# Exodus Chapter 3
---
## Summarrium
Moses is tending the flock of his father in law when he observes a bush burning. God calls to Moses from the bush and Moses presents himself. God advises Moses that he has heard the cry of the Israelites and will bring them out of Egypt through Moses. Moses objects noting that he is a nobody, and the Lord advises he will be with him. Moses enquires who he should say has sent him and God answers 'I will be what I will be'.

Moses is advised to go and reassured by the Lord that he will be heeded by the elders who will listen to him and seek permission from the king to go three days journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to him. The Lord acknowledges that Pharaoh will not agree to this and as such the Lord will be force to act against him. The lord points out that he will give the Israelites favour with the Egyptians and they will leave with gold and other foolery.

## Meditatio
Traditionally verse 14 has be translated "I am who I am" which emphasises the static, consistent and eternal nature of God. Yet this is not the only way to translate this passage. The Hebrew verb "ehyeh" (אֶהְיֶה) is the first-person singular imperfect form of the verb "hayah" (הָיָה), which means "to be" or "to become.". In biblical Hebrew, the imperfect tense often conveys an action that is ongoing, incomplete, or in the future. Thus, "ehyeh" can mean:

* "I am" (present tense).
* "I will be" (future tense).
* "I am becoming" (ongoing process).

According to AI the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) rendered "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" as "Ego eimi ho on" (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν), which means "I am the one who is. As such the popularity of "I am" has persisted and influenced the way we think about the Lord. Yet another possible translation has always struck me as more contextually fitting; "I will be what I will be"". This reflects how we exist in process.

Reflecting upon my own journey as a believer it is interesting how dependant I was on *certainty*. I wanted to know things *precisely*, *exactly*, *completely*. Failing to recognise this isn't actually how knowledge works, or indeed something the Lord permits. People spoke about relationships with the Lord and being 'led' by the spirit and I would immediately ask for examples or practical explanations *how*.

What I was wrestling with here Paul addresses in first Corinthians when he makes the point that we only see in part[^1]. Whilst here he is specifically speaking about living a life of love there is an acknowledgement here that we do not get to have the definitive answer. Our knowledge is always provisional always inconclusive.

We are not permitted to *know* in the ways we would like. Indeed the words we use exist in process. A continual revision of terms. Nietzsche had something very different in mind when naming one of his books the 'gay' science to how we might consider such a title today. As such it is error to believe that we can fully define or constrain the Lord by human categories. The Lord will instead reveal Himself through His actions and engagement with individuals.

[^1]: See [1 Corinthians 13:12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013%3A12&version=ESV)