Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 6:2
And God spoke unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] the LORD:
2. I am Yahweh ] The speaker declares His name to be ‘Yahweh,’ though to the patriarchs He had been known, not by this name, but as El Shaddai. It is the theory of P that the name ‘Yahweh’ was not known until now; and accordingly in the sections of Genesis belonging to P, Elohim, ‘God,’ is the Divine name regularly employed (except twice, Gen 17:1; Gen 21:1 b, where ‘Yahweh’ has been introduced by a scribe or redactor), ‘El Shaddai’ (see the next note) being the distinctive name said to have been revealed to, and used by, the patriarchs. The Being denoted by ‘Yahweh,’ the special, personal name of the God of Israel, is thus identified with the ‘Elohim’ and ‘El Shaddai’ of (according to P) the pre-Mosaic period. On the name Yahweh, see on Exo 3:14, and p. 40.
as God Almighty ] as El Shaddai. See Gen 17:1 (‘I am El Shaddai,’ addressed to Abraham), Gen 35:11 (‘I am El Shaddai,’ ad dressed to Jacob); Gen 28:3 and Gen 48:3 (‘El Shaddai’ used by Isaac (and Jacob). All these passages belong to P.
‘El Shaddai’ occurs besides in Gen 43:14 (E), Gen 49:25 [read with LXX. for ], Eze 10:5; ‘Shaddai’ alone, as a poet, name of God, in Num 24:4; Num 24:16, Rth 1:20-21, Eze 1:24, Isa 13:6 = Joe 1:15, Psa 68:14; Psa 91:1, and 31 times in Job. Shaddai is rendered convention ally ‘Almighty’ (LXX. 14 times in Job ; elsewhere , , &c., in Gen. Ex. strangely my ( thy, their) God; Vulg. mostly omnipotens); and it is true that the idea of might does suit the context in many passages in which the name occurs; but whether ‘Almighty is its real meaning is more than we can say, neither tradition nor philology throwing any certain light upon it, and all suggested explanations of it, the ‘Waster,’ the ‘Over-powerer,’ ‘My mountain, (from the Assyrian; cf. ‘My rock,’ Psa 18:2 al.), being open to objection of one kind or another (see the writer’s Genesis, p. 404 ff.).
I was not, &c.] Or (cf. Eze 20:5), made I not myself known. For but, &c., a Yemen MS. of 11 cent. (Kittel), LXX., Syr., Vulg., Onk. have ‘but my name J. I made not known to them’ ( for ), easing the construction (Ewald, 281 c ), but not materially affecting the sense.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
2 8. God, who had appeared to the patriarchs as El Shaddai, reveals Himself to Moses by His name Yahweh; and bids him tell the Israelites that, having heard their groanings in bondage, He has resolved to fulfil the covenant made with the patriarchs, to deliver them from their sufferings, to make them His people, and to bring them into the land promised to their forefathers.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
There appears to have been an interval of some months between the preceding events and this renewal of the promise to Moses. The oppression in the meantime was not merely driving the people to desperation, but preparing them by severe labor, varied by hasty wanderings in search of stubble, for the exertions and privations of the wilderness. Hence, the formal and solemn character of the announcements in the whole chapter.
Exo 6:2
I am the Lord … – The meaning seems to be this: I am Jehovah (Yahweh), and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but as to my name Jehovah, I was not made known to them. In other words, the full import of that name was not disclosed to them. See Exo 3:14.
Exo 6:3
God Almighty – Rather, El Shaddai, ( ‘el shadday), it is better to keep this as a proper name.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Exo 6:2-3
I am the Lord.
Duty to Jehovah
Consider the meaning of our duty to God; the great truth that we have such a duty; and how it comes about that we have it.
I. Duty is something which is due from one to another: something which ought to be given, or ought to be done; not a thing which is given or done under compulsion, under the influence of fear, extorted by force, not even a free gift or offering; quite different from this; if a thing is a duty, it must be done because it is right to do it and wrong to omit it.
II. The words of the text are as it were, the sign manual whereby Almighty God, in His dealings with His ancient people the Children of Israel, claimed from them the performance of that duty which they owed to Him. The words which gave validity to an Israelitish law merely rehearsed the fact that He who gave the law was Jehovah; and nothing more was added, because nothing more remained to be said.
III. Notice the principles upon which our duty to God depends.
1. There is a relationship, a close vital connection between God and man, which does not exist between God and any other of His creatures; man is in a very high sense the Son of God, so that it is inconceivable that the true aims and purposes of God and man can be distinct. Man being made in Gods image, ought to do Gods will.
2. Our duty to God depends also on the ground of election. God deals with us now as with His Church in former days; it is still a Church of election. We, to whom God sends His commands, are still rightly described as redeemed out of the house of our bondage; and if the redemption of Israel out of Egypt be nothing better than the faintest type and shadow of the redemption of mankind out of the power of the devil, how much greater is the appeal which is made to us on the ground of ,that deliverance which Jesus Christ has wrought out. (Bp. Harvey Goodwin.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 2. I am the Lord] It should be, I am JEHOVAH, and without this the reason of what is said in the 3d verse is not sufficiently obvious.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
2. And God spake unto MosesForhis further encouragement, there was made to him an emphaticrepetition of the promise (Ex 3:20).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord. Or Jehovah, the self-existent Being, the Being of beings, the everlasting I am, the unchangeable Jehovah, true, firm, and constant to his promises, ever to be believed, and always to be depended on.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
2. And God spake. God pursues His address, that Moses may again uplift the fainting courage of the people. Moreover, He rebukes their distrust, by recalling the memory of His covenant; for if this had been duly impressed upon their minds, they would have been much more firm in their expectation of deliverance. He therefore shews that He has now advanced nothing new; since they had heard long ago from the Patriarchs that they were chosen by God as His peculiar people, and had almost imbibed from their mother’s breasts the doctrine of his adoption of them. Wherefore their stupidity is the more unpardonable, and more manifest, when they thus factiously complain of Moses, as if he had himself invented what he had promised them in the name of God. He also stings them by an implied comparison; Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had eagerly embraced the promise given them, and had quietly, and perseveringly trusted in it; whilst they, who boasted of their descent from that holy stock, disdainfully rejected it, because its fulfillment did not immediately appear. And, in order to amplify their sin, he reasons from the less to the greater: since a fuller and clearer manifestation of it is presented to them than there had been to the fathers, it follows that they ought to have been more ready to believe it. Whence it is plain that their stupidity is inexcusable, since they will not receive God, when he is so familiarly presenting himself to them. Translators do not agree as to the epithet “Sadai.” Some derive it from the word שדד, shadad, and imagine that the final letter י, yod, is the double ד, daleth If we agree to this, it will mean the same as “the Destroyer;” or at any rate will signify the awful majesty of God. Others are rather of opinion that the root is שד, shad, which means “a teat.” To others it appears to be a compound word from the relative אשר, esher, or ש, and די, di, which in Hebrew means “ sufficiency. ” Thus he will be called “Sadai,” who abounds with all good things. It is indeed sure that they use this word in a good as well as a bad sense; for where Isaiah threatens that God will be the avenger of sins, he calls him “Sadai.” ( Isa 13:9.) So also in Job 23:16, “Sadai troubleth me.” In these and similar passages, the terrible power of God is unquestionably expressed; but when He promises to Abraham that He will be the God “Sadai,” He is engaging himself to be merciful and bounteous. Here again, where He says that He appeared to the Fathers as the God “Sadai,” He has not respect so much to His might in exercising judgment, as to His abundant and perfect loving-kindness; as though He had said, that He had manifested to Abraham and the other Patriarchs how great was His efficiency in preserving and defending His own people, and that they had known from experience how powerfully and effectually He cherishes, sustains, and aids them that are His. But although He declares what benefits He conferred upon them, He says that He was not known to them by His name “Jehovah;” signifying thus that He now more brightly manifested the glory of His divinity to their descendants. It would be tedious to recount the various opinions as to the name “Jehovah.” It is certainly a foul superstition of the Jews that they dare not speak, or write it, but substitute the name “Adonai;” nor do I any more approve of their teaching, who say that it is ineffable, because it is not written according to grammatical rule. Without controversy, it is derived from the word היה, hayah, or הוה, havah, and therefore it is rightly said by learned commentators to be the essential name of God, whereas others are, as it were, epithets. Since, then, nothing is more peculiar to God than eternity, He is called Jehovah, because He has existence from Himself, and sustains all things by His secret inspiration. Nor do I agree with the grammarians, who will not have it pronounced, because its inflection is irregular; because its etymology, of which all confess that God is the author, is more to me than an hundred rules. (72) Nor does God by “His name” in this passage mean syllables or letters, but the knowledge of His glory and majesty, which shone out more fully and more brightly in the redemption of His Church, than in the commencement of the covenant. For Abraham and the other Patriarchs were content with a smaller measure of light; whence it follows that the fault of their descendants would be less excusable, if their faith was not answerable to the increase of their grace. Meanwhile, Moses is awakened to activity whilst God is setting before him a magnificent and singular means of shewing forth His glory.
(72) “ A. Pfeiffer in his Dubia vexata, rightly observes upon this passage. The name Jehovah was not, strictly and literally, unknown to the fathers, but it was so, in respect of the perfect fulfillment of the promises implied in it; more especially, that glorious one of the deliverance out of Egypt.” — Rosenmuller in Brightwell. “Prior to that time, the name Jehovah had been often used to describe the existence, the necessity, or the unchangeableness of God; but now, to indicate His faithfulness, His truth and constancy, in keeping and fulfilling His promises.” — Dathe in loco. Holden, however, and others, would elude the difficulty by reading the clause interrogatively. He says, “It is impossible to read the history of Abraham, etc., without being convinced that both the name of Jehovah, and the attributes implied by that name, were known to them. Our A. V. , therefore, must be erroneous. Now every difficulty will be removed by reading it interrogatively, ‘And by my name Jehovah was I not known to them?’ which is both agreeable to the Hebrew idiom, and to the scope of the context.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
2-8. I am the Lord: (JEHOVAH:) and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, in (the character of) El Shaddai, ( God Almighty,) but by my name (that is, in my character) JEHOVAH was I not known (made known) to them. (Nordh . , Hebrews Gram . , 1040, 2, c . ; Ewald, Gram . , 299, 6 . ) Concerning the import, of the word “Jehovah,” and the meaning of this declaration, see notes on Exo 3:13-15. From the call of Abraham God had been unfolding his character, as the patriarchs could by experience become acquainted with him . Man is not instructed by teaching him names, but by unfolding to him the import of names, and this had been the divine education of the fathers of Israel through such appellations as El, Elyon, and El Shaddai; but a deeper and grander lesson was now to be taught their children by experience such as the fathers knew not, so that the depth and richness of the great Covenant Name would become a national possession. It was not the sound, (as some critics imagine,) but the import of the Name that was unknown to their fathers, that is, unknown comparatively, considering the meaning which was now to be known. In interpreting such passages we are to remember that the Hebrew style does not admit of the periodic sentence, with the balanced qualifications and limitations of the Western tongues, and it is thus forced to make statements in an absolute form, which have obviously a comparative sense. Thus Joseph says to his brethren, “It was not you that sent me hither, but God,” (Gen 45:8😉 that is, “Your share in the matter is nothing when compared with his; the evil from your act is trifling compared with the good which God will bring out of it . ” So Joseph called his son Manasseh, for, said he, “God hath made me to forget my father’s house” not absolutely to forget, but that his new home made the old to be comparatively unthought of .
[The name Jehovah was the proper name of the God of Israel, as George or Paul is the proper name of a man, or Molech that of the god of the Ammonites. So profound was the reverence of the Hebrews for this name that they refused to pronounce it, and the vowelled pronunciation was lost, and is restored at this day only by conjecture. In reading the Scriptures vocally the Jews substituted the Hebrew word for Lord Adonai. The Septuagint translators translated the name by the Greek word for Lord. Our English translators unfortunately followed suit, and translated the word by LORD in capitals. In the word Jehovah the vowels are borrowed, absurdly, from the word Adonai. The more probable, but not certain, form of the word is Jahveh. But the English reader should always mentally read LORD as the true proper name of Israel’s God.] 9 . They hearkened not For their cruel oppression now crushed them in an anguish that made them dead to hope . It was the very extremity which is the opportunity of Providence.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Yahweh’s Response to Pharaoh’s Behaviour and Promise to His People ( Exo 6:2-9 ).
This promise is in the usual form of a chiasmus as follows:
a God speaks to Moses (Exo 6:2 a).
b God says to Moses, ‘I am Yahweh.’ (Exo 6:2).
c He declares how He appeared to Abraham Isaac and Jacob but was not made known by them as Yahweh, and declares how He had promised by covenant to give the land of Canaan to them (Exo 6:3-4).
d He confirms that He has heard their groanings because of their bondage in Egypt and remembered His covenant (Exo 6:5).
e He declares that ‘I am Yahweh’ (Exo 6:6 a)
d He promises them that as Yahweh their covenant God He will bring them out from the bondage in Egypt and redeem them with power (thus making known His name (Exo 6:6 b).
c He promises that He will make them a people and will be their God so that they will know that He is Yahweh, and swears that He will bring them into the land and give them it as a heritage because He swore it to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (thus making Himself known as Yahweh, the One Who acts in history) (Exo 6:8 a).
b He finishes by declaring, ‘I am Yahweh’. (Exo 6:8 b)
a The people do not listen to Moses for anguish of spirit (Exo 6:9).
Thus the whole emphasis of this passage is that He is Yahweh, and that He will make the fact known by His powerful activity, in delivering them from bondage in Egypt and giving them the land promised to their fathers. In ‘a’ God speaks to Moses and in the parallel the people will not listen to him. In ‘b’ He stresses the fact that ‘I am Yahweh’, centres on it in ‘d’ and finishes with it in the parallel ‘b’. He declares in ‘c’ His relationship with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and how He covenanted to give them the land, although by not doing so at that time was not made known to them as Yahweh, the One Who acts, and in the parallel ‘c’ confirms that He will now give that land because they are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, thus making Himself known to them as Yahweh, their God Who acts. In ‘d’ and ‘d’ is the fact that He knows of their bondage in Egypt and will deliver them from it. They must not think that He has overlooked their condition. And central to all in ‘e’ is that He is Yahweh.
Exo 6:2
‘And God spoke to Moses and said to him, “I am Yahweh. And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh I was not made known to them, and I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their sojournings in which they sojourned.” ’
This continues the thought of verse 1 and must be interpreted in that light and in the light of Exo 6:7. God tells Moses that He had appeared to their fathers as El Shaddai, the Almighty God, the God of the nations (see note below), the rather remote covenant maker. They had thus been made aware of His universality and greatness, and it was on that basis that He had been able to make the wide promises of blessing for all Abraham’s descendants, including those descended from Ishmael. This had been their life experience of God. But they had not experienced His individual, direct, activity on behalf of His chosen line establishing them as rulers over the land. They had not experienced the dynamic of His might and power as their covenant God bringing about the final fulfilment of His promises of possessing the land and being saved from all who hated them. That awaited the future.
So while they had worshipped Yahweh, they had not ‘known His name’, that is, experienced Him in powerful action bringing about His promises as their covenant God. This was not to deny that Yahweh had been a name passed down from their ancestors under which they had worshipped Him, but it was to point out that they had not in their own time realised or experienced the full significance of that name as ‘the One Who acts’. El Shaddai had been the title that throbbed with significance, the God of the nations, the God Who held the future in His hands. Now all that was to be changed. Yahweh was about to make the very depths of His name known, the name that spoke of a powerful presence and activity, Who would be what He wanted to be as He had defined it in Exodus 3.
This use of ‘known’ to signify ‘known by His power and activity’ is constantly made clear in the context here in Exodus (see Exo 6:7; Exo 7:5; Exo 7:17; Exo 8:22; Exo 9:29; Exo 10:2 (where knowing Him they will come to know Him for what He is); Exo 14:4; Exo 14:18) which confirms that that is how we are to view it.
So the promise was that Moses and the people were not like the patriarchs to be given future hopes, they were now to be made aware in the fullest sense of the power contained within the name of Yahweh. They would ‘know by experience’ that He was Yahweh, ‘the One Who is there’, for He will reveal His power in the actual deliverance of His people ‘with a strong arm’. They were to see Him in action. They would not now just ‘know (be aware of) His name’ as something that was passed down, they would know it in the depths of their experience because of His powerful activity. It will be made known by what He does. The knowing of His name in this way is a constant theme of the first part of Exodus (Exo 3:13-16; Exo 5:2; Exo 6:3; Exo 6:7; Exo 7:5; Exo 7:17; Exo 8:10; Exo 9:14; Exo 10:2; Exo 14:4; Exo 14:18; Exo 16:11). The wonders were wrought so that his people in the future might ‘know that I am Yahweh’ (Exo 10:2; Exo 16:11). He was manifesting Himself in the fullness of His power.
Note on Knowing Yahweh.
Some scholars have taken this verse at its surface value without regard to context and interpreted it as meaning that the name of Yahweh was not even theoretically known to the patriarchs. It suited their theories but it was to miss its whole point.
For what to ‘know His name’ meant is made especially clear in Jdg 2:10. There the people of Israel who had not witnessed His mighty working in their own time were described as those who ‘did not know Yahweh, nor yet the work which He had wrought in Israel’. Now that they knew of Him, of course, in the ordinary sense, and worshipped Him, can hardly be denied. They were aware of their past history and that their fathers had ‘known’ Him. But as they had not in their own time experienced Yahweh as the mighty Deliverer Whose delivery they had experienced for themselves and were neglecting Him they were said not to ‘know Him’. He had become a theory Who could conveniently be ignored. And they had not themselves ‘known Him’ simply because they had not needed to be directly involved in His saving activity (in the same way as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had not) That was why they could not be said to ‘know Yahweh’.
Many are in a similar position today. If you asked them, ‘do you know of Jesus Christ?’ they would reply, ‘Yes, of course’. But if they were asked, ‘do you know Him? Have you experienced His saving power?’ they would not know what you were talking about. They do not know Him. He has not made Himself known to them. They simply know about Him.
We can compare here the similar expression in regard to Egypt in 7:5. There the Egyptians would know that He is Yahweh because they would have seen His wonders and His mighty judgments. So here in chapter 6 Yahweh will be fully known for the same reason (compare also Exo 14:4). They will have experienced His mighty power.
The point being made is thus that while Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did know the name of Yahweh theoretically and were aware of it, they did not know that name in its practical outworking. They waited in hope. They had never experienced its explosiveness in action. He had not made Himself known as ‘the One Who acts’. Rather had they walked before Him in obedience and expectancy of the future, believing that He would make His name known in the future by one day fulfilling His promises.
Yahweh had appeared to them under a number of titles, but especially under the title of El Shaddai, the God of many nations, the One over all, (and had appeared to them also as Yahweh and other titles as well). This was because it was as the God of their future and the God of many nations that He had made His appearance. But His promises as Yahweh the covenant God Who would establish their sovereign position in the world were ever in the future and not then fulfilled. He did not then act to bring them about. They believed in His name but they did not come to know its mighty working to its fullest extent. The dynamite in ‘the name’ of Yahweh yet remained hidden. But now Israel were to know exactly that. The ‘name’ was about to burst forth.
However, having said that, we should note that He is not even said to have been ‘known’ to the patriarchs under the title of El Shaddai. He does not say that they ‘knew’ Him even under that title. It is simply said that He appeared to them under that title. So while it is said that they were aware of Him as El Shaddai, for He appeared to them as such, it could not be said even of that title that they ‘knew’ Him, for they did not experience His active power with regard to many nations. Always what was promised was in the future. Promises were given to them, and accepted by them, that they would be fathers of many nations and of their future reception of the land, but the actual possession of the land had awaited this day. Then Yahweh/El Shaddai had acted only in promise. But now the situation has changed. God will act in power and ‘His name’ will be ‘made known’, and He will be made known as Yahweh in the reality of practical experience as well as in theory.
Thus while to the patriarchs Yahweh had revealed Himself as God Almighty, remote and biding His time, working out His purposes, (and was also known to them by the name of Yahweh), now He is to be ‘known’ predominantly as Yahweh, the God Who is there to act and has acted, the ‘I am’ (Exo 3:14), the One with special concern for Israel. That will now be the name under which He prominently manifests Himself. At this time in history they need a present dynamic God, not a more vague universal One. Then they knew of Him now they will know Him in reality as they experience His expressed power.
The patriarchs did, of course, know the name of Yahweh as a name. That is not in question. The point is that He was not ‘made known’ to them in the significance of that name. In the same way they knew of Him by His titles but did not experience His present power in giving them the land. For we must recognise that to the ancient, to know a name was to enter into the power of that name, to experience the personality and force behind it, and to know the fulfilment of it, and they had only known it in promise not in realisation. They could not truly ‘know Yahweh’ until His promises were fulfilled.
The Title El Shaddai.
The full meaning of ‘El Shaddai’ is not yet apparent to us but the LXX translates it as ‘the Almighty’. It was not, however, the most common title for Yahweh. Yahweh in fact especially revealed Himself under this title twice, the first time to Abraham in connection with the greater covenant which included Ishmael in Genesis 17 and the second time to Jacob in Gen 35:11, and in both cases there was stress on a change of name for the recipient, for to receive a covenant from El Shaddai meant a whole new direction in life. It meant to be taken up into His purposes. So under that title Abraham received from Yahweh the greater covenant which included Ishmael and his descendants, and under it Jacob was confirmed as the inheritor of that greater covenant. Indeed, whenever God is mentioned under the title of El Shaddai it is in relation to ‘many nations’, not just to the family tribe.
To Abraham in chapter 17 it was said ‘you shall be the father of a multitude of nations (hamon goyim)’, and Ishmael was a part of that covenant; to Isaac as he blessed Jacob in Gen 28:3 it was said ‘that you may be a company of peoples’ (liqhal ‘amim); and again to Jacob in Gen 48:4 reference was made to ‘a company of peoples’ (liqhal ‘amim). It is in recognition of this fact that Jacob speaks of El Shaddai when he sends his sons back to Egypt to obtain the release of Simeon and entrusts them with Benjamin (Gen 43:14), for it is Yahweh as El Shaddai, the sovereign God over the whole world, who has power to influence the great governor of Egypt that he has in mind. This may also be why Isaac also used this title of Yahweh when he sent his son into a foreign land.
So El Shaddai was very much the title that related to God’s worldwide power and purposes. This did, of course, include the local promises as an essential part of that future, but always in the wider context, for it went wider than that. Thus because He was El Shaddai they would bear both a nation and a company of nations. It was true that their direct descendants would be kings and their seed would inherit the promised land, but the promise extended wider to the nations that would descend from Ishmael, and to a multitude and company of nations from other sons, and to many kings of those nations.
Yahweh thus appeared to them twice as El Shaddai (Gen 17:1; Gen 35:11), and so revealed something of what He was, but it did not fully make Him ‘known’, for that could only happen when He fulfilled the promises and brought them into actual being. Even El Shaddai was not made known to them by His acts. They knew His titles, they experienced His presence, but they did not experience the outworking of His name. Now they would actually see Him at work.
Thus when the patriarchs had been made aware of the width of what God was offering them in the wider covenant, He appeared to them as El Shaddai, but they had not experienced the depth of His delivering power in the narrower covenant, so He had not been ‘made known’ to them as Yahweh.
End of note.
“And I also established my covenant with them to give them the land — in which they sojourned.”
Here in Exodus then it is the personal part of the covenant that is in mind, that part which relates to Abraham’s descent through Isaac, and Isaac’s descent through Jacob, the promises limited to the chosen line, the promises in fact connected in Genesis specifically with the name of Yahweh (Gen 12:1-3; Gen 13:14-17; Gen 15:4-5 with Gen 15:13-14; Gen 22:16-18; Gen 26:2-4; Gen 28:13-14). And these are now to be brought into effect as Yahweh ‘makes Himself known’.
The fact is that the promise of deliverance from Egypt was already specifically connected directly with the name of Yahweh (Gen 15:13-16). And now Yahweh will make Himself known as what He is in that deliverance. Now they will know His name as ‘the One Who is there to act’, and watch Him in decisive action. As Moses was told earlier, He has ‘come down’ for that very purpose (Exo 3:8), to make known His name.
Exo 6:5
“And moreover I have heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage, and I have remembered my covenant.”
Note the progression, “I have established my covenant (Exo 6:4) —- I have remembered my covenant.’ The covenant was established with the fathers, it is remembered, so as to be brought into effect, in connection with the children of Israel. Once again, what was promised is now to be actualised. His name is to be ‘known’ as He reveals Himself in action.
“I have heard their groaning — I have remembered my covenant.” Yahweh recognises that Moses’ faith is wavering and so He repeats His assurances about what He intends to do. In Exo 2:24 we read that God ‘heard their groaning’ and ‘remembered His covenant’. Now God says that here in those exact words. In Exo 3:7 He had heard their cry as a result of their taskmasters and in Exo 3:8 had come down to deliver them, and now He confirms He will do the same. So while things might seem not to be encouraging, let Moses be sure of this, patience is required but God’s purpose and intention has not changed. Patience with God in His work is one thing that all of us find hard to learn.
Exo 6:6-8
‘For this reason say to the children of Israel, “I am Yahweh, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will free you from your bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments, and I will take you to me for a people and you will know that I am Yahweh your God, who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will bring you in to the land concerning which I lifted up my hand to give it to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, and I will give it to you for a heritage. I am Yahweh.” ’
How then were they to know that He was Yahweh? This was an advance on what had been promised before. The first promise was to deliver out of the hands of the Egyptians and bring them to a land flowing with milk and honey (Exo 3:8; Exo 3:17). This promise went much further. They are to receive it for a heritage. He wants them to be comforted and to recognise that nothing that has happened has altered His intentions. The promises still apply and are indeed extended.
The theme of knowing Yahweh continues. He is now about to reveal Himself in their deliverance from their slavery (the Exodus), the taking of them to be His people (Mount Sinai), the bringing of them into the land (Joshua), and the giving it to them for a heritage (Joshua to David). Thus will they know Him by His name as the One Who is there to act, and has acted, and will worship Him in His Dwellingplace (tabernacle) as the One Who has come down to them to be among them (although still ever being in the heavens).
Note that His words begin and end with the same refrain, ‘I am Yahweh.’ He is emphasising that they have known His name for so long but have not ever known Him in the real significance of that name. Now they are about to do so.
“I will redeem you with a stretched out arm and with great judgments.” This is only the second use of the term ‘redeem’, which means to deliver by the payment of a price. The first was when Jacob spoke of ‘the Angel who redeemed me from all evil’ (Gen 48:16). Now Yahweh will redeem with a powerful arm and with great judgments.
Redemption always results in deliverance through the payment of a price. It always has a cost. In Jacob’s case the price was the strain of wrestling and the expenditure of the strength of Yahweh (which is stressed) which resulted in Jacob’s reception of a new name to indicate the new Jacob (Gen 32:24-28), here it is the expenditure of power through the exercise of God’s arm and the pouring out of His wonders as judgments. Redemption is never without cost to the Redeemer. Compare for this 13:13-15 which connects redemption with the deliverance.
“With a stretched out arm and with great judgments.” A stretched out arm is an arm active in power. The great judgments will follow. They are judgments because by their actions the Egyptians have made themselves worthy of judgment.
“And I will take you to me for a people.” They were, of course, already His people, for they were of the ‘family’ of the Patriarchs to whom the promises had been given. They were ‘His son, His firstborn’ (Exo 4:22). They were ‘My people’ (Exo 5:1). But now it is to be confirmed to them personally. At Mount Sinai Yahweh will personally adopt them as His own. Note how the language used here is found in the covenant of Sinai. ‘I will bring you our from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage’. Compare, ‘I am Yahweh your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage’ (Exo 20:2).
“And you will know that I am Yahweh your God.” They will know His Name fully because they will experience its significance as the One Who acts, the One Who ‘will be what He will be’. He is about to act in order to fulfil His promises to their fathers.
“Concerning which I have lifted up my hand.” Lifting up the hand was way of making a solemn confirmation of His determination to fulfil His part in the covenant. For this method of solemnly confirming a covenant compare Gen 14:22; Deu 32:40. God was sworn to act on their behalf.
Exo 6:9
‘And Moses spoke so to the children of Israel, but they did not listen to Moses for anguish (literally ‘shortness’) of spirit and because of their cruel bondage.’
They had listened before. But then life had been bearable. Now it was so hard that they were not prepared to listen any longer. They had lost all spirit. They gritted their teeth and closed their ears. They had lost hope. Life was almost unsustainable. From now on Moses and Aaron would have to act alone. But this simply brings out the lesson that when things seem at their worst, God is at His best.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
How sweet and precious is this declaration! Reader! do you know the Lord under this glorious character? It means everything that can carry with it self-existence, and self-sufficiency. See Isa 40:11-28 ; Rev 22:13 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Exo 6:2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] the LORD:
Ver. 2. I am Jehovah. ] A (Scaliger’s a word); that do Press b (Gregory’s word); that have being of myself, give being to all things else, and in special to my promises, to “perform with my hand” what I have “spoken with my mouth”; 1Ki 8:15 only God expects that men put his promises in suit by their prayers, as here, and burden him with them, as that martyr said.
a Scalig., De Subtilit.
b [Sic. – ? Peresse; qui est per se. ]
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
God spake. Occurs only twice in Exodus: here, and 20. See notes on Exo 3:7 with Exo 6:10.
God. Hebrew. Elohim. App-4.
the LORD = Jehovah. Note the repetition five times in this revelation, verses: Exo 6:2, Exo 6:3, Exo 6:6, Exo 2:7, Exo 2:8, and see App-10.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Gods Name Confirms His Promises
Exo 6:2-9
The statement of Exo 6:3 is at first sight, startling, because we remember several passages in Genesis where that sacred name appears. But this arises from the fact that much of Genesis was composed long after the people had left these sad experiences behind them; and it was natural to apply to God the name which was familiar to them all at the time of writing. To the patriarchs God was El, the Strong; to their descendants he was the unchanging Jehovah, who fulfilled promises made centuries before. See Mal 3:6. Notice the seven I wills, and the three I AMs. How often with us, as with Israel in Exo 6:9, our faith and hope are hindered by physical or temporal circumstances. But our God knows our frame and is touched with the feeling of our infirmities. Therefore He can make allowances.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
I am the Lord: or, Jehovah, Exo 6:6, Exo 6:8, Exo 14:18, Exo 17:1, Exo 20:2, Gen 15:7, Isa 42:8, Isa 43:11, Isa 43:15, Isa 44:6, Jer 9:24, Mal 3:6, Act 17:24, Act 17:25
Reciprocal: Exo 6:29 – I am the Exo 12:12 – I am the Lord Lev 18:5 – I am the Lord Deu 28:58 – fear this glorious
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Exo 6:2. I am the Lord That is, Jehovah, on which word the emphasis is laid, and it is to be wished that it had been always preserved in this translation, and especially in such passages as this, the sense of which entirely depends on the word. It signifies the same with, I AM THAT I AM, the fountain of being and blessedness, and of infinite perfection. By my name Jehovah was I not known unto them As it is certain that God declared himself to these patriarchs by the name Jehovah, as may be seen Gen 15:6-7; Gen 22:14; Gen 22:16, some of the best and most accurate writers conclude that the latter part of this verse ought to be read interrogatively, thus, And by my name Jehovah was I not known unto them? The original words will well bear this translation, and it would entirely remove that apparent contradiction which is implied in our version. At the same time it would greatly improve the sense and force of the passage. But if we do not read it in this manner, we must not understand it of the name itself, but of the power and virtue which the name expresses. And then the meaning of the passage will be, that though God had revealed himself to the patriarchs as the El-shaddai, the Almighty, or All-sufficient, yet they did not live to see the accomplishment of his promises; and therefore, though they believed, yet they did not experimentally know that he was a God of unchangeable truth; nor had they experienced that all the powers of nature were in his hand, and that he could change them as he pleased, and even communicate the power of doing so to man. But it was to Moses that God first showed his power of making alterations in nature, or working miracles and prodigies. What makes this sense of the passage probable is, that the knowing of Jehovah is spoken of in this way, Exo 7:5, And the Egyptians shall know that I am Jehovah, when I stretch forth my hand on Egypt. Thus, Henry observes, The patriarchs knew this name, but they did know him in this matter by that which this name signifies. God would now be known by his name Jehovah, that Isaiah , 1 st, A God performing what he had promised, and so giving being to his promises. 2d, A God perfecting what he had begun, and finishing his own work. In the history of the creation God is never called Jehovah till the heavens and the earth were finished, Gen 2:4. When the salvation of the saints is completed in eternal life, then he will be known by his name Jehovah, Rev 22:13; in the mean time they shall find him for their strength and support, El-shaddai, a God all-sufficient, a God that is enough.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Exo 6:2-12. Ps Second Account of Mosess Call.Till the method of Hebrew compilers was understood, it was natural to take this as the account of a second call. It is now seen to be the account of his call in the latest source, as written by priestly annalists after the Exile. Moreover, it was this passage which put in the hands of the French physician, Jean Astruc (p. 122), the clue to the criticism of the Mosaic books. For the writer who says that God was known to the patriarchs as God Almighty (El Shaddai, Gen 17:1*, Joe 1:15*), but was not known to them by His name Yahweh, could not be the same who declared (Gen 4:26) that man began to call upon the name of Yahweh in the days of Seth, and who used it freely in connexion with all the patriarchs. Observe that the analysis which began with distinguishing the Divine Name has revealed so many fresh clues as to become virtually independent of its original starting-point (p. 123). The great idea of a Divine covenant, a Testament conditional upon moral and spiritual terms, is dominant in P (Genesis 17*). It involved remembrance (Exo 6:5), redemption (Exo 6:6, cf. Isa 41:14, etc.), fellowship (Exo 6:7 a), and the assurance of faith (Exo 6:7 b), as well as the settlement in Canaan (Exo 6:8). The summary of the Divine programme closes with I am Yahweh, the Everlasting Yea which sounds out again and again, like the deep boom of a church bell, in the Law of Holiness (Lev 18:5, etc.). But the people (Exo 6:9) hearkened not for impatience (mg.). Here the priestly abridgment disregards the first expressions of popular conviction in Exo 4:31 J, and Moses (Exo 6:12) quails before the harder task of making Pharaoh hear (contrast Exo 4:10 J).
Exo 6:8. The covenant had been confirmed by an oath m Gen 24:7I lifted up my hand (cf. Gen 14:22, Num 14:30), the hand being raised to heaven by one taking an oath.
Exo 6:12. uncircumcised lips: as though needing a surgical operation for dumbness.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
God explained to Moses that He would indeed deliver Israel out of Egypt in spite of the discouragement that Moses had encountered so far. God proceeded to remind Moses of His promises to the patriarchs and to reveal more of Himself by expounding one of His names.
"During the patriarchal period the characteristic name of God was ’God Almighty’ (Exo 6:3; see, for example, Gen 17:1), the usual translation of the Hebrew El Shaddai, which probably literally means ’God, the Mountain One.’ That phrase could refer to the mountains as God’s symbolic home (see Psa 121:1), but it more likely stresses His invincible power and might. . . .
"But during the Mosaic period the characteristic name of God was to be ’the LORD,’ the meaning of which was first revealed to Moses himself (Exo 3:13-15). Exo 6:3 is not saying that the patriarchs were totally ignorant of the name Yahweh." [Note: Youngblood, p. 41.]
The occurrences of "El Shaddai" in Genesis are in Gen 17:1; Gen 28:3; Gen 35:11; Gen 43:14; Gen 48:3; and partially in Gen 49:3. The name occurs 30 times in Job. Shaddai may come from the Hebrew sd ("breast") or from the Ugaritic tdy ("mountain"). In the former case it would mean "God the Nourisher," and in the latter "God of the Mountain." [Note: See Kaiser, "Exodus," p. 340.]
"Thus though the name YHWH existed well before the time of Moses, the meaning of that name was not revealed until the time of Moses." [Note: Gianotti, p. 39. See Johnson, p. 56; and Robert Dick Wilson, "Yahweh (Jehovah) and Exodus 6:3," in Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, pp. 29-40.]
"Yahweh" reveals God as "the absolute Being working with unbounded freedom in the performance of His promises." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:467.] It emphasizes God’s power at work for His people, as He was about to demonstrate it.
"Whatever the situation or need (in particular, the redemption from Egypt, but also future needs), God will ’become’ the solution to that need." [Note: Gianotti, p. 46. See also the note on Exo 6:3 in the NET Bible.]
In this revelation God promised to do three things for Israel.
1. He would deliver the Israelites from their Egyptian bondage (Exo 6:6). Moses communicated this in a threefold expression suggesting the completeness of the deliverance.
2. He would adopt Israel as His nation (Exo 6:7). This took place at Sinai (Exo 19:5).
3. He would bring Israel into the Promised Land (Exo 6:8).
Note the repetition of the phrase "I will" seven times in these verses, emphasizing the fact that God would certainly do this for Israel. The whole revelation occurs within the statements "I am the LORD" (Exo 6:2; Exo 6:8) which formalize it and further stress the certainty of these promises.
"So this passage effectively paves the way for the transition from the simple covenant with Abraham to the complex new (Mosaic) covenant with the people as a whole." [Note: Jonathan Magonet, "The Rhetoric of God: Exodus 6:2-8," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27 (October 1983):66.]
"This small section of narrative also sketches out the argument of the whole Pentateuch. God made a covenant with the patriarchs to give them the land of Canaan (Exo 6:4). He remembered his covenant when he heard the cry of the Israelites in Egyptian bondage (Exo 6:5). He is now going to deliver Israel from their bondage and take them to himself as a people and be their God (Exo 6:6). He will also bring them into the land which he swore to give to their fathers (Exo 6:8). The die is cast for the remainder of the events narrated in the Pentateuch." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 251.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
2. Moses and Aaron’s equipment as God’s messengers 6:2-7:7
The writer gave the credentials of God and His representatives, Moses and Aaron, in these verses.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
A NEW NAME.
Exo 3:14. Exo 6:2-3.
“God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”
We cannot certainly tell why Moses asked for a new name by which to announce to his brethren the appearance of God. He may have felt that the memory of their fathers, and of the dealings of God with them, had faded so far out of mind that merely to indicate their ancestral God would not sufficiently distinguish Him from the idols of Egypt, whose worship had infected them.
If so, he was fully answered by a name which made this God the one reality, in a world where all is a phantasm except what derives stability from Him.
He may have desired to know, for himself, whether there was any truth in the dreamy and fascinating pantheism which inspired so much of the Egyptian superstition.
In that case, the answer met his question by declaring that God existed, not as the sum of things or soul of the universe, but in Himself, the only independent Being.
Or he may simply have desired some name to express more of the mystery of deity, remembering how a change of name had accompanied new discoveries of human character and achievement, as of Abraham and Israel; and expecting a new name likewise when God would make to His people new revelations of Himself.
So natural an expectation was fulfilled not only then, but afterwards. When Moses prayed “Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory,” the answer was “I will make all My goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord.” The proclamation was again Jehovah, but not this alone. It was “The Lord, the Lord, a God full of compassion and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy and truth” (Exo 33:18-19, Exo 34:6, R.V.) Thus the life of Moses, like the agelong progress of the Church, advanced towards an ever-deepening knowledge that God is not only the Independent but the Good. All sets toward the final knowledge that His highest name is Love.
Meanwhile, in the development of events, the exact period was come for epithets, which were shared with gods many and lords many, to be supplemented by the formal announcement and authoritative adoption of His proper name Jehovah. The infant nation was to learn to think of Him, not only as endowed with attributes of terror and power, by which enemies would be crushed, but as possessing a certain well-defined personality, upon which the trust of man could repose. Soon their experience would enable them to receive the formal announcement that He was merciful and gracious. But first they were required to trust His promise amid all discouragements; and to this end, stability was the attribute first to be insisted upon.
It is true that the derivation of the word Jehovah is still a problem for critical acumen. It has been sought in more than one language, and various shades of meaning have been assigned to it, some untenable in the abstract, others hardly, or not at all, to be reconciled with the Scriptural narrative.
Nay, the corruption of the very sound is so notorious, that it is only worth mention as illustrating a phase of superstition.
We smile at the Jews, removing the correct vowels lest so holy a word should be irreverently spoken, placing the sanctity in the cadence, hoping that light and flippant allusions may offend God less, so long as they spare at least the vowels of His name, and thus preserve some vestige undesecrated, while profaning at once the conception of His majesty and the consonants of the mystic word.
A more abject superstition could scarcely have made void the spirit, while grovelling before the letter of the commandment.
But this very superstition is alive in other forms today. Whenever one recoils from the sin of coarse blasphemy, yet allows himself the enjoyment of a polished literature which profanes holy conceptions,–whenever men feel bound to behave with external propriety in the house of God, yet bring thither wandering thoughts, vile appetites, sensuous imaginations, and all the chamber of imagery which is within the unregenerate heart,–there is the same despicable superstition which strove to escape at least the extreme of blasphemy by prudently veiling the Holy Name before profaning it.
But our present concern is with the practical message conveyed to Israel when Moses declared that Jehovah, I AM, the God of their fathers, had appeared unto him. And if we find in it a message suited for the time, and which is the basis, not the superstructure, both of later messages and also of the national character, then we shall not fail to observe the bearing of such facts upon an urgent controversy of this time.
Some significance must have been in that Name, not too abstract for a servile and degenerate race to apprehend. Nor was it soon to pass away and be replaced; it was His memorial throughout all generations; and therefore it has a message for us today, to admonish and humble, to invigorate and uphold.
That God would be the same to them as to their fathers was much. But that it was of the essence of His character to be evermore the same, immutable in heart and mind and reality of being, however their conduct might modify His bearing towards them, this indeed would be a steadying and reclaiming consciousness.
Accordingly Moses receives the answer for himself, “I AM THAT I AM”; and he is bidden to tell his people “I am hath sent me unto you,” and yet again “JEHOVAH the God of your fathers hath sent me unto you.” The spirit and tenor of these three names may be said to be virtually comprehended in the first; and they all speak of the essential and self-existent Being, unchanging and unchangeable.
I AM expresses an intense reality of being. No image in the dark recesses of Egyptian or Syrian temples, grotesque and motionless, can win the adoration of him who has had communion with such a veritable existence, or has heard His authentic message. No dreamful pantheism, on its knees to the beneficent principle expressed in one deity, to the destructive in another, or to the reproductive in a third, but all of them dependent upon nature, as the rainbow upon the cataract which it spans, can ever again satisfy the soul which is athirst for the living God, the Lord, Who is not personified, but IS.
This profound sense of a living Person within reach, to be offended, to pardon, and to bless, was the one force which kept the Hebrew nation itself alive, with a vitality unprecedented since the world began. They could crave His pardon, whatever natural retributions they had brought down upon themselves, whatever tendencies of nature they had provoked, because He was not a dead law without ears or a heart, but their merciful and gracious God.
Not the most exquisite subtleties of innuendo and irony could make good for a day the monstrous paradox that the Hebrew religion, the worship of I AM, was really nothing but the adoration of that stream of tendencies which makes for righteousness.
Israel did not challenge Pharaoh through having suddenly discovered that goodness ultimately prevails over evil, nor is it any cold calculation of the sort which ever inspires a nation or a man with heroic fortitude. But they were nerved by the announcement that they had been remembered by a God Who is neither an ideal nor a fancy, but the Reality of realities, beside Whom Pharaoh and his host were but as phantoms.
I AM THAT I AM is the style not only of permanence, but of permanence self-contained, and being a distinctive title, it denies such self-contained permanence to others.
Man is as the past has moulded him, a compound of attainments and failures, discoveries and disillusions, his eyes dim with forgotten tears, his hair grey with surmounted anxieties, his brow furrowed with bygone studies, his conscience troubled with old sin. Modern unbelief is ignobly frank respecting him. He is the sum of his parents and his wet-nurse. He is what he eats. If he drinks beer, he thinks beer. And it is the element of truth in these hideous paradoxes which makes them rankle, like an unkind construction put upon a questionable action. As the foam is what wind and tide have made of it, so are we the product of our circumstances, the resultant of a thousand forces, far indeed from being self-poised or self-contained, too often false to our best self, insomuch that probably no man is actually what in the depth of self-consciousness he feels himself to be, what moreover he should prove to be, if only the leaden weight of constraining circumstance were lifted off the spring which it flattens down to earth. Moses himself was at heart a very different person from the keeper of the sheep of Jethro. Therefore man says, Pity and make allowance for me: this is not my true self, but only what by compression, by starvation and stripes and bribery and error, I have become. Only God says, I AM THAT I AM.
Yet in another sense, and quite as deep a one, man is not the coarse tissue which past circumstances have woven: he is the seed of the future, as truly as the fruit of the past. Strange compound that he is of memory and hope, while half of the present depends on what is over, the other half is projected into the future; and like a bridge, sustained on these two banks, life throws its quivering shadow on each moment that fleets by. It is not attainment, but degradation to live upon the level of one’s mere attainment, no longer uplifted by any aspiration, fired by any emulation, goaded by any but carnal fears. If we have been shaped by circumstances, yet we are saved by hope. Do not judge me, we are all entitled to plead, by anything that I am doing or have done: He only can appraise a soul a right Who knows what it yearns to become, what within itself it hates and prays to be delivered from, what is the earnestness of its self-loathing, what the passion of its appeal to heaven. As the bloom of next April is the true comment upon the dry bulb of September, as you do not value the fountain by the pint of water in its basin, but by its inexhaustible capabilities of replenishment, so the present and its joyless facts are not the true man; his possibilities, the fears and hopes that control his destiny and shall unfold it, these are his real self.
I am not merely what I am: I am very truly that which I long to be. And thus, man may plead, I am what I move towards and strive after, my aspiration is myself. But God says, I AM WHAT I AM. The stream hurries forward: the rock abides. And this is the Rock of Ages.
Now, such a conception is at first sight not far removed from that apathetic and impassive kind of deity which the practical atheism of ancient materialists could well afford to grant;–“ever in itself enjoying immortality together with supreme repose, far removed and withdrawn from our concerns, since it, exempt from every pain, exempt from all danger, strong in its own resources and wanting nought from us, is neither gained by favour nor moved by wrath.”
Thus Lucretius conceived of the absolute Being as by the necessity of its nature entirely outside our system.
But Moses was taught to trust in Jehovah as intervening, pitying sorrow and wrong, coming down to assist His creatures in distress.
How could this be possible? Clearly the movement towards them must be wholly disinterested, and wholly from within; unbought, since no external influence can modify His condition, no puny sacrifice can propitiate Him Who sitteth upon the circle of the earth and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers: a movement prompted by no irregular emotional impulse, but an abiding law of His nature, incapable of change, the movement of a nature, personal indeed, yet as steady, as surely to be reckoned upon in like circumstances, as the operations of gravitation are.
There is no such motive, working in such magnificent regularity for good, save one. The ultimate doctrine of the New Testament, that God is Love, is already involved in this early assertion, that being wholly independent of us and our concerns, He is yet not indifferent to them, so that Moses could say unto the children of Israel “I AM hath sent me unto you.”
It is this unchangeable consistency of Divine action which gives the narrative its intense interest to us. To Moses, and therefore to all who receive any commission from the skies, this title said, Frail creature, sport of circumstances and of tyrants, He who commissions thee sits above the waterfloods, and their rage can as little modify or change His purpose, now committed to thy charge, as the spray can quench the stars. Perplexed creature, whose best self lives only in aspiration and desire, now thou art an instrument in the hand of Him with Whom desire and attainment, will and fruition, are eternally the same. None truly fails in fighting for Jehovah, for who hath resisted His will?
To Israel, and to all the oppressed whose minds are open to receive the tidings and their faith strong to embrace it, He said, Your life is blighted, and your future is in the hand of taskmasters, yet be of good cheer, for now your deliverance is undertaken by Him Whose being and purpose are one, Who is in perfection of enjoyment all that He is in contemplation and in will. The rescue of Israel by an immutable and perfect God is the earnest of the breaking of every yoke.
And to the proud and godless world which knows Him not, He says, Resistance to My will can only show forth all its power, which is not at the mercy of opinion or interest or change: I sit upon the throne, not only supreme but independent, not only victorious but unassailable; self-contained, self-poised and self-sufficing, I AM THAT I AM.
Have we now escaped the inert and self-absorbed deity of Lucretius, only to fall into the palsying grasp of the tyrannous deity of Calvin? Does our own human will shrivel up and become powerless under the compulsion of that immutability with which we are strangely brought into contact?
Evidently this is not the teaching of the Book of Exodus. For it is here, in this revelation of the Supreme, that we first hear of a nation as being His: “I have seen the affliction of My people which is in Egypt … and I have come down to bring them into a good land.” They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Yet their carcases fell in the wilderness. And these things were written for our learning. The immutability, which suffers no shock when we enter into the covenant, remains unshaken also if we depart from the living God. The sun shines alike when we raise the curtain and when we drop it, when our chamber is illumined and when it is dark. The immutability of God is not in His operations, for sometimes He gave His people into the hand of their enemies, and again He turned and helped them. It is in His nature, His mind, in the principles which guide His actions. If He had not chastened David for his sin, then, by acting as before, He would have been other at heart than when He rejected Saul for disobedience and chose the son of Jesse to fulfil all His word. The wind has veered, if it continues to propel the vessel in the same direction, although helm and sails are shifted.
Such is the Pauline doctrine of His immutability. “If we endure we shall also reign with Him: if we shall deny Him, He also will deny us,”–and such is the necessity of His being, for we cannot sway Him with our changes: “if we are faithless, He abideth faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.” And therefore it is presently added that “the firm foundation of the Lord standeth sure, having” not only “this seal, that the Lord knoweth those that are His,”–but also this, “Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness” (2Ti 2:12-13, 2Ti 2:19, R.V.).
The Lord knew that Israel was His, yet for their unrighteousness He sware in His wrath that they should not enter into His rest.
It follows from all this that the new name of God was no academic subtlety, no metaphysical refinement of the schools, unfitly revealed to slaves, but a most practical and inspiring truth, a conviction to warm their blood, to rouse their courage, to convert their despair into confidence and their alarms into defiance.
They had the support of a God worthy of trust. And thenceforth every answer in righteousness, every new disclosure of fidelity, tenderness, love, was not an abnormal phenomenon, the uncertain grace of a capricious despot; no, its import was permanent as an observation of the stars by an astronomer, ever more to be remembered in calculating the movements of the universe.
In future troubles they could appeal to Him to awake as in the ancient days, as being He who “cut Rahab and wounded the Dragon.” “I am the Lord, I change not, therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.”
And as the sublime and beautiful conception of a loving spiritual God was built up slowly, age by age, tier upon tier, this was the foundation which insured the the stability of all, until the Head Stone of the Corner gave completeness to the vast design, until men saw and could believe in the very Incarnation of all Love, unshaken amid anguish and distress and seeming failure, immovable, victorious, while they heard from human lips the awful words, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” Then they learned to identify all this ancient lesson of trustworthiness with new and more pathetic revelations of affection: and the martyr at the stake grew strong as he remembered that the Man of Sorrows was the same yesterday and today and for ever; and the great apostle, prostrate before the glory of his Master, was restored by the touch of a human hand, and by the voice of Him upon Whose bosom he had leaned, saying, Fear not, I am the First and the Last and the Living One.
And if men are once more fain to rend from humanity that great assurance, which for ages, amid all shocks, has made the frail creature of the dust to grow strong and firm and fearless, partaker of the Divine Nature, what will they give us in its stead? Or do they think us too strong of will, too firm of purpose? Looking around us, we see nations heaving with internal agitations, armed to the teeth against each other, and all things like a ship at sea reeling to and fro, and staggering like a drunken man. There is no stability for us in constitutions or old formul–none anywhere, if it be not in the soul of man. Well for us, then, that the anchor of the soul is sure and steadfast! well that unnumbered millions take courage from their Saviour’s word, that the world’s worst anguish is the beginning, not of dissolution, but of the birth-pangs of a new heaven and earth,–that when the clouds are blackest because the light of sun and moon is quenched, then, then we shall behold the Immutable unveiled, the Son of Man, who is brought nigh unto the Ancient of Days, now sitting in the clouds of heaven, and coming in the glory of His Father!