I AM THAT I AM
Exodus 3:7-14
Recently Reebok ran an advertising campaign with the slogan “I am what I am.” I wonder whether they knew they were ‘taking the LORD’s name in vain’?
But actually, anyone who says “I am what I am” must be aware of what a divine pronouncement they’ve uttered. They are giving a final word on their own identity. They are who they say they are and that’s that.
When the LORD of the burning bush says “I am that I am” it’s in response to a question from Moses. He’s worried about what will happen when he goes to his people with a story about a burning bush and a promised deliverance:
[When] they say to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them? (Exodus 3:13)
And so the LORD answers
I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me to you. (v14)
You could translate it in either the present or future tense (you could say “I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE.”) But this is the name by which He wants to be known. And it’s a name preserved for us in the Hebrew name “Yahweh.” Essentially if you write “I AM THAT I AM” in Hebrew and then squash down the letters you end up with “Yahweh.” And when it’s anglicized we might say “Jehovah”. In our Bible translations it’s indicated by the word “LORD” when all the letters are capitals. Every time you see “LORD” – over 6000 times in the Old Testament – it’s the personal name of this One from the burning bush: “I AM THAT I AM.”
This is the LORD naming Himself. But what does it mean?
Well first of all, the LORD is taking the job of identifying Himself into His own hands. He’s ending the game we like to play when we say “I like to think about God like this…” God is who He is, not who we say He is. He names Himself, we don’t name Him. The direction of travel is always down. From Him to us.
Thus, we are released from the prison of our own imaginations about God. We don’t have to come up with God – He comes out with Himself. He’ll define Himself in His way.
But that doesn’t mean He’s keeping Himself to Himself. “I AM THAT I AM” is not about His splendid isolation. How could it be? Think of the One who utters it. He is the Angel of the LORD (verse 2). He is the One Sent from the Unseen God. He is the eternal Son of the Father. This is not the name of a lonely monad defining Himself in stark opposition.
Think of where He is pronouncing the name from. A burning bush – symbolising His presence with the people in their suffering.
And think of the context. Just two verses earlier He has used the same phrase “I AM / I WILL BE…” in a promise of tremendous solidarity:
And he said, Certainly I will be with thee (Exodus 3:12)
In a sense the LORD’s name in verse 14 is saying,
“I will tell you who I am. I will end the guessing games. I AM who I WILL BE in my mighty saving acts. You want to know who I am? Watch this space. Watch how I am with you. Watch how I will deliver you. Watch as I work unlike any other god or any other human – in glorious redeeming love.”
And if we really want to know the ins and outs of this name, we have to wait and see – not only what He does in the Exodus, but what He does 1500 years later. In the fullness of time, He stands before His people again and says:
“I AM the Bread of life” (John 6:35);
“I AM the Light of the world” (John 8:12);
“I AM the Gate” by which you must enter (John 10:9);
“I AM the Good Shepherd” (John 10:11);
“I AM the Resurrection and the Life” (John 11:25);
“I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life” (John 14:6);
“I AM the True Vine” (John 15:1).
When we proclaim loudly who we are, it is to distance ourselves from the claims of others. When Jesus does it He puts Himself – sovereignly – at our disposal.
What do you need to get through today? How will the great I AM meet your needs?










I am not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, but in Corinthians 15:10 Paul says (But by the grace of God) I am what I am.” I don’t think you could say He was taking the Lord’s name in vain and it might be just a bit of a stretch to say that anyone making that pronouncement is taking the Lord’s name in vain.
To refer to yourself as the eternally existent I AM would definately be crossing that line.
Good point Candydawn – my post is a tad overstated! I perhaps should have said “I wonder if they know they’ve used a divine name.”
The Greek of 1 Cor 15 is a little different (eimi ho eimi rather than ego eimi), but probably the big difference between Paul and a self-exalting rapper is the phrase beforehand: “By the grace of God…”
Unless we’re aware that the LORD has defined us, then we do slip into delusions of self-creation.
Glen, it seems to me your post is more about recognizing and honoring God than about the failure of worldly people to understand approximate coincidental use of scripture. In that regard I believe you have done an excellent job. While reading and rereading, I am reminded of another aspect of this name and would appreciate your thoughts.
I have heard it taught that this name for God reflects Hebrew culture in that it defines a characteristic of Him. Like God changing Jacob’s well-earned name to “Israel,” or Jesus changing Simon’s name to “Peter,” this name of God (“I AM”) describes something very unique. God was not brought into existence, nor will He go out of existence, He just is. Considering that as truth, my question then relates to the future-tense translation you mentioned (“I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE.” ).
Were you to read the translations of those who have difficulty accepting Jesus as I AM (despite the clear expression of verses such as John 8:58), you would see they translate this using the future tense. (e.g. the Torah says “I will be what I will be” and the NWT says “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE”) I have even seen God described as “the Becoming One.” Am I simply nitpicking when I cringe at this, thinking “God never changes, therefore He can’t be something different tomorrow than He is today”? Perhaps I have staked out the position, “I AM THAT I AM…say…I AM sent me to you” is the best (only valid?) translation because I feel the other is used to mask Jesus’ identity.
Because you have expressed the revelation of God very beautifully, which of course supports the alternative translation, I welcome your perspective, if of course, you can make sense of my ramblings!
Hi Michael,
Well on a straight translation point, I WILL BE is the most straightforward rendering of this verb form (‘weqatal’ for Hebrew buffs). And it mirrors the use of it in verse 12: “I will be with you.” So I think we should be aware that this nuance is very much present in the Hebrew text, even if, overall, the NT (and Jesus!), when faced with the choice, plumps for a present tense translation (ego eimi).
So I’d argue that the future tense is a nuance that is clear in the original. But it’s obviously not so vital that NT authors felt they had to preserve it in the Greek.
But you raise the issue of whether the future tense would be problematic theologically. And I think the future tense becomes a lot less objectionable when you think of Yahweh as “the God of promise.” Just think of something like Exodus 6:6-8 where the phrase “I am the LORD” sandwiches 7 future tense promises of what the LORD *will* do. The LORD is, very much, the LORD who WILL do and be certain things for His people.
The god of Greek philosophy is changeless in a way quite unlike the promise-keeping constancy of the living God. Our God doesn’t change because He always fulfils what He says He will do – I think that’s quite a different concept to a philosophical immutability.
If we want to insulate God from all ‘events’ we might find ourselves locking Him out from the gospel! But no, our God *is* the God of the gospel.
So I’d be happy going with the present tense translation (after all, Jesus is!). But I think the future is also implied in the original and that this should not be seen as a threat (but actually as a boost) to a Biblical doctrine of God.