this topic. 

Best regards,

Greg Stafford