Exodus 3:14, the Divine Name of God

8 Comments

1. 

   Volnaiksra

   April 28, 2012

   It always struck me as odd that it would even occur to a monotheist to ask what God’s name is. After all, isn’t the sole purpose of a name to differentiate one thing from another thing?

   I mean, we give names to people (Bob, Fran), species (homo sapiens, canis lupus familiaris), pagan gods (Zeus, Apollo), and galaxies (Milky Way, Andromeda), because those things are numerous and we’d lose track of them all without names.

   But I’ve never heard of anyone give, for example, the universe a name. There’s only one universe, so what would be the point?. (Though as physicists discover more about the multiverse, maybe we’ll need to name our universe after all).

   My (subjective, unscholarly) take is that this whole issue of Moses wanting God’s name points to the polytheistic roots of the ancient Hebrews. And that the insistence on “I am what I am” points to the emerging monotheism within it: a heed to see God not as one of many, but simply as “the one”.

   reply
2. 

   John Hanscom

   April 28, 2012

   Not that Ms. Armstrong needs my help, but her understanding is the commonly accepted on, as the phrase can also be translated “I will be what I am,” or “I am what I will be,” or “I will be what I will be.” What the story is saying is “God is.” Volnaiksra – that is not the sole meaning of a name, at least according to Israel at that time (and many other nations). The name represents the power and essence of that person, to the point that Native Americans, including those here in Alaska, will sometimes give their “American Name,” but not their “Native” or “real” name.

   reply
3. 

   Lee Harmon

   April 28, 2012

   Interesting comparison, John, thanks!

   reply
4. 

   Volnaiksra

   April 28, 2012

   @John Hanscom: Point taken. But I would argue that the only time people feel the need to ascribe a power or essence of a person is when it’s understood in relation to the powers and essences of others.

   For example, I can imagine that some of the Native American names you mention might mean something like “brave in the face of trial” or “communes with the spirit of the wolf” or “has foresight” (I’m making these up, but you get the picture). I cannot, however, imagine that these Native American names would ever mean something like “has two arms and two legs”, or “breathes air”, or “walks upright”. In other words, names such as this only have meaning if the essence that they point to is in some way particular to that person….ie. if the essence somehow sets that person apart from others.

   I return to my example about galaxies and universes. Both are ‘things’, and both have attributes and essences and powers, but only galaxies have names. “Milky Way” is used to, as you say, represent the power and essence of a particular galaxy (it is vast, like a “way”, it is cloudy, like “milk”). We label our galaxy “Milky Way” to set it apart from other galaxies, and highlight its particular attributes.

   But we don’t ascribe a name to the universe because even though it does have attributes and essence and power, it is the only one of its kind (quantum physics aside), so there is no need to label it.

   Another example is water. We give names to rivers, lakes, and oceans, but most people do not use a name for “water” itself. We simply call it by its descriptive word, rather than a name that gets applied over the top of that. The only people who *do* give water a name are chemists: H20 – again, this is for the purpose of differentiate it from other chemicals.

   Names are inherently about segregation and isolation. And anything that is inherently about segregation and isolation is simply incompatible with an entity that is “the Alpha and the Omega”.

   So yeah, I agree that ultimately “I am that I am” was meant to be understood as “God is”. I also think it was meant to be understood as “What’s my name? Moses, what kind of stoopid question is that?!”

   reply
5. 

   Lee Harmon

   April 28, 2012

   lol! Once again, Vol reaches the essense of the issue.

   One naturally wonders: If God had replied “Harry,” would He have ever achieved notoriety?

   reply
6. 

   Volnaiksra

   April 28, 2012

   Then there probably would have been wars between those who called him Harry and those who insisted on Harold.

   Another explanation is that God didn’t like his name and just didn’t feel like disclosing it. Maybe it was something like “Percival”? “I am that I am” definitely sounds much cooler.

   reply
7. 

   Volnaiksra

   April 29, 2012

   By the way, this post combined with your recent post about numerology reminded me of the movie “Pi” by Darren Aronofsky. Have you seen it, Lee?

   In it, some Kabbalist Jews insist that the secret name of God was actually a number (though because it’s Hebrew, I guess also a word) that was something like 216 digits long, and was related to some sort of advanced mathematical formula.

   If I remember correctly, someone who discovered this number and uttered it correctly would be imbued with some sort of intimate mystical knowledge of God.

   I found the idea of God’s name actually being some sort of golden mathematical formula fascinating. Do you know if the idea does indeed have origins in Judaism, or would it just have been a fabrication of the screenwriter?

   reply
8. 

   Lee Harmon

   April 29, 2012

   Haven’t seen Pi, but I think I need to! I’ve heard the idea of a mystical number for God, but honestly didn’t pay attention … I’m unaware of any numbers for God except 888, the number of Jesus That’s derived in the same manner as 666=Nero Caesar.

   reply