I am

“I am.” With this statement is begun an eternal relationship, both a trans-historical and historical relationship. For there is no “I” where there is not also a “you.” For here we have an “I” that always “am,” an eternal state of presence, a self-defined, self-aware existence dependent on no other, and yet implying the existence of another who is not also “I am,” this “I am” who is by nature aside from time, being always “I am,” in an eternal present. And there is the other: the other is a “you” who simply “will be” or “were” or “are” for a time, a kind of “is” which is neither permanent nor self-determined, not subjective but rather objective, quite unlike the “I am.” This “you” is stuck to the historic, not transcending it, not causing it, not separate from it and independent, but this “you” is tied to history and is experiencing it, indeed suffering its imposition with its state of being imposed upon it, not springing outward from it in an act of self-will. And yet, and yet. This “I am” yet says “I am with you always”! Ah, the surprise has been sprung! The relationship is revealed! The relationship of the trans-historical and the historical is established through that process of revelation, with the simple statement “I am.”

This weekend we will celebrate that relationship’s important change in its revelation, from “I am” to “I am here.”

May that God, the I Am, bless those who bless Him!

7 Replies to “I am”

  1. It’s always encouraging to read musings on the Divine Nature of God. I think we could never exhaust the subject were we to engage in it for the rest of our lives.

  2. I don’t think that the statement “I am” implies a “you are”. We view it comparatively because of our nature, because we are not eternal, as he is. However, “I AM” is “I AM” whether there is a “you” or not. He is, was, and will be, regardless of our existence. It is instead the “you” that is dependent on the “I”… “You” implies multiple parties, “I” does not.

  3. Yes, it does, Johann, because it was spoken, not just thought. Context is everything, and in this case, it is the context of speaker and listener, already an instance of multiple parties. That was the jumping-off point for this little soliloquy, nothing less.

  4. It was in the context of speaker/listener, but for God to be “I AM” does not require someone to listen. You are right, context is everything… in context Moses tells the Lord that the Israelites will ask “What is his name?” The Israelites had fallen to idolatry, and at this time were worshiping the Egyption gods. God responds that “I AM sent me to you” because the Israelites would be asking which of the Egyptian gods had sent Moses, which of the Egyptian gods now had a prophet. Moses is further instructed to tell them that “The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.” Moses is reminding them who God is, and does speak of a relationship with them, but the relationship is discussed after he says “I AM”, not during. Moses is also instructed to say “This is my name forever; this is my title for all generations.” If this is God’s name forever, in eternity, it does not imply relationship… God exists independent of man. God IS independent of man.

    Anyway, I really don’t mean to sound harsh, you have a great blog. I do like to discuss things like this. :)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *