Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The declaration at the burning bush stands as an axis around which covenantal identity, historical agency, and future fidelity revolve. When Mosheh (Moh-sheh) — Moses confronts the question, “Who shall be named as the sender?” the scene is not framed as an abstract philosophical dilemma, but as a covenantal crisis in real time for a people on the cusp of liberation. The enslaved children of Yisra’el (Yis-rah-el) — Israel require a word that acts, a name that carries kinetic authority, a declaration that links present presence to future deliverance. Tradition’s formula, “I AM THAT I AM,” bears the flavor of timeless aloofness. It sounds complete, finished, sealed away from human suffering. Yet the Hebrew verb underwriting the divine speech refuses that closure. The imperfect form signals an action that is not sealed but stretching, not static but in motion, not complete but actively unfolding. Into that grammatical horizon, the covenantal rendering, “I AM WHO I WILL BE,” moves with precise fidelity to grammar, context, and covenantal function. It is not merely elegant. It is functionally exact. The word given is a pledge, and the pledge is a pathway. The One speaking is not announcing sterile existence; the One speaking is attaching Being to becoming, presence to promise, identity to agency, and self-naming to emancipation.
Mosheh’s question bears a dual audience. Pharaoh is present within the larger narrative frame, a necessary antagonist who will witness both the resolve and the judgments of the God of Avraham (Av-rah-ham) — Abraham, Yitzchak (Yeet-zhahk) — Isaac, and Ya‘aqov (Yah-ah-kohv) — Jacob. But the primary horizon of the question is the community poised for release. The enslaved need a name that does not merely describe essence but commands trust, confers courage, and guarantees action. The moment functions like a bridge built under pressure: the structure must hold the people’s weight as they step into the unknown, and the naming must carry them across. In this context, “I AM WHO I WILL BE” furnishes a covenantal engineering of speech. The form aligns with the imperfect tense of the verb הָיָה and transpose’s identity into oath: “The One who will be your God sent me.” The covenant is not a museum piece; it is a living architecture that binds present Being to future intervention. This is why the static rendering fails the test. It does not answer the enslaved with a promise. It answers them with a philosophy.
Literal interlinear translation (covenantal): Original: אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה; Transliteration: ’Ehyeh ’asher ’Ehyeh; Literal Meaning: I Am Who I Will Be. This rendering respects the distinct functional roles embedded in the phrase in the context of Mosheh’s (Moh-sheh) — Moses’ question. The first ’Ehyeh operates as present assurance: “I Am,” answering the immediate need for covenantal authority before the sons of Yisra’el (Yis-rah-el) — Israel. The relative particle ’asher carries relational force and, in this setting, most fittingly reads as “who,” not “that,” directing the statement toward identity-in-relation rather than abstract definition. The second ’Ehyeh must preserve the imperfect horizon as future-oriented descriptor: “I Will Be.” “I Am” cannot repeat here, because repetition would fail to describe identity or function; “Who I Will Be” completes the covenantal arc by binding present presence to pledged future action. BDAG parsing (institutional): ’Ehyeh, Qal imperfect, first person singular of הָיָה (to be, to become, to happen), with relative particle אֲשֶׁר marking the relational hinge; the first occurrence functions contextually as present assurance in response to Mosheh’s audience, while the second occurrence preserves the imperfect’s open-ended, forward commitment of divine action. NASB (compromised translation): “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14, NASB), flattening the imperfect into a timeless present and thereby dulling the dynamic covenantal movement demanded by the narrative. The triadic comparison exposes the hinge: the institutional parsing acknowledges the imperfect’s forward motion; the covenantal literal assigns each term its contextual role—present assurance, relational hinge, future descriptor; the English tradition domesticates the promise into static ontology. The narrative context refuses domestication. It demands movement, because Mosheh’s question is answered not with sterile existence but with a Name that pledges presence now and action to come, the precise covenantal engineering required to carry a people from bondage into promise.
Scripture anchors the movement. “Mosheh said to God: I go to the sons of Yisra’el. I will say to them: The God of your fathers sent me to you. They may say to me: What is His name? What shall I say to them? God said to Mosheh: I Am Who I Will Be. He said: Thus you shall say to the sons of Yisra’el: I Am sent me to you.” (Aleppo/Leningrad, Covenantally Faithful, Minimal Copular, SVO Format). The covenantal lens restores the grammar and the context: the first ’Ehyeh functions as present assurance, “I Am,” answering Mosheh’s immediate question; the ’asher serves as relational hinge, “Who”; the second ’Ehyeh preserves the imperfect horizon, “I Will Be,” pledging future action. The name is not merely a descriptor; it is a covenantal function. It commits the God of Yisra’el to act in time. The plagues in Mitsrayim (Meets-rah-yeem) — Egypt, the sea crossing, the manna, the water from the rock, and the giving of Torah at Sinai all serve as milestones of a single vow: “I Am Who I Will Be.” Present assurance is bound to future deliverance, and the imperfect tense vindicates itself in history as the God of the fathers proves Himself to be the God who acts.
The covenantal formula—“I will be your God”—threads the narrative with resilient clarity. This formula appears structurally elsewhere: “I will take you as My people. I will be your God. You shall know Yahweh your God brought you out from under the burdens of Mitsrayim.” (Exodus 6:7, Aleppo/Leningrad, Covenantally Faithful, Minimal Copular, SVO Format), binding the identity of the Name to the action of deliverance. The promise of presence and action builds a structural spine for Exodus, transforming the divine name from a philosophical premise into a covenantal mechanism. The name is the architecture; the action is the inhabitation.
Within the burning bush proclamation, covenantal identity is revealed as multidimensional. God is singular in essence yet layered in manifestation. He is not divided into parts but disclosed through operations that bind His presence to human recognition and trust. These manifestations are not abstractions; they are covenantal realities by which God makes Himself known and consequential. God is Source, Word, and Breath.
God as Source is Name, Identity, and Spirit. He is the origin, the self‑existent One, the covenantal anchor who declares His Name and seals it to His people. The Name (shem) is not a mere label but the memorial of His presence, the way He is invoked and remembered across generations. Spirit here is essence — indivisible, eternal, the ground of all being. Source is the fountain from which Word and Breath proceed, without division or diminution.
God as Word is Voice and Word made flesh. His voice (qol) summons, commands, and judges; His Word (davar) performs what He speaks. The Word is not information but event — it creates, fulfills, and embodies. When the Word became flesh, it was not a departure from God but the embodiment of His communicative action in covenantal history. Word is God’s self‑disclosure in audible and incarnate form, binding promise to fulfillment.
God as Breath is Spirit in operation — the functionality of life, empowerment, and renewal. Breath (ruach) animates humanity, sustains creation, and empowers obedience. It is God present to give, to sustain, and to enable. Breath is not separate from Spirit; it is Spirit emitted in action, the lived consequence of God’s essence. Through Breath, God furnishes agency, searches hearts, and renews covenantal capacity.
Together, Source, Word, and Breath illustrate the covenantal logic of God’s identity. Source anchors recognition and allegiance; Word binds promise and fulfillment; Breath empowers practice and obedience. God is Spirit, yet His Spirit manifests as Breath that animates, as Word that performs, and as Name that seals. These are not divisions but operations — modes of encounter by which the One God makes Himself known, trustworthy, and binding.
Thus, who God is: the singular Spirit, the covenantal Source. What God is: the Name that seals, the Word that performs, the Breath that empowers. Why God is: to bind His identity to His people, to fulfill His promises, and to furnish agency for covenantal life.
Titles, works, judgments, and mercies do not splinter the divine unity; they reveal its depth. This is not a flat slogan but a textured reality. Presence is manifested in time and space with fidelity, and faithfulness is not theoretical—it is eventful. The imperfect tense of אֶהְיֶה (’Ehyeh) in Exodus 3:14 holds open that eventfulness like a doorway. The enslaved stand at the threshold, and the divine name, rightly rendered, functions as the open door through which they will pass. The covenant does not offer them an unchanging idea; it offers them a reliable path. The path is marked by the One whose Being is intrinsically committed to becoming‑with and acting‑for those called into covenant.
The forward arc implicit in ’Ehyeh emerges with acute clarity in the name Yehoshua (Yeh-hoh-shoo-ah), whose meaning centers the action of salvation: “Yahweh is salvation.” “Mosheh called Hoshea the son of Nun: Yehoshua.” (Numbers 13:16, Aleppo/Leningrad, Covenantally Faithful, Minimal Copular, SVO Format). While the context of Yehoshua concerns conquest and inheritance, its naming encapsulates a covenantal dynamic that the imperfect tense announces: the God who will be is the God whose being manifests as saving action. The name inscribes what the vow performs. It is an engraved promise. This forward pointing does not detach from Exodus; it emerges from it. The salvation declared in the name is the action foreshadowed by the imperfect. Presence is carried forward into rescue, identity into deliverance, oath into fulfillment.
The practical consequence of this covenantal reading is not only rhetorical; it is pastoral and communal. To a people beleaguered by generations of oppression, a static affirmation of divine existence offers little consolation. The book demands a word that binds the oppressed to a God whose Being is operationalized as intervention. The covenant formula carries the relational agency that a nation needs to assemble courage, obedience, and trust. The words given at the bush are a launch sequence. They are the ignition that lights the corridor of events. The imperfect tense functions as the timing mechanism of that ignition, establishing that divine identity bears its own kinetic life. Providence is not inert. Holiness is not passive. The Name is not locked in a shrine. The Name enters history and walks with a people out of iron and into promise.
If the tradition’s rendering “I AM THAT I AM” fails the test of covenantal agency, it is because it reduces a vow to a statement of being without binding presence to action. “I AM WHO I WILL BE” repairs that reduction by honoring the grammar, the context, and the covenantal architecture of Exodus. The restoration is not an exercise in novelty but in fidelity. It takes seriously that a verb in imperfect form, spoken by the God of the fathers to a shepherd called to confront empire, was meant to do more than announce transcendence. It was meant to promise deliverance. Scripture bears this out in its unfolding. “Say to the sons of Yisra’el: I am Yahweh. I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Mitsrim. I will deliver you from their bondage. I will redeem you with outstretched arm and with great judgments.” (Exodus 6:6, Aleppo/Leningrad, Covenantally Faithful, Minimal Copular, SVO Format) Literal interlinear translation (covenantal): Original: וְהוֹצֵאתִי וְהִצַּלְתִּי וְגָאַלְתִּי; Transliteration: vehotzeiti vehitzalti vega’alti; Literal Meaning: and I will bring out, and I will deliver, and I will redeem. The Name is braided into these verbs. Each vow grabs hold of the people and moves them toward freedom.
The encounter at the bush, understood through the covenantal lens, therefore functions as the keystone for the entire narrative arch of Exodus and beyond. Identity fuses with agency. Presence binds itself to promise. The imperfect tense of הָיָה is not a grammatical curiosity; it is a covenantal engine. As the story advances, the engine drives Israel into deliverance, sustenance, instruction, and inheritance. In the name Yehoshua, the engine engraves its destination as salvation. The movement is consistent: the one who will be proves to be the one who saves, and the words first spoken in Midian’s wilderness ignite a long trajectory of faithful action that refuses to be a slogan and insists on being a history.
The conclusion is exacting and clear. The divine self-naming in Exodus 3:14 cannot be reduced to a static theological maxim without violating the grammar, muting the context, and obscuring the covenantal function. The imperfect tense demands a reading that connects Being to future commitment. “I AM WHO I WILL BE” faithfully restores that connection. It answers Mosheh’s question with authority that is relational, not religiously formal; emancipatory, not merely metaphysical. It equips the enslaved with a Name that promises movement. It ties the covenant formula, “I will be your Mighty Ones’s, your Elohim, your God”—to the unfolding reality of liberation and sustenance. It transposes the divine identity into history with multi-dimensional manifestation and singular essence. It sets the foundation on which the narrative stands: a God whose presence is not only with a people, but for them, acting, redeeming, bringing out, delivering, and redeeming again. The Name is not merely the sound that fills the air; it is the path that carries a nation from bondage to promise.
