"I AM that I AM"

[FuzzyBunny116]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_that_I_am

According to the Wikipedia article, “I AM that I AM” should be translated literally as “I shall-be that I shall-be.” Does that change the meaning? One seems to imply a present “I am” and the other a future “I will be,” and since God is pure actuality, isn’t it possible to say that God “will be” something that He already isn’t?

 

[Manfred]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_that_I_am

According to the Wikipedia article, “I AM that I AM” should be translated literally as “I shall-be that I shall-be.” Does that change the meaning? One seems to imply a present “I am” and the other a future “I will be,” and since God is pure actuality, isn’t it possible to say that God “will be” something that He already isn’t?

The RSV: God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

The Douay-Rheims: God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.

Why does the RSV’s rendering make me think of Popeye the sailor man: “I am what I am, and that’s all what I am”?

 

[patrick457]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_that_I_am

According to the Wikipedia article, “I AM that I AM” should be translated literally as “I shall-be that I shall-be.” Does that change the meaning? One seems to imply a present “I am” and the other a future “I will be,” and since God is pure actuality, isn’t it possible to say that God “will be” something that He already isn’t?

Reading further into the article always helps.

…Theologians have many different explanations for the meaning behind this phrase. Many theologians explain that I am that I am is better translated to I be that I be. The ancient Hebrew language does not have a past, present, or future tense. Instead, it has an imperfective aspect and perfective aspect as indicators of time, with no actual determined time.

Perfective aspect is something that is completed, or will be definitely completed. Imperfective is something that has not been completed, might be completed or might be completed in the future (there is no definite).

Ehyeh is in the imperfective aspect, and can be understood as God saying that he is “in the process of being”, a reference saying that he exists in all times, constantly, eternally.

 

[bogeydogg]

It is my understanding, which in no way makes it authoritative, that the I am is better understood as the becoming One. That is, God is totally sufficient for us. What He revealed to His Prophet Moses was that in the task that kay ahead, if the people would be faithful and follow faithfully, then God, who is their sufficient becoming One, would be their strength, shield, guide, lawgiver, provider, protector, and King who would give to them the promised land as He had promised their fathers.

Of course they did not remain faithful and were cursed and died in the desert for their faithlessness. However, God in being the Becoming One, is making a statement not only about Himself but also about how He relates to us. It is not that He changes, but that He condescends to walk with us step by step along the journey becoming what we need in our journey if only we will be faithful and follow faithfully.

 

[MH84]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_that_I_am

According to the Wikipedia article, “I AM that I AM” should be translated literally as “I shall-be that I shall-be.” Does that change the meaning? One seems to imply a present “I am” and the other a future “I will be,” and since God is pure actuality, isn’t it possible to say that God “will be” something that He already isn’t?

It would. Because we say that when Jesus said,“I Am”, it was a claim to the Divine Name. If it should be “I shall-be that I shall-be” that means Jesus didn’t make a claim to the Divine Name. I might be wrong though. Someone here might know the Greek translations, and if the “I Am” said by God in the Old Testament is the same as the “I Am” said by Jesus.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Reading further into the article always helps.

Actually I thought I did read the whole article. Guess I missed it. Thanks for pointing out my foolishness.

 

[Verbum]

Hi All,

The original Bible de Jérusalem believes that the original meaning of the expression is “I am what I am”, in other words I am not definable. In the third person this becomes **Yahweh. (**He is)

The Septuagint however interprets it as “I am who am”, which has been followed by tradition and works well with subsequent philosophical and theological developments.

Verbum

 

[Manfred]

… when Jesus said,“I Am”, it was a claim to the Divine Name. If it should be “I shall-be that I shall-be” that means Jesus didn’t make a claim to the Divine Name.

Good, straight answer, MH!

The theme of Jesus’ claiming the Divine Name runs throughout John’s Gospel, but is especially strong near the end of chapter 8. “Before Abraham came to be made, I AM.”