The explanation that follows is, like any other, a pathway of understanding.  The form of this explanation differs from any other that I am aware of in the presentation of the concepts that constitute it.  They are plainly stated in their most simple and unambiguous form, and are employed in this form throughout the explanation without the distraction of any unnecessary text.  These concepts constitute the steps on a pathway of understanding that takes the reader from conceptual terrain with which they may be quite familiar, and leads them into and through a realm of contemplative thought with which they will probably be significantly less familiar.  These steps are arranged in logical sequence in a series of deductive passages that leads ultimately to the concluding statement that is the focal point of this paper.

Within each passage every sentence stands alone as a discrete conceptual and contemplative step.  The only exception to this rule is in the first two lines of the second passage, where one particularly important premise is presented in two complementary forms with identical meanings.  The purpose of this duplication is to emphasise the importance of this premise and maximise its understanding, because its importance in the Explanation really cannot be overstated.  Several of the passages are divided into two or more sections, which arrangement reflects my experience of these sections as discrete contemplative steps within that passage.

In the Explanation I have taken as true a number of theological, cosmogonic, ontological and epistemological premises, all of which are well attested in Judaism.  These are the primary premises upon which the Explanation is based, and upon which its validity depends.  They feature most prominently in the earlier passages but are found at various points throughout.  Each passage reaches an interim conclusion that is separated and in bold type and which may feature thereafter as a premise in its own right.  A summary of the Explanation comprised mostly of these interim conclusions follows the completed Explanation.  The purpose of the Summary is to facilitate the overall consideration of the Explanation and serve as a companion to the Diagram, which is described below.

The method I have employed in the Explanation is one that occurred to me only as I began this undertaking, and as far as I am aware has no precedent in theological or philosophical enquiry.  I could not then and cannot now think of a better way to convey the understandings that the Explanation contains.  Aside from it being the method best suited to my purpose, I believe it is also the format that readers will find most easy to follow and most useful in their evaluation of the validity of the Explanation.  I say this because every interim conclusion reached and found valid represents a point beyond which the reader need not return in order to establish the validity of what follows it, and so it allows the reader to consider the Explanation at whatever pace best suits them, and to pause for however long they wish without feeling the need to cover old ground when they resume.  Considering the profundity of much of the content of the Explanation, this convenience may come as a welcome relief to many.

The Diagram depicts my understanding of the creative activity of God.  It is a schematic counterpart to the Explanation and provides the reader with the most readily grasped visual representation of what is set out in detail in the Explanation.  It places the divine name Ehyeh of Exodus 3:14 in its Jewish context by employing the concepts intrinsic to Jewish thought and by reference to the Torah.  I must emphasise that the Diagram is not a schematic representation of God but only of my understanding of His activity as Creator.

The final passage, immediately preceding the Conclusion to this paper, is drawn from both the Explanation and Diagram.  It is a summary reflection upon the two and can be regarded as an exegetical key to Exodus 3:14.

The Explanation is certainly an appeal to faith, because Mosaic monotheism is assumed from the outset, but it is even more so an appeal to reason, and to the reader’s willingness to ponder and imagine ideas that they may not have pondered before.  It is not my objective to convert to faith those who do not believe, but if those who do not accept the reality of God, or even are not convinced of it, accept the premise of His reality for the purpose of this Explanation, then I believe they too will find what follows very interesting.