John, Jesus and the Name Yahuwah
The name of God is applied to Jesus in the gospel of John in the light of Scripture
I I Am applied by Jesus to himself
II The use of Onoma in the Gospel of John
II Yahuwah applied to Jesus by John
Introduction
Has the name of God been applied in the Gospel of John to Jesus Christ of Nazareth?
And if so, Is it the proper name considered by some to be ineffable or a derivative of it? The eyewitness of the gospel testifies that Jesus used the term Ego Eimi for himself. The term “I am” or “Ego eimi” appears in the Greek of the Septuagint in places where it is referring to Yahuwah, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The first case of this is in Exodus 3 where Moses is told that the name of God is “Eheyeh asher Eheyeh” or “Ego Eimi Ho On” in the LXX and he is told the name is “Yahuwah”.[1]
The other way the term “I am” is used of God in the Old Testament is in the prophecies of Isaiah. Here we see the Septuagint translating such phrases as “Ani Yahuwah” as “Ego Eimi”[2]. Brown presents evidence that in so called Second Isaiah the LXX used Ego Eimi as a name. An example is given from Isaiah 43:25 where “ I, I am he who blots out your transgressions” sees the LXX using “Ego Eimi” twice for I. Which could therefore be interpreted as “ ‘I am I AM’ who blots out your transgressions”. “Ego Eimi” is then used in the LXX as a name peculiar to the God of Israel.
The name Yahuwah in the later manuscripts of the LXX and in the writings of Philo is often substituted by kurios. In the Hellenistic synagogues it would also be read kurios when the Torah was read on Mondays, Thursdays and Shabbats. Again we can see evidence in the Gospel of John of this name Yahuwah in translation being applied to Jesus of Nazareth and this name according to the Old Testament is the eternal and proper name of the God of Israel[3]. This being so, such a name being applied to Jesus by an eyewitness of his ministry will have very serious theological implications as to the faith of the earliest church. It is important in reviewing our evidence to recognize the importance of the fact that the writer of the gospel is evidently an eyewitness.[4]
Let us now turn to our subject, did Jesus really claim the names of God, Eheyeh, Ani Hu and Yahuwah, the God of Israel according the John the eyewitness.
Analyzing “Ego Eimi” in John
The clause ego eimi is quite a common clause in koine Greek of the first century. It basically means “It is I” or “I am the one”. Eimi is the first person present indicative of Greek verb to be, to exist. It is used in Greek literature in as a contrast to appearing to be for example as the true story not the apparent one.[5] As a finite verb it is used to connect the subject to the predicate they being in the same case[6]. Ego is the first person pronoun, I, usually expressed for emphasis.[7] However because of the clauses relationship to being and existence it took on a religious use in the Greek speaking world. This was especially in the case of the LXX, pagan Greek religious writings and Gnostic literature.[8] These were some of the worlds surrounding the gospel of John but it is what the eyewitness John[9] claims to have heard from the lips of Jesus, which interests us right now. Did this phrase take on a more than common meaning in the translation of the sayings of Jesus?
Because of the variety and the significance of the way the clause is used various scholars have analyzed its use. Bultmann classified it into four distinct uses. Firstly simply as an introduction answering the question “Who are you?” eg “I am (Ego Eimi) Jesus”, secondly as descriptive, “I am a prophet” that is according to Brown answering a second question “What are you?” Thirdly where the person is identified with something else, so Jesus says “I am the bread of life’[10], finally there is the form which help recognition of a person, i.e. “Who is it?”, “It is I” as can be seen “I” in this case is the predicate.[11] So we have four classes of use according to Bultmann: Presentation, Qualification, Identification and Recognition.
We are really interested in analyzing the use in John into two classes “I am” as applying a divine title to Jesus and “I am” as used in other ways, which are not our particular concern at this time. Does the Gospel of John apply the term “I am” in its meaning as a divine title of God to Jesus?
This clearly begs the question how will we know that Jesus is applying the title to himself in this way? And the answer has to be through the language, the context of the situation which the saying is set in, and allusions to other literature circulating in the first century particularly the Old Testament which Jews of the first century would have been familiar with. If Jesus says “I am” And the audience cry out blasphemy, we can ascertain from their reaction that he was probably alluding to a title of God, illustrating the later Mishnah idea that a blasphemer had to actually say the name of God to be blaspheming.[12]
There are many uses of “I am” in John, but, clearly, where it is being used as the subject with a separate predicate there is no question of it referring either the appelative eheyeh or the title Ani Hu directly to Jesus. In these cases the phrase is simply a way of pointing to the roles of Jesus.[13] When Jesus says
I am…the bread of life…the light of the world…the gate…he good shepherd…the resurrection and the life…the way, the truth and the life…and the vine, he is clearly using the verb to establish his role. This in relation to those who believe in him or to the world, and he is using a metaphor in this respect. In saying he is all these things he is not using the clause ego eimi as an proper name for himself, rather he is pointing to the roles he plays in relation to life, the world, the sheep, the dead, man and the Father. He is definitely connecting it with the meaning of Yahuwah’s statement to Moses eheyeh asher eheyeh translated as “I am he Who is”[14] but not in its Greek form with the focus on existence but in its Hebrew form with the focus on Yahuwah being whatever he chooses to be. Thus even as eheyeh asher eheyeh in the context of Exodus 3 probably means “I will be whatever I will be”, this is expressed concretely in the Old Testament with Yahuwah later saying to Israel “I will be to you an Elohim and you will be to me a people”[15]. Or saying to David regarding his son “I will be to him a Father and He will be to me a Son”[16]. So Jesus comes in that spirit but not potentially but in actually. Instead of Jesus saying I will be, imperfect, he says “I am”, this is a present reality. We might compare the Gospel of Luke where Jesus says of a scripture “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing”[17]. It was potential until that day. The Law was potential until Jesus came to fill it out. The fact that Jesus is using this mode of speech points more to his role in relation to various things not to his absolute identification with God and his title, so all these sayings do not show us that the name of God was applied to Jesus, absolutely.
The next group we could look at is the sayings where it is possible he was applying the name to himself but it is possible he was just speaking in the mode of recognition. These tend to be the places where I became the predicate. When Jesus speaks we expect him to finish his sentence but he leaves us hanging because he has finished. You might say he has identified himself absolutely with the verb to be. It is in this arena that we will find John claims to have heard Jesus applying the title of God to himself absolutely.
Background in John to I AM as Divine Title
Jesus coming in his Father’s name
The build up to these sayings which can help us discern that Jesus was saying more than simply “I am the person referred to” is perhaps started with Jesus’ statement in John 5:43:
I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive
This saying is in a context where we are driven to look at various scriptures and characters to see what Jesus alludes to. The section runs from John 5:17 to John 5:47. He first calls God, his Father and was in doing so “making himself with God”[18] so it is perhaps alluding to the promises of Yahuwah to David about his son. For Yahuwah said to David about his seed
He will be a Son to me and I will be to him a Father
There is also perhaps an allusion to Psalm 89:
He shall cry unto me “My Father My God[19]
The Psalm describes how Yahuwah spoke in “vision” to David, that is David saw something and perhaps to mirror this Jesus says that he does what he “sees” his Father (God) doing.
Jesus then goes on to refer to the resurrection, which could point us to, Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Daniel. In Ezekiel the prophet, called the “son of man”, prophesies unto the bones and the dead men live. So the Son in John “give life to whom he wishes” . His connection in the speech with the title Son of Man and judgment points to Daniel 7:13ff where the son of man, Bar Enosh receives the judgment.
As the speech progresses we come to his Mosaic role. Moses too judged as he heard when there was a problem in the wilderness. Not only so but we see Jesus say a number of things which place him in line with the prophet like unto Moses from Deuteronomy 18.[20] Firstly the works that he does testify of him[21], even as Moses was given the sign of the water to blood so Jesus was given the sign of the water to the blood of the grape, wine. Secondly, Jesus says of the Father to the group of Jews he was talking to “Ye have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen his shape”.[22] This allusion to seeing his shape or form parallels a reference to Moses seeing Yahuwah’s form in a dispute about his role in Numbers 12. Here Miriam and Aaron dared to challenge the authority of Moses and Yahuwah said a distinctive role of Moses was that he speaks mouth to mouth and he sees the form or shape of Yahuwah. The ordinary prophets had visions and dreams and learned through dark sentences or parables. The prophet like Moses would also see the shape or form of Yahuwah. After all these allusions Jesus tells them to search the scriptures for they testify about him, and refers to the fact that the life which the scriptures promised come through him.[23] It is at this point that the name of the Father is first mentioned. The fact that they reject him as the prophet Moses prophesied means they will come into judgment with Moses as a hostile witness for Moses wrote
I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I command him. And it shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my words, which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him[24]
We see here some parallels with the language of Jesus in John. He says often this commandment I received of my Father, and we have just seen him say that he came in his Father’s name. Coming in his Father’s names in first century Israel would be difficult. For although the name was in use possibly daily at the temple[25] by the priests and possibly even in some groups greeting one another with “Yahuwah imqa”[26] there were groups of Jews who considered that naming the name Yahuwah could be a blasphemy worthy of death.[27] Jesus in his speech appears to be combining the role of the prophet with the role of the Messiah for in Psalm 89 where the allusion is to “my Father” the writer also emphasizes the name Yahuwah and what can only be described as eternal life
My faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him
And in my name shall his horn be exalted…
He shall cry to me “Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him my first born, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy I will keep for him forever more and my covenant shall stand fast with him, His seed I will make to endure forever, and His throne as the days of heaven[28]
Allusions to these scriptures are possibly the background to the usage of ego eimi pointing to the name of God being applied to Jesus[29].
So John alludes to the Father’s name being connected uniquely with Jesus in his generation, in the context as described. The idea of the Father’s name being the driving force behind all of Jesus activity is confirmed by the later references to it.
The Use of Onoma in the Gospel of John
Now before we go on to the actual application of the name to Jesus an analysis of the use of the term name (onoma) in the Gospel of John will be helpful again in helping us to see if the name is actually applied to Jesus and in what form.
We find the word is used in various ways according to whom is speaking whether Jesus or the author. Of the approximately 24 uses of the term onoma, translated as name, it seems that all are speaking of an actual proper noun as opposed to a reputation. The five times the term does not refer to the Father or the Son it refers to John the Baptist (1:6), Nicodemus (3:1), another coming in his own name as opposed to the Father’s name (5:43), (which makes it clear we are not only dealing with name as a reference to reputation), the sheep of the good shepherd being called by their names and, finally, the name of the High Priest’s slave (Malchus).
The rest of the uses are referring to the Father’s name and the Son’s name.
John (Narrator) on Jesus Name
Believe on his name (eis to onoma autou) 1:12
Believed in his name of him “ “ 2:23
Believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (eis to onoma) 3:18
These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God
And that believing you might have life through his name 20:31 (en tooi onomati autou)
Jesus to the People about the Father
I am come in my Father’s name (5:43) (ego eleelutha entoo onomati tou patros mou)
The works that I do in my Father’s name they bear witness of me (10:25)
( ta erga ha ego poio en too onomati tou patros mou, tauta marturei peri emou)
Jesus claims to come in his Fathers name and this is evidenced by the works he does in his Fathers’ name. The name is not given.
The People to Jesus
Blessed is he who comes in the name Yahuwah (12:13)
The crowds who heard of Lazarus resurrection and the works of Jesus claim Jesus came in the name Yahwuah (kurios is substituted in manuscripts of John). They believe then the name he came in was Yahuwah and presumably that his Father was Yahuwah.
Jesus on his Name to the Disciples
Whatsoever you shall ask in my name that will I do that the Father may be glorified in the Son (14:13)
If you ask anything in my name I will do it (14:14)
The Comforter the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name (14:26)
Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name he may give it to you (15:16)
All these things they will do to you for my name’s sake (15:21)
Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name he will give it to you (16:23)
Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name ask and ye shall receive (16:24)
At that day ye shall ask in my name (16:26)
It is clear that until this speech the disciples had asked for nothing in Jesus name. The verbs ask (aiteo) is connected with the name of Jesus five times. They disciples are given permission to ask the Father in the name of the Son so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. What they ask in his name Jesus will do (14:13,14). However what they ask the Father in the Son’s name, He would give it to them. When you ask the Son in the Son’s name He does (poio) it. When you ask the Father in the Son’s name he gives (didomi) it. Up until that time they have asked nothing in the Son’s name. This suggests perhaps that something new is occurring here. The Son had been acting in the Father name but the disciples will acts in the Son’s name, these names are perhaps distinct.
Jesus to the Father on the Father’s Name
Father glorify thy name (12)
I have manifested thy name unto the men that thou gavest me (17:6)
Father keep through thine own name: those whom thou hast given (17:11)
Holy Father keep them in thy name, the name which thou hast given me (17:11)
I kept them in thy name those that thou gavest me (17:12)
I was keeping them in thy name which thou has given me (17:12)
I have declared unto them thy name and will declare it that the love which
Wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them (17:26)
The Father’s name has been manifest and declared to Jesus disciples. Jesus prays that the Father would glorify his name. A voice came from heaven saying that “I have glorified it and will glorify it again”. The name was used by Jesus to keep or guard his disciples and Jesus asks that the Father would keep them in the Future through the same name. The verses 17:11 and 12 represent a difference in manuscripts. The change in relative pronouns decided whether they should read “Those whom you gave me” or “that (name) which you gave me”. Bernard considers three possible readings in his understanding the most difficult to retain is that retaining the reading as the name. The reading in the received text is ous dedookas moi. This would be the ones whom you have given to me. The reference is to the disciples and gives an “excellent sense” of the disciples in being given to the Son by the Father. This phrase is also used in five other times in the prayer of Jesus. It occurs in verses 2, 6, 12, 24 and so it would be quite natural for it to be here also. However the main objection noted against it is that it is “poorly attested”[30]. Considering how naturally it fits the context the fact so poorly attested weighs heavily against the possibility of it being the right reading.
The second alternative is ho dedookas moi. Bernard notes that at times this has the same meaning as the latter example and actually occurs twice in verses 2 and 24. Here the neuter single (ho) of the relative pronoun is used in a collective sense. However all things considered:
The harder reading, [hooi], has such strong attestation that it must be accepted. It is supported by the great bulk of MSS and vss…[hooi] must refer to onomati, so that “in thy name, which Thou hast given me” is the only possible rendering.[31]
Survey of the Uses of Onoma
For example Jesus says to the Jews that he came and did his work in his Father’s name. He says to the Father “I have manifested thy name (17:6)… I have made known to them [the ones given to him by the Father] thy name (17:26), I have kept them in thy name (17:11). So in the second person he speaks to the Father about his name. But in the whole Gospel we never see any one being told to believe into the Father’s name. We see the name is manifested by Jesus, made known by Jesus and used to guard the disciples by him. We are reminded, especially by the term “made known”, of the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. They often used to say “And you shall know that “I am Yahuwah”[32] or “Therefore my people shall know my name this time they will know my might and my power”[33]. So Jesus is witnessed as coming to fulfill these repeated messages of the prophets.
We also find Jesus praying to the Father to “glorify his name”[34], that is the very name in which Jesus came, worked in, manifested and made known. When Jesus is speaking to the Jews in general he speaks of them rejecting him although he came in his Father’s name.
John himself explains the benefit to those who actually receive him and that they receive the power to be children of God (1:12), and receive life in his name (20:31). These two references act almost as an alpha and omega of the purpose of the Gospel. The name they believe in is that of Jesus Christ (Messiah), the Son of God.
Finally we have Jesus talking to the disciple, given to him by the Father and here he never tells them to believe in the Father’s name but rather to ask the Father in his name. First they are taught that if they ask anything in his name he will do it (14:13-14). The Holy Spirit will come in his name and finally if they ask the Father anything his (the Son’s) name he will do it (15:16, 16:24, 16:26). The name then is quite important in terms of prayer in relation to the disciples. There is a development in the relationship of the disciples to the name. In chapter 16 Jesus says that they had not asked anything in his name to that point. This would have been right up until near the end of his earthly ministry in AD 30[35]. Then he tells them to “ask and receive that their joy might be complete”. The context of their asking is the fruitfulness of the disciples in producing believers. They would bear lasting fruit and so they could ask for anything and it would be done for them.[36]
We still need to look at the passage linked with name or onoma, which might tell us what the actual name was that they were to believe in and ask in. It was according to Jesus “my name” according to John “his name” or “the name”. Then we have to wonder was “my name” distinct from “my Father’s name”. Unfortunately we only have one passage based on onoma, to help us clarify what the name was which was being referred to. Here we are looking at the difference between the name of so and so and the name so and so. To make it clear we can see an illustration. Is the name Iesous Christos the name above every name or is the name of Iesous (that is the name he as a person bares) the name above every name? In the first case we are dealing with the name written, Iesous, in the second case we are dealing with a name owned by the person Iesous which could be Yahuwah or kurios, Lord or Son. The passage in John which seems to clarify the situation is John 12:13.
In the first passage we find that John fills out Jesus statement that he came in his
Father’s name. For the crowds in Jerusalem sang:
Blessed is the King of Israel who comes in the name Yahuwah[37]
Eulogemenos ho erchomenos en onomati Kuriou
The text refers, with slight addition to Psalm 118:26[38] and in that Psalm the name which kuriou replaces in the text is definitely Yahuwah. So Jesus says he comes in his Father’s name and “much people” sang that he came in the name Yahuwah. This is consistent with everything we have discovered so far. The Father’s name is Yahuwah in Exodus 3:15, Psalm 89, Jer 16:21 and that is the name Jesus came in. That was the name he manifested and made known and worked in. There are other hints in John that one name being applied to Jesus in the gospel was Yahuwah. Later in John chapter 12:41 John said “These things Esaias said when he saw his glory and spake of him” The context of the things Isaiah said point us to Isaiah 6 where Isaiah saw Adonai sitting on a throne high and lifted up and the Seraphim crying
Holy holy holy, is Yahuwah Tzevaoth : the whole earth is full of his glory
Yahuwah’s glory in Isaiah 6 is referred to Jesus in John 12, making himYahuwah Tzevaoth.
According to some scholars Yahuwah is related to an ancient form of the verb to be either hayah or hawah. Eheyeh is a form of it. We come now to the scriptures, which appear to indicate ego eimi as a divine title applied to Jesus:
Unless you believe that [ego eimi], you will die in your sins (8:24)…
When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that ego eimi (8:28)…
Before Abraham was, [ego eimi ](8:58)
When it does happen, you may believe that [ego eimi ](13:19)
Jesus saith unto them [ego eimi] (18:5)
As soon then as he had said unto them [ego eimi] they went
backward and fell to the ground (18:6)
The first statement stands out because of the serious consequences of not believing or should we say the amazing consequences of believing. Jesus is saying that to die without believing he was ego eimi meant that they would die in their sins. The reverse implies that to believe that he was ego eimi would mean they would live in their righteousness. The statement gives one condition as to the difference between death and life, belief that Jesus is ego eimi.[39] Here is one place where he does not give the expected predicate. They expect him to say “Believe that I am the…” or some other things but he simply says “Believe that ego eimi”. This ego eimi could represent either ani hu or eheyeh both are translated by the term in the LXX. The context of John 8:24 with Jesus saying he was from above and that when they have lifted up the “Son of Man” seems to point to the writings of Moses. This would put weight on eheyeh over ani hu. In 8:32 the theme of freedom is brought in pointing to his role as a deliverer like Moses.
There is of course problem here, which will need resolving at some point. No where in the gospel of John is ego eimi called a name. Nor is ego eimi said to be that name in which Jesus came in. We have noted that Jesus said he came in the name of his Father. The only time this name is verbalized is in John 12:13 when Psalm 118:26 is being sung. The name in this Psalm is clearly Yahuwah, not eheyeh or ani hu. If we accept that this is a problem and consider which of these three ways speaking of Jesus is the name of the Father’s which Jesus came in, then we need to look at the evidence of the gospel as a whole to come to a probable conclusion. If we review our evidence leading to the use of the Father’s name in the first instance, all of that evidence points to the name Yahuwah as being the name. The allusions to Moses, David, Ezekiel all point in that direction. If we review the uses of onoma regarding the Son we that the Father has given the Son His name. The Son used the Father’s name to protect the disciples, and he manifested and declared it to them. Since it is apparent that Yahuwah is the name the people perceived he came in, it is apparent that this is the name referred to as the Father’s name. If it is the Father’s name it is the name he gave to the Son. If this conclusion is sound then it is necessary to ponder the meaning of the five “ego eimi” statements noted above which imply more than Presentation, Qualification, Identification and Recognition. They imply identification with Yahuwah but does this necessarily have to be identification with his name. Could it not be identification with his nature? Of the two main alternatives meaning for ego eimi, ani hu seems to have the greater weight of evidence. Ani hu means I am he as does ego eimi. If you place ani hu in any of the five ego eimi statements above it fits perfectly without out having to strain the meaning. When the soldiers asked for Jesus of Nazareth he replied I am He which is equally, ani hu as it is ego eimi. Eheyeh would not fit so well in this context. The same is true of all five statements. So ani hu can answer very suitably for all the ego eimi statements in the Gospel of John. And even accepting that this is not the name of the Father, does not change the Facts that it is used as a divine title in the LXX. So it is not that it has lost any weight by not being the proper name of the Father for it is a divine appelation of Yahuwah. At least two places represent hu as a possibly divine title.
The answer then to our query does the Gospel of John apply the name Yahuwah to Jesus is a very clear yes.. Divine titles are applied in more ways than one.
Appendix 1
The idea of Jesus being God has been disputed ever since Jesus came to earth. One of the greatest witnesses for the case of Jesus being God is that of the author of the gospel of John[40]. Felt almost unanimously to be written by John brother of James by the early Church witnesses, his position as author of the gospel has been challenged by many modern scholars.[41] Most scholars agree that the gospel was written by an eyewitness to the events of the life of Jesus and was then redacted by the later community in being brought into the form in which we have it today.
Appendix 2
There is much evidence in the Gospel supporting this position. The big dispute is, how much did later ideas influence the writing of his gospel? This is not our issue but I believe that the fact of him being an eyewitness needs to be given a lot of weight in deciding whether what he says was really said by Jesus or was an interpretation of a later Church generation. And all things being equal it should be assumed that the words he says he heard from Jesus were heard unless there is clear evidence calling that position into question. We are not of those like Randel Helms who think
The Gospels are, it must be said with gratitude, works of art, the supreme fictions in our culture, narratives produced by enormously influential literary artists who put their art in service of a theological vision[42]
No, as one scholar has shown the limitation of literary criticism in ignoring historical reality and its influence on the story means they can miss the point entirely. Westcott has shown how brilliantly historical John is and how accurate is his presentation of Jewish practices and customs of first century Jerusalem, so accurate is he that they believe he is a priest who knows Jerusalem and Jewish customs very well . And it is this very point, his accuracy on these very points which makes it clear that we need to take his record of the sayings of Jesus seriously and not merely a vague later interpretation of a later community. He was 60 years and a number of countries away when he wrote the details of Jerusalem’s geography and Jewish customs accurately and there is no reason to believe that his recollection of the sayings of Jesus are not accurate as well. Whereas the Synoptics are focused mainly on the Galilean ministry, John is on the Jerusalem ministry as the teaching in the two cases may be expected to be different. It is clear that any teacher will adapt his teaching according to the audience he is communicating with and so we see this is the case with the teacher of teachers in the Gospels.
[1] Some scholars see in the Theophany of the burning bush an attempt to avoid applying a name to God, by the authors or redactors. For Yahuwah answers Moses with a verb. The verb to be in the 1 common singular imperfect “Eheyeh” usually translated “I will be” an in the beginning of Exodus 3 where Yahuwah says to Moses “Ki eheyeh imaqa” “Certainly I will be with you”. These people also argue that Yahuwah the name given second is actually an ancient for of the verb to be but now in the third person, Yihweh which was either a corruption of yihyeh he will be or an ancient form of the meaning to cause to be, either from the root hayah or ancient root hawah.
[2] Isaiah 45:8 from Brown, R., p536
[3] Exodus 3:14-16. Kurios is not used as a substitute for Yahuwah in the earliest manuscripts of the LXX which are dated to before 150 BC.
[4] John 19:35, 21:24
[5] Liddel and Scott An Intermediate Greek English Lexicon, (1889, 229)
[6] ibid p229
[7] Strongs 1473
[8] p533 Brown, R., Anchor Bible Dictionary
[9] For convenience sake we will call our author John
[10] The predicate sums up the identity of the subject. I am not clear how this class is truly distinct from the second class they appear to me to over lap.
[11] These are all listed in Brown p533
[12] Tractate Sanhedrin 7:5 “The blasphemer is not culpable until he pronounces the name”
[13] This kind of used can be seen in Hellenistic religious literature of the period. Brown cited Bultmann as citing Isis “I am all that has been , that is and that will be”, p 533 Anchor Bible Commentary
[14] Exod 3:14
[15] Exod 6:7
[16] 2 Sam 7:14
[17] Luke 4:21
[18] John 5:18
[19] We see a clear reference to this in John 20 :17 where Jesus refers to my father and my God. We also find parallels with the development of the promises in the Psalms and the speech of Jesus in John
[20] We must remember it was Moses to whom Yahuwah revealed the name “Eheyeh” and a prophet like Moses would at least have that level of revelation.
[21] John 5:36
[22] John 5:37 cf Deu 4:12, John 1:18
[23] cf. Deu 30:15
[24] Deu 18:19-20
[25] Mishnah Tamid 7:2
[26] Mishnah Berakoth 9:
[27] The crime of the blasphemer in wilderness is translated not as blasphemy but as naming the name of Yahuwah in the LXX. This kind of attitude is also reflected in the Mishnah with Abba Shaul who said that he whe spoke the name Yahuwah as it is written would have no place in the world to come.
[28] Ps 89:24-29
[29] We must remember that Eheyeh is tied to the verb to be as is Yahuwah.
[30] Bernard (1985, 569)
[31] Bernard (1985, 569)
[32] We have already noted, above, one place where “I am Yahuwah’, is translated as Ego Eimi in the LXX, Jer 16:21 Exod 11:10, 16:10, 17:9, 29:46, cf.Is 52:6
[33] Jer 16:21
[34] John 12:28
[35] In the Synoptic Gospels we see the disciples casting out demons the his name but we do not see this ministry in John. It is clear however that John being an eyewitness saw many deliverances but he clearly does not see that executing a deliverance is the same as asking in Jesus’ name.
[36] It appears to me that the asking is really an allusion to the Messiah, son of God in Psalm 2. There the Messiah is told to “Ask of Me and I will give you the nations as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your possession”, the disciples then are being encourages to ask to be fruitful and to be more fruitful. The connection between fruitfulness and perhaps the possession of the earth goes back to the promises to what Luke calls the ‘the son of God” Adam. There in Genesis 1 he is told to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it” perhaps prayer to the nations and the earth in Psalm 2
[37] Yahuwah is the way the name is transliterated in cuneiform inscriptions of ancient of the 5th or 6th century BC, Babylon, according to David Weisberg from Hebrew Union College, Cincinnatti Ohio,in a lecture at Jerusalem University College, on may 4th 2000, “The Impact of Assyriology on Biblical Studies”. Vetus Testamentum has and article “Det Gottename Yahwa” from some in year 2000 or 2001.
[38] This event and this song is referred to in all four of the gospels eg Matt 21:8ff, Mark 11:8ff, Luke 19:35ff
[39][39] We are reminded of the choice Yahuwah gave to Israel in Deuteronomy between life and death in the covenant at Nebo. Deu 30:19
[40] I will call the author John but there is nothing in the gospel which tells us directly the name of the author but the early Church was all but unanimous in asserting that a John was the author, whether John the Apostle or John the Elder or even John the Priest as Schonfield will have it.
[41] See Raymond Brown in Anchor Bible Dictionaries for the case against the Author being John the Apostle, see Westcott’s commenatary on John for the case for the author being the Apostle John.
[42] p 11 Helms, R., Gospel Fictions
I I Am applied by Jesus to himself
II The use of Onoma in the Gospel of John
II Yahuwah applied to Jesus by John
Introduction
Has the name of God been applied in the Gospel of John to Jesus Christ of Nazareth?
And if so, Is it the proper name considered by some to be ineffable or a derivative of it? The eyewitness of the gospel testifies that Jesus used the term Ego Eimi for himself. The term “I am” or “Ego eimi” appears in the Greek of the Septuagint in places where it is referring to Yahuwah, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The first case of this is in Exodus 3 where Moses is told that the name of God is “Eheyeh asher Eheyeh” or “Ego Eimi Ho On” in the LXX and he is told the name is “Yahuwah”.[1]
The other way the term “I am” is used of God in the Old Testament is in the prophecies of Isaiah. Here we see the Septuagint translating such phrases as “Ani Yahuwah” as “Ego Eimi”[2]. Brown presents evidence that in so called Second Isaiah the LXX used Ego Eimi as a name. An example is given from Isaiah 43:25 where “ I, I am he who blots out your transgressions” sees the LXX using “Ego Eimi” twice for I. Which could therefore be interpreted as “ ‘I am I AM’ who blots out your transgressions”. “Ego Eimi” is then used in the LXX as a name peculiar to the God of Israel.
The name Yahuwah in the later manuscripts of the LXX and in the writings of Philo is often substituted by kurios. In the Hellenistic synagogues it would also be read kurios when the Torah was read on Mondays, Thursdays and Shabbats. Again we can see evidence in the Gospel of John of this name Yahuwah in translation being applied to Jesus of Nazareth and this name according to the Old Testament is the eternal and proper name of the God of Israel[3]. This being so, such a name being applied to Jesus by an eyewitness of his ministry will have very serious theological implications as to the faith of the earliest church. It is important in reviewing our evidence to recognize the importance of the fact that the writer of the gospel is evidently an eyewitness.[4]
Let us now turn to our subject, did Jesus really claim the names of God, Eheyeh, Ani Hu and Yahuwah, the God of Israel according the John the eyewitness.
Analyzing “Ego Eimi” in John
The clause ego eimi is quite a common clause in koine Greek of the first century. It basically means “It is I” or “I am the one”. Eimi is the first person present indicative of Greek verb to be, to exist. It is used in Greek literature in as a contrast to appearing to be for example as the true story not the apparent one.[5] As a finite verb it is used to connect the subject to the predicate they being in the same case[6]. Ego is the first person pronoun, I, usually expressed for emphasis.[7] However because of the clauses relationship to being and existence it took on a religious use in the Greek speaking world. This was especially in the case of the LXX, pagan Greek religious writings and Gnostic literature.[8] These were some of the worlds surrounding the gospel of John but it is what the eyewitness John[9] claims to have heard from the lips of Jesus, which interests us right now. Did this phrase take on a more than common meaning in the translation of the sayings of Jesus?
Because of the variety and the significance of the way the clause is used various scholars have analyzed its use. Bultmann classified it into four distinct uses. Firstly simply as an introduction answering the question “Who are you?” eg “I am (Ego Eimi) Jesus”, secondly as descriptive, “I am a prophet” that is according to Brown answering a second question “What are you?” Thirdly where the person is identified with something else, so Jesus says “I am the bread of life’[10], finally there is the form which help recognition of a person, i.e. “Who is it?”, “It is I” as can be seen “I” in this case is the predicate.[11] So we have four classes of use according to Bultmann: Presentation, Qualification, Identification and Recognition.
We are really interested in analyzing the use in John into two classes “I am” as applying a divine title to Jesus and “I am” as used in other ways, which are not our particular concern at this time. Does the Gospel of John apply the term “I am” in its meaning as a divine title of God to Jesus?
This clearly begs the question how will we know that Jesus is applying the title to himself in this way? And the answer has to be through the language, the context of the situation which the saying is set in, and allusions to other literature circulating in the first century particularly the Old Testament which Jews of the first century would have been familiar with. If Jesus says “I am” And the audience cry out blasphemy, we can ascertain from their reaction that he was probably alluding to a title of God, illustrating the later Mishnah idea that a blasphemer had to actually say the name of God to be blaspheming.[12]
There are many uses of “I am” in John, but, clearly, where it is being used as the subject with a separate predicate there is no question of it referring either the appelative eheyeh or the title Ani Hu directly to Jesus. In these cases the phrase is simply a way of pointing to the roles of Jesus.[13] When Jesus says
I am…the bread of life…the light of the world…the gate…he good shepherd…the resurrection and the life…the way, the truth and the life…and the vine, he is clearly using the verb to establish his role. This in relation to those who believe in him or to the world, and he is using a metaphor in this respect. In saying he is all these things he is not using the clause ego eimi as an proper name for himself, rather he is pointing to the roles he plays in relation to life, the world, the sheep, the dead, man and the Father. He is definitely connecting it with the meaning of Yahuwah’s statement to Moses eheyeh asher eheyeh translated as “I am he Who is”[14] but not in its Greek form with the focus on existence but in its Hebrew form with the focus on Yahuwah being whatever he chooses to be. Thus even as eheyeh asher eheyeh in the context of Exodus 3 probably means “I will be whatever I will be”, this is expressed concretely in the Old Testament with Yahuwah later saying to Israel “I will be to you an Elohim and you will be to me a people”[15]. Or saying to David regarding his son “I will be to him a Father and He will be to me a Son”[16]. So Jesus comes in that spirit but not potentially but in actually. Instead of Jesus saying I will be, imperfect, he says “I am”, this is a present reality. We might compare the Gospel of Luke where Jesus says of a scripture “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing”[17]. It was potential until that day. The Law was potential until Jesus came to fill it out. The fact that Jesus is using this mode of speech points more to his role in relation to various things not to his absolute identification with God and his title, so all these sayings do not show us that the name of God was applied to Jesus, absolutely.
The next group we could look at is the sayings where it is possible he was applying the name to himself but it is possible he was just speaking in the mode of recognition. These tend to be the places where I became the predicate. When Jesus speaks we expect him to finish his sentence but he leaves us hanging because he has finished. You might say he has identified himself absolutely with the verb to be. It is in this arena that we will find John claims to have heard Jesus applying the title of God to himself absolutely.
Background in John to I AM as Divine Title
Jesus coming in his Father’s name
The build up to these sayings which can help us discern that Jesus was saying more than simply “I am the person referred to” is perhaps started with Jesus’ statement in John 5:43:
I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive
This saying is in a context where we are driven to look at various scriptures and characters to see what Jesus alludes to. The section runs from John 5:17 to John 5:47. He first calls God, his Father and was in doing so “making himself with God”[18] so it is perhaps alluding to the promises of Yahuwah to David about his son. For Yahuwah said to David about his seed
He will be a Son to me and I will be to him a Father
There is also perhaps an allusion to Psalm 89:
He shall cry unto me “My Father My God[19]
The Psalm describes how Yahuwah spoke in “vision” to David, that is David saw something and perhaps to mirror this Jesus says that he does what he “sees” his Father (God) doing.
Jesus then goes on to refer to the resurrection, which could point us to, Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Daniel. In Ezekiel the prophet, called the “son of man”, prophesies unto the bones and the dead men live. So the Son in John “give life to whom he wishes” . His connection in the speech with the title Son of Man and judgment points to Daniel 7:13ff where the son of man, Bar Enosh receives the judgment.
As the speech progresses we come to his Mosaic role. Moses too judged as he heard when there was a problem in the wilderness. Not only so but we see Jesus say a number of things which place him in line with the prophet like unto Moses from Deuteronomy 18.[20] Firstly the works that he does testify of him[21], even as Moses was given the sign of the water to blood so Jesus was given the sign of the water to the blood of the grape, wine. Secondly, Jesus says of the Father to the group of Jews he was talking to “Ye have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen his shape”.[22] This allusion to seeing his shape or form parallels a reference to Moses seeing Yahuwah’s form in a dispute about his role in Numbers 12. Here Miriam and Aaron dared to challenge the authority of Moses and Yahuwah said a distinctive role of Moses was that he speaks mouth to mouth and he sees the form or shape of Yahuwah. The ordinary prophets had visions and dreams and learned through dark sentences or parables. The prophet like Moses would also see the shape or form of Yahuwah. After all these allusions Jesus tells them to search the scriptures for they testify about him, and refers to the fact that the life which the scriptures promised come through him.[23] It is at this point that the name of the Father is first mentioned. The fact that they reject him as the prophet Moses prophesied means they will come into judgment with Moses as a hostile witness for Moses wrote
I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I command him. And it shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my words, which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him[24]
We see here some parallels with the language of Jesus in John. He says often this commandment I received of my Father, and we have just seen him say that he came in his Father’s name. Coming in his Father’s names in first century Israel would be difficult. For although the name was in use possibly daily at the temple[25] by the priests and possibly even in some groups greeting one another with “Yahuwah imqa”[26] there were groups of Jews who considered that naming the name Yahuwah could be a blasphemy worthy of death.[27] Jesus in his speech appears to be combining the role of the prophet with the role of the Messiah for in Psalm 89 where the allusion is to “my Father” the writer also emphasizes the name Yahuwah and what can only be described as eternal life
My faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him
And in my name shall his horn be exalted…
He shall cry to me “Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him my first born, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy I will keep for him forever more and my covenant shall stand fast with him, His seed I will make to endure forever, and His throne as the days of heaven[28]
Allusions to these scriptures are possibly the background to the usage of ego eimi pointing to the name of God being applied to Jesus[29].
So John alludes to the Father’s name being connected uniquely with Jesus in his generation, in the context as described. The idea of the Father’s name being the driving force behind all of Jesus activity is confirmed by the later references to it.
The Use of Onoma in the Gospel of John
Now before we go on to the actual application of the name to Jesus an analysis of the use of the term name (onoma) in the Gospel of John will be helpful again in helping us to see if the name is actually applied to Jesus and in what form.
We find the word is used in various ways according to whom is speaking whether Jesus or the author. Of the approximately 24 uses of the term onoma, translated as name, it seems that all are speaking of an actual proper noun as opposed to a reputation. The five times the term does not refer to the Father or the Son it refers to John the Baptist (1:6), Nicodemus (3:1), another coming in his own name as opposed to the Father’s name (5:43), (which makes it clear we are not only dealing with name as a reference to reputation), the sheep of the good shepherd being called by their names and, finally, the name of the High Priest’s slave (Malchus).
The rest of the uses are referring to the Father’s name and the Son’s name.
John (Narrator) on Jesus Name
Believe on his name (eis to onoma autou) 1:12
Believed in his name of him “ “ 2:23
Believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (eis to onoma) 3:18
These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God
And that believing you might have life through his name 20:31 (en tooi onomati autou)
Jesus to the People about the Father
I am come in my Father’s name (5:43) (ego eleelutha entoo onomati tou patros mou)
The works that I do in my Father’s name they bear witness of me (10:25)
( ta erga ha ego poio en too onomati tou patros mou, tauta marturei peri emou)
Jesus claims to come in his Fathers name and this is evidenced by the works he does in his Fathers’ name. The name is not given.
The People to Jesus
Blessed is he who comes in the name Yahuwah (12:13)
The crowds who heard of Lazarus resurrection and the works of Jesus claim Jesus came in the name Yahwuah (kurios is substituted in manuscripts of John). They believe then the name he came in was Yahuwah and presumably that his Father was Yahuwah.
Jesus on his Name to the Disciples
Whatsoever you shall ask in my name that will I do that the Father may be glorified in the Son (14:13)
If you ask anything in my name I will do it (14:14)
The Comforter the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name (14:26)
Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name he may give it to you (15:16)
All these things they will do to you for my name’s sake (15:21)
Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name he will give it to you (16:23)
Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name ask and ye shall receive (16:24)
At that day ye shall ask in my name (16:26)
It is clear that until this speech the disciples had asked for nothing in Jesus name. The verbs ask (aiteo) is connected with the name of Jesus five times. They disciples are given permission to ask the Father in the name of the Son so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. What they ask in his name Jesus will do (14:13,14). However what they ask the Father in the Son’s name, He would give it to them. When you ask the Son in the Son’s name He does (poio) it. When you ask the Father in the Son’s name he gives (didomi) it. Up until that time they have asked nothing in the Son’s name. This suggests perhaps that something new is occurring here. The Son had been acting in the Father name but the disciples will acts in the Son’s name, these names are perhaps distinct.
Jesus to the Father on the Father’s Name
Father glorify thy name (12)
I have manifested thy name unto the men that thou gavest me (17:6)
Father keep through thine own name: those whom thou hast given (17:11)
Holy Father keep them in thy name, the name which thou hast given me (17:11)
I kept them in thy name those that thou gavest me (17:12)
I was keeping them in thy name which thou has given me (17:12)
I have declared unto them thy name and will declare it that the love which
Wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them (17:26)
The Father’s name has been manifest and declared to Jesus disciples. Jesus prays that the Father would glorify his name. A voice came from heaven saying that “I have glorified it and will glorify it again”. The name was used by Jesus to keep or guard his disciples and Jesus asks that the Father would keep them in the Future through the same name. The verses 17:11 and 12 represent a difference in manuscripts. The change in relative pronouns decided whether they should read “Those whom you gave me” or “that (name) which you gave me”. Bernard considers three possible readings in his understanding the most difficult to retain is that retaining the reading as the name. The reading in the received text is ous dedookas moi. This would be the ones whom you have given to me. The reference is to the disciples and gives an “excellent sense” of the disciples in being given to the Son by the Father. This phrase is also used in five other times in the prayer of Jesus. It occurs in verses 2, 6, 12, 24 and so it would be quite natural for it to be here also. However the main objection noted against it is that it is “poorly attested”[30]. Considering how naturally it fits the context the fact so poorly attested weighs heavily against the possibility of it being the right reading.
The second alternative is ho dedookas moi. Bernard notes that at times this has the same meaning as the latter example and actually occurs twice in verses 2 and 24. Here the neuter single (ho) of the relative pronoun is used in a collective sense. However all things considered:
The harder reading, [hooi], has such strong attestation that it must be accepted. It is supported by the great bulk of MSS and vss…[hooi] must refer to onomati, so that “in thy name, which Thou hast given me” is the only possible rendering.[31]
Survey of the Uses of Onoma
For example Jesus says to the Jews that he came and did his work in his Father’s name. He says to the Father “I have manifested thy name (17:6)… I have made known to them [the ones given to him by the Father] thy name (17:26), I have kept them in thy name (17:11). So in the second person he speaks to the Father about his name. But in the whole Gospel we never see any one being told to believe into the Father’s name. We see the name is manifested by Jesus, made known by Jesus and used to guard the disciples by him. We are reminded, especially by the term “made known”, of the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. They often used to say “And you shall know that “I am Yahuwah”[32] or “Therefore my people shall know my name this time they will know my might and my power”[33]. So Jesus is witnessed as coming to fulfill these repeated messages of the prophets.
We also find Jesus praying to the Father to “glorify his name”[34], that is the very name in which Jesus came, worked in, manifested and made known. When Jesus is speaking to the Jews in general he speaks of them rejecting him although he came in his Father’s name.
John himself explains the benefit to those who actually receive him and that they receive the power to be children of God (1:12), and receive life in his name (20:31). These two references act almost as an alpha and omega of the purpose of the Gospel. The name they believe in is that of Jesus Christ (Messiah), the Son of God.
Finally we have Jesus talking to the disciple, given to him by the Father and here he never tells them to believe in the Father’s name but rather to ask the Father in his name. First they are taught that if they ask anything in his name he will do it (14:13-14). The Holy Spirit will come in his name and finally if they ask the Father anything his (the Son’s) name he will do it (15:16, 16:24, 16:26). The name then is quite important in terms of prayer in relation to the disciples. There is a development in the relationship of the disciples to the name. In chapter 16 Jesus says that they had not asked anything in his name to that point. This would have been right up until near the end of his earthly ministry in AD 30[35]. Then he tells them to “ask and receive that their joy might be complete”. The context of their asking is the fruitfulness of the disciples in producing believers. They would bear lasting fruit and so they could ask for anything and it would be done for them.[36]
We still need to look at the passage linked with name or onoma, which might tell us what the actual name was that they were to believe in and ask in. It was according to Jesus “my name” according to John “his name” or “the name”. Then we have to wonder was “my name” distinct from “my Father’s name”. Unfortunately we only have one passage based on onoma, to help us clarify what the name was which was being referred to. Here we are looking at the difference between the name of so and so and the name so and so. To make it clear we can see an illustration. Is the name Iesous Christos the name above every name or is the name of Iesous (that is the name he as a person bares) the name above every name? In the first case we are dealing with the name written, Iesous, in the second case we are dealing with a name owned by the person Iesous which could be Yahuwah or kurios, Lord or Son. The passage in John which seems to clarify the situation is John 12:13.
In the first passage we find that John fills out Jesus statement that he came in his
Father’s name. For the crowds in Jerusalem sang:
Blessed is the King of Israel who comes in the name Yahuwah[37]
Eulogemenos ho erchomenos en onomati Kuriou
The text refers, with slight addition to Psalm 118:26[38] and in that Psalm the name which kuriou replaces in the text is definitely Yahuwah. So Jesus says he comes in his Father’s name and “much people” sang that he came in the name Yahuwah. This is consistent with everything we have discovered so far. The Father’s name is Yahuwah in Exodus 3:15, Psalm 89, Jer 16:21 and that is the name Jesus came in. That was the name he manifested and made known and worked in. There are other hints in John that one name being applied to Jesus in the gospel was Yahuwah. Later in John chapter 12:41 John said “These things Esaias said when he saw his glory and spake of him” The context of the things Isaiah said point us to Isaiah 6 where Isaiah saw Adonai sitting on a throne high and lifted up and the Seraphim crying
Holy holy holy, is Yahuwah Tzevaoth : the whole earth is full of his glory
Yahuwah’s glory in Isaiah 6 is referred to Jesus in John 12, making himYahuwah Tzevaoth.
According to some scholars Yahuwah is related to an ancient form of the verb to be either hayah or hawah. Eheyeh is a form of it. We come now to the scriptures, which appear to indicate ego eimi as a divine title applied to Jesus:
Unless you believe that [ego eimi], you will die in your sins (8:24)…
When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that ego eimi (8:28)…
Before Abraham was, [ego eimi ](8:58)
When it does happen, you may believe that [ego eimi ](13:19)
Jesus saith unto them [ego eimi] (18:5)
As soon then as he had said unto them [ego eimi] they went
backward and fell to the ground (18:6)
The first statement stands out because of the serious consequences of not believing or should we say the amazing consequences of believing. Jesus is saying that to die without believing he was ego eimi meant that they would die in their sins. The reverse implies that to believe that he was ego eimi would mean they would live in their righteousness. The statement gives one condition as to the difference between death and life, belief that Jesus is ego eimi.[39] Here is one place where he does not give the expected predicate. They expect him to say “Believe that I am the…” or some other things but he simply says “Believe that ego eimi”. This ego eimi could represent either ani hu or eheyeh both are translated by the term in the LXX. The context of John 8:24 with Jesus saying he was from above and that when they have lifted up the “Son of Man” seems to point to the writings of Moses. This would put weight on eheyeh over ani hu. In 8:32 the theme of freedom is brought in pointing to his role as a deliverer like Moses.
There is of course problem here, which will need resolving at some point. No where in the gospel of John is ego eimi called a name. Nor is ego eimi said to be that name in which Jesus came in. We have noted that Jesus said he came in the name of his Father. The only time this name is verbalized is in John 12:13 when Psalm 118:26 is being sung. The name in this Psalm is clearly Yahuwah, not eheyeh or ani hu. If we accept that this is a problem and consider which of these three ways speaking of Jesus is the name of the Father’s which Jesus came in, then we need to look at the evidence of the gospel as a whole to come to a probable conclusion. If we review our evidence leading to the use of the Father’s name in the first instance, all of that evidence points to the name Yahuwah as being the name. The allusions to Moses, David, Ezekiel all point in that direction. If we review the uses of onoma regarding the Son we that the Father has given the Son His name. The Son used the Father’s name to protect the disciples, and he manifested and declared it to them. Since it is apparent that Yahuwah is the name the people perceived he came in, it is apparent that this is the name referred to as the Father’s name. If it is the Father’s name it is the name he gave to the Son. If this conclusion is sound then it is necessary to ponder the meaning of the five “ego eimi” statements noted above which imply more than Presentation, Qualification, Identification and Recognition. They imply identification with Yahuwah but does this necessarily have to be identification with his name. Could it not be identification with his nature? Of the two main alternatives meaning for ego eimi, ani hu seems to have the greater weight of evidence. Ani hu means I am he as does ego eimi. If you place ani hu in any of the five ego eimi statements above it fits perfectly without out having to strain the meaning. When the soldiers asked for Jesus of Nazareth he replied I am He which is equally, ani hu as it is ego eimi. Eheyeh would not fit so well in this context. The same is true of all five statements. So ani hu can answer very suitably for all the ego eimi statements in the Gospel of John. And even accepting that this is not the name of the Father, does not change the Facts that it is used as a divine title in the LXX. So it is not that it has lost any weight by not being the proper name of the Father for it is a divine appelation of Yahuwah. At least two places represent hu as a possibly divine title.
The answer then to our query does the Gospel of John apply the name Yahuwah to Jesus is a very clear yes.. Divine titles are applied in more ways than one.
Appendix 1
The idea of Jesus being God has been disputed ever since Jesus came to earth. One of the greatest witnesses for the case of Jesus being God is that of the author of the gospel of John[40]. Felt almost unanimously to be written by John brother of James by the early Church witnesses, his position as author of the gospel has been challenged by many modern scholars.[41] Most scholars agree that the gospel was written by an eyewitness to the events of the life of Jesus and was then redacted by the later community in being brought into the form in which we have it today.
Appendix 2
There is much evidence in the Gospel supporting this position. The big dispute is, how much did later ideas influence the writing of his gospel? This is not our issue but I believe that the fact of him being an eyewitness needs to be given a lot of weight in deciding whether what he says was really said by Jesus or was an interpretation of a later Church generation. And all things being equal it should be assumed that the words he says he heard from Jesus were heard unless there is clear evidence calling that position into question. We are not of those like Randel Helms who think
The Gospels are, it must be said with gratitude, works of art, the supreme fictions in our culture, narratives produced by enormously influential literary artists who put their art in service of a theological vision[42]
No, as one scholar has shown the limitation of literary criticism in ignoring historical reality and its influence on the story means they can miss the point entirely. Westcott has shown how brilliantly historical John is and how accurate is his presentation of Jewish practices and customs of first century Jerusalem, so accurate is he that they believe he is a priest who knows Jerusalem and Jewish customs very well . And it is this very point, his accuracy on these very points which makes it clear that we need to take his record of the sayings of Jesus seriously and not merely a vague later interpretation of a later community. He was 60 years and a number of countries away when he wrote the details of Jerusalem’s geography and Jewish customs accurately and there is no reason to believe that his recollection of the sayings of Jesus are not accurate as well. Whereas the Synoptics are focused mainly on the Galilean ministry, John is on the Jerusalem ministry as the teaching in the two cases may be expected to be different. It is clear that any teacher will adapt his teaching according to the audience he is communicating with and so we see this is the case with the teacher of teachers in the Gospels.
[1] Some scholars see in the Theophany of the burning bush an attempt to avoid applying a name to God, by the authors or redactors. For Yahuwah answers Moses with a verb. The verb to be in the 1 common singular imperfect “Eheyeh” usually translated “I will be” an in the beginning of Exodus 3 where Yahuwah says to Moses “Ki eheyeh imaqa” “Certainly I will be with you”. These people also argue that Yahuwah the name given second is actually an ancient for of the verb to be but now in the third person, Yihweh which was either a corruption of yihyeh he will be or an ancient form of the meaning to cause to be, either from the root hayah or ancient root hawah.
[2] Isaiah 45:8 from Brown, R., p536
[3] Exodus 3:14-16. Kurios is not used as a substitute for Yahuwah in the earliest manuscripts of the LXX which are dated to before 150 BC.
[4] John 19:35, 21:24
[5] Liddel and Scott An Intermediate Greek English Lexicon, (1889, 229)
[6] ibid p229
[7] Strongs 1473
[8] p533 Brown, R., Anchor Bible Dictionary
[9] For convenience sake we will call our author John
[10] The predicate sums up the identity of the subject. I am not clear how this class is truly distinct from the second class they appear to me to over lap.
[11] These are all listed in Brown p533
[12] Tractate Sanhedrin 7:5 “The blasphemer is not culpable until he pronounces the name”
[13] This kind of used can be seen in Hellenistic religious literature of the period. Brown cited Bultmann as citing Isis “I am all that has been , that is and that will be”, p 533 Anchor Bible Commentary
[14] Exod 3:14
[15] Exod 6:7
[16] 2 Sam 7:14
[17] Luke 4:21
[18] John 5:18
[19] We see a clear reference to this in John 20 :17 where Jesus refers to my father and my God. We also find parallels with the development of the promises in the Psalms and the speech of Jesus in John
[20] We must remember it was Moses to whom Yahuwah revealed the name “Eheyeh” and a prophet like Moses would at least have that level of revelation.
[21] John 5:36
[22] John 5:37 cf Deu 4:12, John 1:18
[23] cf. Deu 30:15
[24] Deu 18:19-20
[25] Mishnah Tamid 7:2
[26] Mishnah Berakoth 9:
[27] The crime of the blasphemer in wilderness is translated not as blasphemy but as naming the name of Yahuwah in the LXX. This kind of attitude is also reflected in the Mishnah with Abba Shaul who said that he whe spoke the name Yahuwah as it is written would have no place in the world to come.
[28] Ps 89:24-29
[29] We must remember that Eheyeh is tied to the verb to be as is Yahuwah.
[30] Bernard (1985, 569)
[31] Bernard (1985, 569)
[32] We have already noted, above, one place where “I am Yahuwah’, is translated as Ego Eimi in the LXX, Jer 16:21 Exod 11:10, 16:10, 17:9, 29:46, cf.Is 52:6
[33] Jer 16:21
[34] John 12:28
[35] In the Synoptic Gospels we see the disciples casting out demons the his name but we do not see this ministry in John. It is clear however that John being an eyewitness saw many deliverances but he clearly does not see that executing a deliverance is the same as asking in Jesus’ name.
[36] It appears to me that the asking is really an allusion to the Messiah, son of God in Psalm 2. There the Messiah is told to “Ask of Me and I will give you the nations as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your possession”, the disciples then are being encourages to ask to be fruitful and to be more fruitful. The connection between fruitfulness and perhaps the possession of the earth goes back to the promises to what Luke calls the ‘the son of God” Adam. There in Genesis 1 he is told to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it” perhaps prayer to the nations and the earth in Psalm 2
[37] Yahuwah is the way the name is transliterated in cuneiform inscriptions of ancient of the 5th or 6th century BC, Babylon, according to David Weisberg from Hebrew Union College, Cincinnatti Ohio,in a lecture at Jerusalem University College, on may 4th 2000, “The Impact of Assyriology on Biblical Studies”. Vetus Testamentum has and article “Det Gottename Yahwa” from some in year 2000 or 2001.
[38] This event and this song is referred to in all four of the gospels eg Matt 21:8ff, Mark 11:8ff, Luke 19:35ff
[39][39] We are reminded of the choice Yahuwah gave to Israel in Deuteronomy between life and death in the covenant at Nebo. Deu 30:19
[40] I will call the author John but there is nothing in the gospel which tells us directly the name of the author but the early Church was all but unanimous in asserting that a John was the author, whether John the Apostle or John the Elder or even John the Priest as Schonfield will have it.
[41] See Raymond Brown in Anchor Bible Dictionaries for the case against the Author being John the Apostle, see Westcott’s commenatary on John for the case for the author being the Apostle John.
[42] p 11 Helms, R., Gospel Fictions
posted by Evangelist Edi Nachman Bsc. PGCE @ 4:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home