Moses is concerned that when he goes where God is sending him he will be asked to divulge the name of the one sending him. God tells him to say to them, “I AM WHO I AM.” I have written elsewhere about this but have some other thoughts to share today…
I can relate to Moses. It is disconcerting to enter the fray with a message and assume that everyone is going to hear it and respond favorably. The question, “By what authority do you say this?” is bound to arise. Moses may very well be concerned that someone will look at him and remember his past. He may be fearful that someone will remark about him, “Isn’t this the same guy that killed an Egyptian and fled?” Why should any of us listen to someone with such a checkered past? Or a checkered present?
God’s response to Moses relieves the pressure to perform. This isn’t about Moses. It never was and never will be. This is all about God.
Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’ This is my name forever, and this my title for all generations.
Notice what Moses is not told to say. He doesn’t lay claim to this God for himself.
I have been involved in a conversation with a new friend who for good reason has trouble believing the claims made by Christians because of Christians. It is hard to hear the gospel, the Good News, from people claiming to speak for God and yet living as though they wouldn’t know good news if it smacked them in the head. I am guilty of this myself. If we are honest, we are all guilty. None of us can fully embody the grace and peace that we confess has gripped our lives. When we open our mouths to speak we may often hear, “Wait a second. Aren’t you the guy or girl who did…?”
What do we say when they ask us who sent us?
Perhaps both I and my new friend can find comfort by placing our faith not in ourselves nor in the turbulent, often dichotomous lives of those around us but in the God who reveals God’s self as I AM. We can point to a God who has revealed God’s self through history. We can point to a God who is revealing God’s self even now, who is, and who will will always be, I AM, despite my poor articulation of that Name. This is not a God any of us can lay claim to. Our faith is a revealed faith. We stand on the shoulders of so many before us but most importantly God has shown God’s self in a particular way - a way that stands with us.
[Read the rest of the series thus far HERE]
Filed under: Exodus | Tagged: divine name, Exodus, I AM, Israel, Moses, yahweh
Hey there Chad.
It is when people actually claim to speak for God which always raises my first red flag.
I don’t necessarily agree. I think the reason why many feel the way you do is because, at least for many Christians, the grace and peace that they confess is a type that cannot possibly be fully embodied, in that it is perceived as so “godly” and “perfect” as to be humanly unattainable. I don’t think Jesus saw it nor demonstrated it as being that way.
I think we humble ourselves to the point of unnecessary self-deprecation, and to our discredit (though we don’t want to go to the other extreme either). According to Christian belief, Jesus came down (among other reasons) to show us the way, encourage us to follow it, and imitate him in advancing it. As such, God trusted us enough to do it, and clearly believed we could (the humble faith of an awesome God). My view is give God due credit by permitting ourselves the credit he gave us.
I can almost agree with that. ALMOST. To me, though, the revelation of God is not through any sacred writing, but by means of Creation itself. Even as Paul (of whom I am NOT a fan, I should note) wrote at Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.”
The self-evident witness of Creation, unlike the written word, is unalterable. And, perhaps due to my own experience, I trust only the unalterable where the “image” of God is concerned.
I agree. Though I think it is all about God, not for God’s sake, but for ours.
R. Jay-
Thanks for your thoughts.
While in theory we may “be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect” the reality on the ground for me is that I am more often not. But this is not reason to despair. My faith is not in myself but in one who was perfect where I am not. I point to this one, not to myself.
As for embodying the fullness of Christ and whether that is attainable or not, I don’t really know. As a Wesleyan I do believe in Christian Perfection but I also own a mirror
I do agree with your sentiment, however, that Christians historically take what seems to be the easy way out. We don’t often consider the fact that God has faith in us. I think we fall short many times because we don’t really believe this.
“I can almost agree with that. ALMOST. To me, though, the revelation of God is not through any sacred writing, but by means of Creation itself.”
I find it rather interesting that you quote sacred writing to bolster your point. Do you?
I agree there is much in Creation that points to God. While I don’t espouse a view of Scripture that demands inerrancy I do believe it is one of the predominant ways God has chosen to reveal God’s self (most predominately in the person and work of Jesus) and what makes Scripture “true”, for me, is our performance of the text. Scripture is true not because I say it is true but insofar as we, the church, live into it. Sometimes we have to confess that we do not do this well all the time. Even in that confession, though, we are performing the text.
I owe you an email!
peace,
Chad
Hey again Chad.
I love scripture. Though I neither deify it nor assign it any pedigree, I do love it. It has been a constant companion since childhood. It is, in an illustrative way, like a lover (albeit not always faithful).
And you also understand the language of scripture. Therefore I find it helpful and useful to speak the language you understand when expounding upon my thoughts.
I couldn’t agree more wholeheartedly (for reasons that probably differ from yours only slightly). I would go further by stating that scripture (in part, not in whole) is a witness to truth, though I must add that it does not mean scripture is necessarily a witness to fact.
Can we be illuminated by candlelight without first lighting the flame? Can we receive energy from food without first partaking of it?
By our performance, indeed.
Well said, R. Jay.
Karl Barth had a painting in his office of John the Baptist pointing an old, crooked finger back behind himself to the cross up on a hill. Barth always said that the Baptist’s finger is like Scripture – it points to what is truth.
I’ve always liked that imagery.
peace
I use that painting, or at least a detail of it, as my avatar. I read about it in Willimon’s book. It’s a great painting.
[...] the second post, Chad writes: I have been involved in a conversation with a new friend who for good reason has [...]
I was thinking of your thoughts on “I AM” this morning, and I recalled something from the Greek text of the Septuagint at Exodus 3:14 that I had learned many years ago.
In many English versions the text reads: “God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you.”
Now, at the end of the verse where it says “I AM has sent me to you”, the Hebrew Masoretic text translates “I AM” into hayah, which becomes the tetragrammaton, or YHWH. In the Greek, that “I AM” is translated as “o on“.
Years ago I and a friend of mine who is a Greek Orthodox priest were discussing this verse. He then showed me an icon of Jesus. On many Orthodox icons of Jesus you will often see behind his head a cross-like image, as if part of the “halo”. And on the left, top, and right parts of that shape you will notice three letters. When read left to right 9or clockwise) they are “o – w – n” (in the Greek, of course). My friend told me it is from Exodus 3:14, the term “o on” which was the Greek translation of “I AM”, the name of God.
My friend told me that o on literally translates as “he who is”, or “the one who is”.
Now of course this is Christian theology which insists Jesus is “I AM”, or God. I don’t subscribe to this theology.
However, back to Exodus 3:14 . . . the “he who is” term is an intriguing and inspiring identifying moniker, though I think the text anthropomorphizes God. To me, “God” is that sublime spirit of life and ultimate source of “beingness” which motivates, animates, and gives order to all things, and whose qualities can be discerned in the very character of Creation itself. To me, this “beingness” is not “he who is”, but “that which is”.
To make any other distinction — i.e., to personify the divine — is to create “Godness”, i.e., “beingness”, in our own image. And I think that’s what Exodus 3:14 does.
Of course, I realize it is believed that “God” revealed himself in this way and Moses simply made a written record of that revelation (Exodus 3:14). This is top-down thinking, whereas it is more logical to me to exercise bottom-up thinking: the “name” was not revealed by God (top-down), but was invented by man (bottom-up) as his understanding of “God” (i.e., whatever “it” is that gives order to all things) evolved.