Towards, unto, into and in Theos

‘In the beginning he, [that is] ‘elohym created the heavens and the earth’ (Gen.1.1)

In Biblical Hebrew, as in many languages, the form of the verb and that of the noun which is the subject of that verb should agree in number and gender. The awkwardness of the above translation of Genesis 1.1 is because the noun (‘elohym) is a masculine plural noun but it does not agree with the verb which is in the masculine singular (he). So, although they agree in gender, they do not agree in number. The reason behind this is because the motivating force, the impetus and direction, of the creative activity is being governed by the singular he, the Theos of Iohannes 1.1 who, in the beginning, was the word. He is the one creating but it is ‘elohym, the masculine plural agents of his plan, who are enacting the word, the pattern which he has instructed them of, who are carrying out that directive.

‘see now that I, I am he, and there is no ‘elohym with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. (Deut.32.39)

A feature of Biblical Hebrew is also this absence of the verb ‘to be’ on many occasions. Instead terms, here pronouns, are juxtaposed with an implied ‘am’ between. When the verb ‘to be’ is invoked it is, therefore with added significance. The creator Yahweh speaks in the first person singular but refers to himself in the third person singular. This is because the word is given to his people to allow them to be able to understand and approach him. He (the I) gives us the information to come to know him (the he). He creates life and he can take it away (the opposite); even when man has sinned (is wounded) he can be healed; he has ultimate control (the power of his hand). Note here the presence of these opposites. Antitheses, we will see later on, play an important part in his identity. Control also is fundamental in coming to know ‘el (אל).

Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that does speak: behold, it is I (Yesha’yahu 52.6)

The passage in question is set at a time when the people he had called to demonstrate his name in themselves had signally failed to do this task. He identifies a future time when this trend will be reversed. In that day (when they will truly embody his name) they will know that I am he.

This movement from the ‘I’ to the ‘he’ in the context of the name is particularly clear at the point when he reveals his name, and its meaning, to Mosheh, in Exodus 3:

‘And Mosheh said unto ‘elohym, Who am I that I should go unto Phar’oh and that I should bring forth the people from Mitsraym?’ (Ex.3.11)

Note here the two occurrences of the word unto (‘el אל) which are in bold type and the threefold use of ‘I’ by Mosheh. It is because Mosheh does not grasp that the ‘I’ who will be bringing them out of Mitsraym is the ‘he’ who is speaking to him and so he says to Mosheh:

And he said, Certainly I will be (‘ehyeh אהיה) with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Mitsraym, ye shall serve ‘elohym upon this mountain. (Ex.3.12)

I have left the 17th century English in place here to show the difference between the singular (thee/thou) and plural (ye) of the word ‘you’. ‘elohym is telling Mosheh that it is not the I (Mosheh) but it is the I (‘elohym) who will be carrying out this work, so that, when Mosheh obeys the word spoken to him, he will be the I (‘elohym). The verb ‘I will be’ is the same we saw in the section ‘Prerequisites III’ along with the homographic ‘with thee/thy people’. Above, you will remember, we noted that the use of the verb ‘to be’ is not as common as in English and so adds weight when it is invoked. Here it is in the future tense and in the ‘I’ (1st person singular) form. It is at a point in the future that he will be with Mosheh, that is when he is before Phar’oh and speaking the words which he has given him. Mosheh’s response to this is:

And Mosheh said unto ‘elohym, Behold, when I come unto the children of Yisra’el, and shall say unto them, The ‘elohym of your fathers has sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? (Ex.3.13)

Again we should note here the repeated presence of the homographic ‘el אל translated ‘to’/’unto’ (in bold type). Mosheh is involved in a conversation with ‘elohym firstly and then a foreseen conversation he will have with the people of Yisra’el. Mosheh has asked about his name in the context of one (Mosheh) speaking as an agent of another (‘elohym) and ‘elohym’s response to this question is a direct one:

And ‘elohym said unto Mosheh, I will be (אהיה) who I will be (אהיה): and he said, Thus shall you say unto the children of Yisra’el, I will be (אהיה) has sent me unto you. (Ex.3.14)

and:

And ‘elohym said moreover unto Mosheh, Thus shall you say unto the children of Yisra’el, Yahweh (יהוה) ‘elohym of your fathers, the ‘elohym of ‘Abraham, the ‘elohym of Yitshaq, and the ‘elohym of Ya’aqob, has sent me unto you: this is my name to/for ‘olam (לעלם), and this is my memorial to all generations. (Ex.3.15)

Again, note the occurrences of to/unto (in bold) and the use of to/for ‘olam, which we mentioned in the blog about truncations as an occurrence of the shortened form of ‘to’/’unto’ and indicative of a journey in time. However, the real significance of this verse is the use of the name Yahweh (יהוה) and it being referred to as ‘my name’ and ‘my memorial’. The verb ‘to be’ in its first person singular future tense – I will be (אהיה ‘ehyeh) – has been transposed into the 3rd person singular future tense – he will be (יהיה yihyeh) – but the 2nd y (י) being replaced with a w (ו). This appears to imply a causal sense to the verb but the critical issue is that when his name is formalised as a name rather than the verb alone it is moved from the ‘I’ to the ‘he’. We are therefore able to say that ‘he will (cause to) be’ is his name. This name that causes to be is closely linked to the idea of agency, that is it pertains to those who act on his behalf, just as the ‘he’ in the beginning is enacted by plural ‘elohym. It is the word given by the ‘he’ to the ‘they’ which allows them to be (or indeed become) him. It is this revelation that he gives which allows us to refer to him as the ‘he’ rather than the ‘I’. If we were to utterly be(come) him and demonstrate his qualities in ourselves then we could, with his son Iesous, say ‘I am’, as he did in the New Testament. Indeed, if we strive to attain unto him and are found faithful in that age (‘olam) then we also shall be able to say, I am.

So, the ‘I’ gives us the ability to understand him as ‘he’ through revelation of his mind by his word. If/when we attain to that mind we will also say, because we have become, ‘I’.

To conclude, therefore, we can see that the name is about agency or representation. When someone is sent by him to do his will, to speak his words, by the instruction of the word, then they become him. When they speak they are no longer their own ‘I’ but the ‘I will be’ that is him. When this is recorded for others in his revelation it becomes ‘he’. ‘He’ is the revelatory cause and manifestational outcome.