(The following has been extracted from a long, technical letter kindly sent by Bro. MeIles.)
The appearance of “I am” in the Gospel of John is not, in our opinion, alluding to the divine name.
In this regard, we are fortunate to have accessible the findings and comprehensive statistics compiled by Bro. Alfred Norris and published in What Is His Name? (1986, Aletheia: London). While not agreeing with every conclusion contained in the book, Bro. Norris saves us much time and makes useful observations on this particular topic.
Occurrences of “I Am”
His table number 75 (pp. 137-138) lists the 74 occurrences of “I am” (Greek, ego eimi) in the New Testament. Fifty three times the predicate, which explains the subject, is explicitly stated. In the remaining 21 cases, Bro. Norris contends, ” a predicate is implied even when it is not stated, and there is nothing remarkable about the use of ego eimi or eimi ego at all…A careful consideration of the contexts (of the remaining 21 cases) establishes the implicit predicate in each case.” (pp. 93-94).
From a linguistic point of view, there is nothing unusual in this type of expression. For example, the following exchange contains an implied predicate: “Who is ready?” asks the teacher. “I am” says Johnny. The predicate supplied from the context is “ready.” The same consideration of the context needs to be applied in our reading of scripture.
It is a very large theological assertion to say that Jesus was revealing himself as God manifest when he responded to a boatload of frightened disciples, “I am, be not afraid.” Under the circumstances, if Jesus was making some claim to the divine title, when what the men needed was assurance that he was real, what he said was irrelevant. The comment in A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John by B.M. Newman and E. Nida (1980, UBS: London) is pertinent, “It is I may be variously rendered in different languages, for example, ‘I am the one who is speaking,’ or ‘you are looking at me’ or ‘I am Jesus”‘ (p. 187).
Part of our problem can be reading into a “literal” translation of a phrase a loaded meaning which ignores context. Language and translation does not function like this. In reading great significance into the phrase “I am,” Christadelphians have taken on board an incorrect interpretation of a phrase that does not always carry great importance.
Are names so important?
Some proper names in biblical Hebrew are closely related to other nouns and verbs. But the relationship between the proper name and the related word is not always symmetrical.
So it is with Yahweh. There may be a word play between YHWH and the Hebrew verb for “to be,” HYH or HWH, but there is no example of YHWH as a form of one of these verbs. If we say it is a form of the verb “to be,” I think we are barking up the wrong tree.
Proper names refer to unique individuals — David, Joseph, Isaac, etc. We often suppose that biblical names mean something and that this meaning is always carried around with them. We should rather adopt the practice of 1. accepting some incidental word play; 2. realizing that the main function of proper names is simply to refer, and 3. not imposing a meaning where it is unclear.
In relation to Yahweh, it is interesting to note that the practice of many English versions to substitute “Lord” for “Yahweh” is not a universal tendency. In Spanish, “Jehovah” is used in one version and “Yave” in another. In Maori, the native language of New Zealand, God is called “Iawe.”
I will be
In relation to the phrase (it is not a name) ehyeh asher ehyeh, the justification for the translation– “I will be what I will be” instead of “I am that I am” — is overwhelming. In verse 12 of the same chapter (Exodus 3), the angel uses the same phrase to say, “Certainly I will be with thee.” Furthermore, in every relevant occurrence of the word (38 other times), it conveys the future sense.
Why then the curious preference in all language versions for the present tense? The answer is in a tradition established by the Septuagint version which translates God’s declaration as “I am he who is.” This simply shows the author of this section of the LXX translation did not know how to interpret the meaning of Exodus.
European tradition has followed the LXX lead. It has also been influenced by Greek thought which would attribute to God an abstract or metaphysical character.
New Testament use
If space permitted, we could delve into related issues. For example, is the failure of the New Testament writers to transliterate Yahweh meant to be a comment on its use in our worship? One must remember that proper names are not translatable. The practice of substituting Lord for Yahweh in the Old Testament is a replacement done without scriptural justification. On the other hand, when Yahweh is replaced in the New Testament by “Lord” or “God,” it is a comment on the revelation of Christ and his relationship to God by inspired authors; it does not, however, justify the same practice in the Old Testament and obscures the covenant name in relation to Israel. The key may be there.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One