Ontology and Exodus 3:14 (Edited Version of An Earlier Post)

 The Ontological View of Exodus 3:14

Exodus 3:14 is one of the most debated scriptures in all of Jewish and Christian history. A question that immediately arises in connection with this verse is Moses' intent when he records the authorial words of Jehovah God:  "I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you" (KJV).

Does this verse embody information that would connote God's eternality? Is God (YHWH) delineating His necessary existence (esse a se) in this passage? Does this verse deal with ontological aspects of God, or is there some other point that the writer is trying to convey with the Hebrew phrase EHYEH ASHER EHYEH?

The second century CE, as I have contended elsewhere, was a time when the infiltration of Hellenistic philosophical and religious ideas permeated the church (ecclesia). One idea that filtered into the early Christian community, was the notion of divine impassibility (apatheia). This concept seemed to distort the true nature of God's immutable character.

The idea of divine impassibility might seem as if it accurately defines God's immutability; such a conclusion would be mistaken, however. For while the philosophical idea of divine impassibility apparently sets forth the actual nature of God, it's possible that the concept needs to be re-evaluated for the following reason: YHWH is not an impassible deity. Jehovah is neither strictly comparable to the First Mover of Aristotle nor can He be equated with The Good (The Inexhaustible Ground of all Being) in Plato's Republic or the One in Plotinus' Enneads. To the contrary:

"in their assertion of the freedom of God, the [biblical] prophets emphasized at the same time his involvement with the covenant people in love and wrath. Therefore the Old Testament doctrine of the sovereign freedom of God [cannot] be synonymous with the philosophical doctrine of divine impassibility (APAQEIA)" ((Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition I:52-54).

Impassibility denotes that God is free from the quality of Becoming, and not constrained by the fluidity and vicissitudes concomitant with life in the finite sphere. In contrast, the Hebrew prophets affirmed the presence and might of God in their lives. They affirmed a God who was Living and dynamic--EHYEH ASHER EHYEH. Exodus 3:14 does not flatten this dynamic view of Yahweh. With the aforementioned points in mind, I will now review Exodus 3:14. In the ancient ecclesia, Exodus 3:14 was believed to be the supreme proof of God's Impassibility. The views on this Scripture were divergent, yet there were numerous attempts to exegete this Jewish passage in an ontological manner.

Clement of Alexandria contended that "God is one, and beyond the one and above the monad itself." Hilary exclaims that Exodus 3:14 is "an indication concerning God so exact that it expresses in the terms best adapted to human understanding an unattainable insight into the mystery of the divine nature" (Pelikan, 54). Thomas Aquinas interpreted the account in terms of the Vulgate's wording "Qui est" (He Who Is). But is this view correct? Should Exod. 3:14 be understood in an ontological sense?

While some of the aforementioned Patristic and medieval ideas possibly have some merit, they evidently fail to reveal the complete reality of God. Exodus 3:14 is not an ontological statement of God's Deity. It does not, tell us so much about God's nature (His ONTOS), as it tells us about His purposes or functions with regard to His purposes. I would humbly submit that the phenomenological view of Exod. 3:14 comes much closer to explaining the thornbush account. It espouses the idea that God is the One who will "be" in the sense of carrying out His purposes ("causing to be"). In this exegetical paradigm, what God is to "be" is left unstated. He will become whatsoever He has to become in order to accomplish His purpose.

In Bibliotheca Sacra, Charles Gianotti offers some pertinent criticism regarding the ontological view: he winds up advocating either the phenomenological or the covenantal view:

"This view seems to rest on the Septuagint translation of Exodus 3:14 (EGW EIMI hO WN). On the face of it, the use of eijmi seems to support his view. This view is untenable for a number of reasons. Though the Septuagint is a serviceable translation of the Pentateuch, the Septuagint is not inspired; it is a human translation by Jewish scholars. The primary understanding of Exodus 3:14 should come, rather, from a contextual understanding of the passage as well as from an analysis of the meaning and usage of the Hebrew term hy*h* and its imperfect form hy#h=a# . . . Significantly, most interpreters translate hy#h=a# in Exodus 3:12 as future (i.e.. 'I will be [hy#h=a#] with you'). Yet, two verses later, why should not the same translation suffice?"

Gianotti sums up matters writing:

"One may safely conclude that Exodus 3:14 does not support an 'ontological' or 'existence' view; the name YHWH therefore is not rooted in that view, by virtue of its close relation to Exodus 3:14."