"I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE"

[Reazzurro90]

Hey guys, in the Bible, I noticed there's another possible translation for the words "I AM WHO I AM," and that's "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE." Well, what does that statement prove? How does it show God's power? And does it diminish Jesus words in John 8:58?:

“Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM.” (John 8:58)

 

[PaladinValer]

The Hebrew can be accurately translated both ways. It doesn't diminish what Jesus says in any way, not matter how it is translated.

 

[justified]

Hey guys, in the Bible, I noticed there's another possible translation for the words "I AM WHO I AM," and that's "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE." Well, what does that statement prove? How does it show God's power? And does it diminish Jesus words in John 8:58?:

Because Hebrew has only the perfect and imperfect aspects, it is often difficult to be sure whether the future or present is meant. However, the statement of Jesus you mentioned in John (and other puns elsewhere in the bible) strongly suggest the early jewish understanding of the Hebrew as "I AM."

 

[JRP]

There are a few things against the translation "I will be what I will be." One was already mentioned by "justified" - John 8:58. Also, the Jews who translated the Hebrew into the Septuagint used the same Greek phrase found in John 8:58, which is "ego eimi" ("I am"). "Eimi" (am) is the present tense of "to be." The Greek present tense always indicates repeated or continual action. In other words, "I am" means "I am existing."

Another problem with "I will be what I will be" is the fact that if this future tense translation is correct, then God is saying that He will be sometime in the future what He is not now. This effectively destroys the immutability (change-less-ness) of God.

Mal 3:6 "For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.

 

[TrevorL]

Howdy Reazzurro90,

Greetings. I believe that the future tense is the correct one, and it is qualified by the use of the same word in the future tense in the immediate context.
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."

Also when Moses reported the complaint of the people to God, God answered to show that the purpose of giving the name YHWH was to demonstrate that God would act on behalf of his people to deliver them from Egypt. The continual use of the future tense in the following only makes sense if the Name of God, YHWH also implies a future activity on behalf of Israel.
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 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."

While the "I will be what I will be" is in the first person future, YHWH is the third person future and represents "He will be". This is often found in combination with other words, eg Isaiah "the Salvation of Yah", and Jesus "Yah's Salvation" or "He will be Saviour"

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[lmnop9876]

Hey guys, in the Bible, I noticed there's another possible translation for the words "I AM WHO I AM," and that's "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE." Well, what does that statement prove? How does it show God's power? And does it diminish Jesus words in John 8:58?:

“Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM.” (John 8:58)

perhaps it's like this. God was what He will be, what He is, and what He was, God is what He was, what He is, and what He will be, and He was what He was, what He is, and what He will be.

 

[Firefall]

I like the 'I am' just as it is, because I believe it hints at the timelessness that God exists in.

I also like C.S Lewis' theory on timelessness/eternity where past and future are rolled into an unceasing present state, where actions occur and yet those same actions will occur and yet already have occured.

 

[dcyates]

There are a few things against the translation "I will be what I will be." One was already mentioned by "justified" - John 8:58. Also, the Jews who translated the Hebrew into the Septuagint used the same Greek phrase found in John 8:58, which is "ego eimi" ("I am"). "Eimi" (am) is the present tense of "to be." The Greek present tense always indicates repeated or continual action. In other words, "I am" means "I am existing."

The Tetragrammaton presents us with a pickle, to be sure. The Hebrew verb "to be" is 'ehyeh (the stem of which is H-W-H, with the prefixed yod placed before it, we get Y-H-W-H), and in Exodus 3.14, upon Moses' request for God's name, God enigmatically gives a three-word answer: 'ehyeh-'asher-'ehyeh, but exactly how this is to be understood is pretty much up for grabs. It could take the Hebrew Qal stem and thus be translated, "I am who I am,"or it could indicate, "I will be who I will be." Or it might be better understood more as the Hiphil causative and hence, "I cause to be what is." Given that the main function of names in the ANE was not merely to act as an identifying label, but rather to connote character and nature, the totality of the intricate, interwoven, manifold forces that make up the whole personality of the bearer of the name, in the present case therefore, God's reply to Moses indicates the Tetragrammaton expresses the quality of being. However, it is not Being as opposed to nonbeing, not Being as an abstract philosophical notion, but Being in the sense of the reality of God's active, dynamic Presence. This is readily seen in how, each time Moses objects to his being pegged for his mission, God responds saying, "I will be with you, " and how Israel as a people are marked by having God's Sh'khinah Presence within their midst. When God's Presence departs from them, they cease being a people--at least in theoretical terms--and are soon thereafter overrun by the Babylonians--and thus cease being a people in reality, as well.

But I think it also safe to say that the active dynamism of God's Presence is meant to be emphasized in this context. And so we should also understand God to be indicating to Moses to let his people know that their God will make his Presence known by what he will soon do on their behalf, therefore yielding an interpretation of his name, YHWH, as, "I will be known by what I do." I believe this is readily perceived by how often throughout the rest of the OT that God is expressly identified by his various acts of redemption, such as, "I am the God who delivered you up from Egypt" (see also, e.g., Exodus 6.1-8, or 7.5: "And the Egyptians shall know that I am YHWH [The One Known By What I Will Do], when I stretch out my hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst.").

As most of you are likely already aware, for fear of violating the 3rd commandment of not lifting up God's divine name in vain, the Jews simply stopped pronouncing it altogether, instead substituting the Hebrew word for 'lord', adonai. This practice came to be known as kethib-qere (most accurately that particular class of this method known as qere perpetuum or "perpetual qere"), which means "what is written" in the consonantal text--since there were no vowels in ancient Hebrew--and "what is read" according to the tradition of vocalization. The result being that kethib "what is written" is YHWH, but qere "what is read" is adonai, or 'Lord'. To remind cantors and other synagogue leaders who were charged with reading (or singing) the Hebrew Scriptures of this, they later placed the vowels of the word adonai in between the letters of the Tetragrammaton, thus yielding YaHoWaH, which has since come down to us as 'Jehovah'. The practice of replacing 'YHWH' with adonai became prevalent enough where, as early as the translation of the OT into Greek, the Septuagint (LXX; c. 200 BC), each time they came to 'YHWH' in the Hebrew text, they simply translated it into the Greek as kurios, or 'Lord'. (Thus, for the NT writers to refer to Jesus as kurios possesses nothing less than huge implications as far as their christology is concerned; they somehow identified Jesus with YHWH and consequently included him within God's unique identity.)

Another problem with "I will be what I will be" is the fact that if this future tense translation is correct, then God is saying that He will be sometime in the future what He is not now. This effectively destroys the immutability (change-less-ness) of God.
Mal 3:6 "For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.

But JRP, the attribute of immutability, as you (and many others) are using it, is essentially a Platonic concept, not a Hebrew one. In Malachi 3.6, this phrase is not meant to indicate a lack of ontological change in God, but instead to emphasize God's steadfastness concerning his love and care for his people. He is stating that he is not fickle in his love for Israel, "'Return to me, and I will return to you', says YHWH-Tzva'ot (rendered as "LORD of Hosts")" (v. 7).

In point of fact, although there exist several texts which assert God "will not change" his mind over a matter (usually in his rejection of somebody, like King Saul in 1 Sam 15.29; see also Ps 110.4; Jer 4.28; and Heb 7.12 [but this is quotation of Ps 110.4]), there are also lots of instances where the Bible states unequivocally that God HAS changed his mind over other matters (Ex 32.14; Jer 26.13, 19; Amos 7.3, 6). So, there is obviously some change in God.

 

[JRP]

For those who wish to hold to the future tense translation of the Hebrew text in question, there is a problem that remains unaddressed. What would you all like to do with the fact that the present tense translation found in the Septuagint clearly demonstrates how the Jews understood the the tetragrammaton. Were they wrong? Even Jesus himself makes use of the present tense "ego eimi." Was he wrong as well?

 

[JRP]

But JRP, the attribute of immutability, as you (and many others) are using it, is essentially a Platonic concept, not a Hebrew one. In Malachi 3.6, this phrase is not meant to indicate a lack of ontological change in God, but instead to emphasize God's steadfastness concerning his love and care for his people. He is stating that he is not fickle in his love for Israel, "'Return to me, and I will return to you', says YHWH-Tzva'ot (rendered as "LORD of Hosts")" (v. 7).

In point of fact, although there exist several texts which assert God "will not change" his mind over a matter (usually in his rejection of somebody, like King Saul in 1 Sam 15.29; see also Ps 110.4; Jer 4.28; and Heb 7.12 [but this is quotation of Ps 110.4]), there are also lots of instances where the Bible states unequivocally that God HAS changed his mind over other matters (Ex 32.14; Jer 26.13, 19; Amos 7.3, 6). So, there is obviously some change in God.

No, the idea is not platonic. It's Biblical. If we try to hold the "openess" view of those passages that appear to say God changes, then we have a blatant contradiction in the scriptures regarding God - not to mention the impossibility of many of God's self declared attributes, such as omniscience, omnipotence, infinitude, eternality, etc., etc. If you would like to take this up in another thread I am more than willing to do so.

 

[Lynn73]

For those who wish to hold to the future tense translation of the Hebrew text in question, there is a problem that remains unaddressed. What would you all like to do with the fact that the present tense translation found in the Septuagint clearly demonstrates how the Jews understood the the tetragrammaton. Were they wrong? Even Jesus himself makes use of the present tense "ego eimi." Was he wrong as well?

I'm sticking with the "I AM THAT I AM." That's what my Bible says. Tell the children of Israel I AM hath sent me unto you. God isn't Someone who "will be" in my opinion. He is present tense I AM.

 

[JRP]

I'm sticking with the "I AM THAT I AM." That's what my Bible says. Tell the children of Israel I AM hath sent me unto you. God isn't Someone who "will be" in my opinion. He is present tense I AM.

Yes, I agree.

 

[dcyates]

No, the idea is not platonic. It's Biblical. If we try to hold the "openess" view of those passages that appear to say God changes, then we have a blatant contradiction in the scriptures regarding God - not to mention the impossibility of many of God's self declared attributes, such as omniscience, omnipotence, infinitude, eternality, etc., etc. If you would like to take this up in another thread I am more than willing to do so.

Sure. Let's have at 'er.

 

[dcyates]

No, the idea is not platonic. It's Biblical. If we try to hold the "openess" view of those passages that appear to say God changes, then we have a blatant contradiction in the scriptures regarding God - not to mention the impossibility of many of God's self declared attributes, such as omniscience, omnipotence, infinitude, eternality, etc., etc. If you would like to take this up in another thread I am more than willing to do so.

Noticing that the powers-that-be here do not want us to discuss Open Theism in the 'Christians Only Section', I started a new thread under 'Unorthodox Theology'. Vade mecum.

 

[TrevorL]

Howdy JRP,

Greetings. I appreciate your reply.

"

For those who wish to hold to the future tense translation of the Hebrew text in question, there is a problem that remains unaddressed. What would you all like to do with the fact that the present tense translation found in the Septuagint clearly demonstrates how the Jews understood the the tetragrammaton. Were they wrong? Even Jesus himself makes use of the present tense "ego eimi." Was he wrong as well?"

I cannot comment on the LXX, except to say that they were many 100s of years after the exodus, and many Hebrew scholars disagree with the present tense, as they prefer the future tense. Perhaps they were sensitive concerning the Divine Name, and did something similar to their translation of YHWH as Lord, and Elohim (plural) as God (singular).

I am not convinced that Jesus is alluding to Exodus 3:14 when he uses "I am" in John 8:58. If he is, and as I believe that Exodus 3:14 is in the future tense only, then he is saying that he is the fulfilment of what God promised to be. Jesus is the Son of God Matthew 1:20,21, Luke 1:35, John 1:14. It appears that the present tense has been accepted without much question in Exodus 3:14 because it was thought that Jesus is directly quoting Exodus 3:14.

Please note that the same phrase "I am" also occurs in the following, once by Jesus, once by the blind man, and once in the negative by John the Baptist. In this first reference, is Jesus claiming the Divine Name, or is he claiming to be the Messiah?

John 8:24-25 (KJV): "24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. 25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning."

John 9:8-9 (KJV): "8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? 9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he."

John 1:19-21 (KJV): "19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No."

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[johnd]

A fancy word meaning the four letters. Specifically YHVH or YHWH (V and W are virtually interchangeable in Hebrew and with appropriate vowel points it can be an O or a U). Exodus 3:15 essentially identifies YHVH (usually translated in English as the LORD [all caps] or in some cases JEHOVAH or YAHWEH). This is the name of God and is used more than 6,000 times in the Old Testament.

What you have specifically addressed, Reazzurro90, is the self identification of the name. God said "I AM" in Exodus 3:15 and when we use YAH (the abbreviated form of YHVH) we essentially say "HE IS." That is the difference between "ehyeh asher ehyeh" and "YHVH." The tense of the state of being (AM and WILL BE) is open since both apply to God at all times. And there is even a third (past) tense which is a foreshadowing of:

Revelation 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

This is a Hebrew story told in secular Koine Greek. If translated to Hebrew it would read very closely to what God said in the burning bush to Moses in Exodus 3:15 (bearing in mind the diference between "I AM" and "HE IS" ).

The gist of it is that God is the focus of being the great I in the great I AM or the great I WAS or the great I WILL BE... each are based on God the great I.

Also, Exodus 3:15 was prophetic information about God for the Messiah to use in his day to claim to be God incarnate. The Jews in his presence when he made the claim in John 8:58 understood exactly what he was saying (though they did not believe it) and responded accordingly in the next verse. If Jesus was not making a claim to deity here, then the unbelieving Jews would not have reached for stones to execute him for what they believed was blasphemy <period>

That settles any argument (if you are encountering any).

One more thing about the name of God. He is the only being that can claim to exist because of himself (I AM BECAUSE I AM, which is another valid interpretation of the phrase). Only God is eternal: existing without beginning or end. And all else can only say "I am because HE IS."

 

[christandisrael]

present tense with present tense, future tense with future tense.

 

[justified]

A fancy word meaning the four letters. Specifically YHVH or YHWH (V and W are virtually interchangeable in Hebrew and with appropriate vowel points it can be an O or a U). Exodus 3:15 essentially identifies YHVH (usually translated in English as the LORD [all caps] or in some cases JEHOVAH or YAHWEH). This is the name of God and is used more than 6,000 times in the Old Testament.

What you have specifically addressed, Reazzurro90, is the self identification of the name. God said "I AM" in Exodus 3:15 and when we use YAH (the abbreviated form of YHVH) we essentially say "HE IS." That is the difference between "ehyeh asher ehyeh" and "YHVH." The tense of the state of being (AM and WILL BE) is open since both apply to God at all times. And there is even a third (past) tense which is a foreshadowing of:

Revelation 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

This is a Hebrew story told in secular Koine Greek. If translated to Hebrew it would read very closely to what God said in the burning bush to Moses in Exodus 3:15 (bearing in mind the diference between "I AM" and "HE IS" ).

The gist of it is that God is the focus of being the great I in the great I AM or the great I WAS or the great I WILL BE... each are based on God the great I.

Also, Exodus 3:15 was prophetic information about God for the Messiah to use in his day to claim to be God incarnate. The Jews in his presence when he made the claim in John 8:58 understood exactly what he was saying (though they did not believe it) and responded accordingly in the next verse. If Jesus was not making a claim to deity here, then the unbelieving Jews would not have reached for stones to execute him for what they believed was blasphemy <period>

That settles any argument (if you are encountering any).

One more thing about the name of God. He is the only being that can claim to exist because of himself (I AM BECAUSE I AM, which is another valid interpretation of the phrase). Only God is eternal: existing without beginning or end. And all else can only say "I am because HE IS."

Okay buddy, just because someome tells you sometime a few things about Hebrew, doesn't mean you know what yer talking about. you've got your Philology all messed up. In hebrew, "w" and "v" are not "virtually interchangeable" -- they are different transliterations of the save Hebrew letter &#1493;, waw. And don't even concern yourself with vowel points at this stage; learn the consonants first.

As has been stated elsewhere, Jehovah is an unfortunate latinism based upon a poor guess at the pointing of the tetragrammaton.

There is no abbreviated form of the tetragrammaton in Exodus 3:14 -- what are you talking about? If you can't read Hebrew, don't pretend. Moreover, it is poor form to base grammatical conclusions on theological premises such as "since both apply to God at all times" (sic!).

I also see no connection with Exodus in the Apocalypse passage that you quoted; you're better off searching for the roots of that phrase in Ezekiel and the intertestamental period.

BTW, although I don't agree with it, there are other interpretations of why the Jews got angry at Jesus in that verse in John 8. I think you're right that Jesus claim deity, but all that stuff beforehand isn't necessary to prove that and much is, in fact, wrong.

 

[johnd]

I would not jump in declaring how misinformed you are on a given subject, and I expect the same courtesy.

Okay buddy, just because someome tells you sometime a few things about Hebrew, doesn't mean you know what yer talking about. you've got your Philology all messed up. In hebrew, "w" and "v" are not "virtually interchangeable" -- they are different transliterations of the save Hebrew letter &#1493;, waw. And don't even concern yourself with vowel points at this stage; learn the consonants first.

You mean the letter vav?

WAW / VAV = the Ivrit (dats Hebrew for the word Hebrew by the way) acording to you does not have a VAV but only a WAW? Is that what you are saying?

As has been stated elsewhere, Jehovah is an unfortunate latinism based upon a poor guess at the pointing of the tetragrammaton.

Actually it was a mistranslation of the tetragrammaton and the vowel points for the word "lord" (in Ivri 'adonai) which was to be pronounced in place of the sacred name YHVH when read from the Tanakh because the scholars and sages misinterpreted the second commandment (Exodus 20:7) to mean You shall not misporonounce the name of G-d.

It was a real hoot to the Jewish scholars when the Christian scholars came up with the name YaHoVaH transliterated into JeHoVaH via Latin.

There is no abbreviated form of the tetragrammaton in Exodus 3:14 -- what are you talking about? If you can't read Hebrew, don't pretend.

'ehyeh 'asher 'ehyeh is the expounded form of YHVH. And YH (or Yah) is a further condensing of the name.

There are many examples of Hebrew names being condensed. Take the name of Jesus for example. In Ivrit Y'shua, short for Yeshua which is short for Yehoshua.

You are welcome for the Hebrew language lesson.

There is no abbreviated form of the tetragrammaton in Exodus 3:14 -- what are you talking about? If you can't read Hebrew, don't pretend. Moreover, it is poor form to base grammatical conclusions on theological premises such as "since both apply to God at all times" (sic!).

I also see no connection with Exodus in the Apocalypse passage that you quoted; you're better off searching for the roots of that phrase in Ezekiel and the intertestamental period.

Ok, Just, which is it? You said there is no connection with two points in the Bible and you claim there is a consistency that applies to God throughout the Bible (or "at all times"). Do you see the inconsitency in this logic?

And by the way,

Exodus 3:14 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.

Is the condensed / abreviated form I mentioned. Your problems are not with me, Justified, your problems are with the Bible the word of God.


Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD [ YHVH ] 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.

BTW, although I don't agree with it, there are other interpretations of why the Jews got angry at Jesus in that verse in John 8. I think you're right that Jesus claim deity, but all that stuff beforehand isn't necessary to prove that and much is, in fact, wrong.

Well thank God you at least agree with what the Bible teaches in John 8:58-59. I pray the Lord opens your eyes about the rest.