If we approach יהוה aonically rather than devotionally or dogmatically, the form becomes far more intelligible—and far less like a “name” in the ordinary sense.
First, the traditional gloss “He is” is syntactically inadequate. Biblical Hebrew does not normally use a bare finite verb as a proper name, and היה in the simple imperfect יִהְיֶה would be expected if that were the intent. יהוה is not that form. It is irregular on purpose. What we are dealing with is best understood as a verbal constellation, not a lexical item. Formally, יהוה appears to compress or suspend multiple aspects of the root היה / הוה (“to be, to become, to occur”). The medial ו is critical. In Northwest Semitic, הוה is not merely stative “being” but coming-to-be, eventuation, emergence. This already pushes us away from ontological stasis and toward process.
Aonic syntax does not privilege tense but continuity of manifestation. In that light, יהוה behaves like a non-finite verbal axis—something closer to:
- “the one who is in the act of becoming-present”
- “being-as-occurrence”
- “that which is continually coming into presence”
This aligns with what happens grammatically elsewhere: the form resists placement in past, present, or future. It does not resolve into a single conjugation. It is aspectually unbound. Crucially, יהוה also behaves unlike normal nouns:
- It does not take plural morphology.
- It resists construct chaining in expected ways.
- It governs verbs rather than being governed by them.
That is, it functions less like a subject among subjects and more like a center of coherence around which verbal reality organizes.
Aonically, then, יהוה is not “He is,” but something closer to:
“The one whose mode is ongoing manifestation.”
Or more tightly:
“The becoming-presence.”
Or in a word:
“Becoming”
This also explains why, in Exodus 3, the explanation is not a definition but a re-entry:
אהיה אשר אהיה
“I-am what I-am-becoming”
That is not clarification; it is self-recursion. The form explains itself by repeating its own mode. So aonically, יהוה is not a name you pronounce. It is a syntactic center—a verbal still-point around which chronos dissolves and events take place. Stripped of chronos assumptions, אהיה אשר אהיה functions as a self-referential proportional relation: being-as-becoming in correspondence with itself. אשר does not merely mean “that” or “who,” but marks relational equivalence, the tying of one occurrence to another of the same order. What is asserted is not identity (“I am X”) but mode: whatever comes into manifestation does so according to the same rule by which manifestation occurs at all. This is why the form is iterative and unresolved—it encodes a feedback loop rather than a predicate.
In that sense, אהיה אשר אהיה expresses the governing ratio (Logos) by which the aion operates: emergence answering to emergence, presence answering to presence. יהוה then names—not nominates—that ratio stabilized as a center. Chronos asks when; this construction answers how.
Becoming in the Act
Scholars have long been aware that the “name” יהוה (the Tetragrammaton) is a verbal form, specifically a causative verb construct. What makes this very interesting is the unique pairing of this verb with other verbs. יהוה isn’t just a subject; it’s a dynamic operative ratio. When it’s paired with verbs like ויאמר, ויפל, ויבן, ויצו, ויטע, וייצר, each verb is not merely reporting an action in time—it’s an instance of יהוה self-manifesting in that act.
אני יהוה
“I, myself am Becoming”
Read Aonically, these verbs are snapshots of becoming: the outer form is changing, the event appears in sequence to the senses, but each verb is actually participatory and recursive. ויאמר (“he is speaking”) isn’t just speech—it’s the activation of the law of expression. ויצו (“he is commanding”) isn’t a historical command—it’s the eternal function of structuring reality. Even ויבן (“he is building”) isn’t past construction—it’s the continuous realization of form from the operative ratio יהוה. So, the sequence of verbs is not chronological but ontological: each is a facet of the unfolding ratio of being, and יהוה is the anchor point, the self-looping source, which is why its pairing with these verbs is unique and almost untranslatable into ordinary temporal narrative. Furthermore the first occurrence is found in the phrase: בְּי֗וֹם עֲשׂ֛וֹת יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים. This is usually read chronologically as “on the day that Lord God made” which flattens, negates, and overrides all sorts of syntax present in the Hebrew. Aonically it’s “on the moment of becoming, יהוה is actualizing Elohim”. עשות is not a past but an infinitive making; it’s the act of bringing form into being, continuously present. The construct יהוה אלֹהים is tightly bound: the operative ratio (יהוה) flows through the act of manifestation (אלהים), so the moment is both the source and the expression at once. So the “day” isn’t a temporal boundary—it’s the container of recursive being. The outer language (b’yom…) makes it appear sequential, but the inner logic is simultaneous and participatory: the creation event is happening in the same pattern as the eternal ratio of being itself. That first instance—בְּי֗וֹם עֲשׂ֛וֹת יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים—is the template of Aonic unfolding right from the start.
“…within the day of making of Becoming Elohim…”
(Genesis 2:4 RBT)
Is there any math to this?
Anything that is stable, repeatable, or intelligible admits mathematical description, because mathematics is the language of invariance. It is not that truth contains math, but that truth and mathematics meet at invariance. Wherever you encounter something that must be so, rather than merely happens to be so, you are already standing on mathematical ground.
The statement “whatever comes into manifestation does so according to the same rule by which manifestation occurs at all” can be formalized as a principle of self-consistency. Being is not produced once and left behind; it is continuously generated according to a single invariant rule.
1. Fixed-Point Identity (Being = Its Own Generation)
Let G denote the generative operation of manifestation. The aonic condition is:
This is not a static definition but an ontological one. A thing “is” precisely insofar as it remains identical under the operation that brings it into being. This corresponds closely to the statement אהיה אשר אהיה — “I am as I am becoming.”
2. Chronos as Iteration, Aeon as Attractor
Chronological time appears when the generative rule is unfolded step by step:
Here, the sequence xn represents temporal states, while x* represents the aionic invariant toward which they converge. Chronos iterates; the aeon holds the form together.
3. Eigenstructure: Action Without Loss of Identity
If manifestation is expressed as a transformation T, then aonic identity appears as:
When \(\lambda = 1\), the transformation acts without altering the essence of the vector. This formalizes incorruptibility: movement, action, and exposure without decay of being.
4. Scale-Invariance (The Ratio Governs All Levels)
The same generative rule applies regardless of scale:
This expresses that manifestation obeys a single ratio across all domains — biological, linguistic, physical, and ontological. What appears “new” is merely the same rule instantiated at another level.
Mathematically, the aonic statement corresponds to fixed points, attractors, eigenvectors, and scale symmetry. Ontologically, it describes a form of being that is never finished, never exhausted, and never external to the act that sustains it — still being asked into being.