Yahweh

What does Yahweh mean when He introduces Himself to Moses as ‘ehyeh ʾăšer ‘ehyeh (Exodus 3)?  Victor Hamilton (Exodus) notes that the traditional translation “I am who I am” is too constricting. Grammatically the phrase has multiple possible meanings:

“The term ‘ehyeh is a first-person imperfect of the verb hāyâ (‘be’) and equals the English ‘I was,’ ‘I am,’ and ‘I will be.’ Plus, ‘WHO’ in ‘I AM WHO I AM’ may also mean ‘WHAT, THAT,’ thus adding to the possibilities. Let us go with ‘WHO’ and suggest some legitimate translations, and here I will use lowercase letters: (1) ‘I am who I am’; (2) ‘I am who I was’; (3) ‘I am who I shall be’; (4) ‘I was who I am’; (5) ‘I was who I was’; (6) ‘I was who I shall be’; (7) ‘I shall be who I am’; (8) ‘I shall be who I was’; (9) ‘I shall be who I shall be.’ For that matter, how should we translate ‘ehyeh back in v. 12, ‘I ‘will’ be with you,’ or ‘I ‘am’ with you’? Promise or present reality?”

Even those don’t exhaust the possible interpretations of the phrase. “I am who I shall be” may be a statement of consistency from present to future – what I am now is what I will be later. Or, it could be a claim that future identity (what I shall be) determines the present (what I am).

Hamilton in any case concludes that the name “Yahweh” (3d singular of the same verb of being) refers not so much to divine metaphysics but to His presence with Israel:

“God will always be there for his people, in a distant Egypt too, even if that divine presence is questioned and imperceptible. He will always be whatever his people need him to be in any given moment, in any given place. If they need a deliverer, that’s YHWH. If they need grace and mercy and forgiveness, that’s YHWH. If they need purifying and empowerment, that’s YHWH. If they need rebuke and chastisement, that’s YHWH. If they need guidance, that’s YHWH. For God is a ‘I-will-be-what-I-will-be’ God and a ‘I-will-be-what-I-need-to-be-for-you’ God.”

This is on-target, but Hamilton slips past the metaphysics too rapidly. Exodus 3 doesn’t sidestep the metaphysics; it’s a starting point for a revisionary metaphysics, as Jenson realized.