I Am Who I AM – Exo 3:14

Author:

Summary of main points

  • אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (ʾehyeh ʾăšer ʾehyeh) uses the Hebrew imperfect of היה (hāyâ, “to be / become / come to pass”), so it naturally carries open-ended, not-yet-completed force. In context (Exod 3:12), the dominant nuance is covenantal presence: “I will be with you,” hence “I will be what/who I will be” (i.e., I will prove Myself to be what I choose to be for My people). (StudyLight.org)
  • The LXX renders it ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (egō eimi ho ōn, “I am the One who is”), which foregrounds ontology/existence more explicitly than the Hebrew form does. (Die Bibel)
  • In the Gospels, the most direct self-identification is Jesus’ absolute “ἐγώ εἰμι (egō eimi, “I am”),” especially John 8:58 (“Before Abraham came to be, I am”) and related absolute uses (John 8:24; 13:19; 18:5–6). These echo divine self-identification language (not only Exod 3:14 LXX but also Isaianic “I am” formulas in the Greek OT). (Die Bibel)

Exegesis

1) Hebrew text, transliteration, and lexical core

BHS (Exod 3:14a): אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה
Transliteration: ʾehyeh ʾăšer ʾehyeh (StudyLight.org)

  • אֶהְיֶה (ʾehyeh) is Qal imperfect 1cs of הָיָה (hāyâ). The root covers “be,” “become,” “happen/come to pass,” and in covenantal contexts often “be (present) with.”
  • אֲשֶׁר (ʾăšer) is a relative particle whose English equivalent depends on context: “who/that/which/what/as.” It is semantically flexible and often functions to leave the clause open rather than to pin down a single philosophical formula.

Key contextual anchor (Exod 3:12): “כִּי־אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ” (kî-ʾehyeh ʿimmāḵ, “for I will be with you”). This is the most important local control on how Exod 3:14 should be heard, because it uses the same verb form (ʾehyeh) in the same commissioning dialogue. (StudyLight.org)

2) Grammar and syntax: why both “I am” and “I will be” arise

Biblical Hebrew does not mark tense the way English does; the imperfect primarily marks non-completed / open action (often future, habitual, modal, or unfolding). Therefore:

  • “I will be …” is a straightforward imperfect reading, especially in a commissioning scene oriented to what God is about to do in history (deliverance, presence, signs, plagues, exodus).
  • “I am …” becomes possible because English needs a present-tense copula to express identity, and because later interpretation (especially via the Greek translation) hears the clause as a statement about enduring divine reality.

A disciplined reading keeps both in view, but lets Exod 3:12 set the directional weight: God is not merely giving a metaphysical label; he is warranting his presence and fidelity to Moses and Israel as the mission unfolds. (StudyLight.org)

3) What the clause is doing in discourse (authorial-intent level)

Moses asks for God’s “name” as a public credential (“What is his name?” Exod 3:13). God’s reply functions on two levels at once:

  1. Self-disclosure: God is truly knowable—he is not an anonymous force.
  2. Anti-manipulation: God is not a deity you can control by possessing a name. The form “I will be what I will be” asserts divine freedom and self-determination: God defines God.

So, a context-sensitive rendering is:

  • “I will be who I will be” / “I will be what I will be” = “You will know me by what I now show myself to be; I am free, faithful, and present as I enact deliverance.”

4) Ancient witnesses: LXX, Targums, and Rabbinic construals

LXX (Septuagint)

The Greek translation famously gives:

  • ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (egō eimi ho ōn) — “I am the One who is,” and then “ὁ ὢν has sent me.” (Die Bibel)

This is interpretive: it shifts from Hebrew’s open imperfect (“I will be…”) to an explicitly ontological framing (“the One who is/exists”).

Targums (Aramaic interpretive tradition)

The Targum traditions often paraphrase toward timeless/existential readings (e.g., “I am he who is and who will be”), again making explicit what Hebrew leaves more open. (sefaria.org.il)

Rabbinic reading that closely matches Exod 3:12

A well-known interpretive line (also reflected in Rashi) reads Exod 3:14 in terms of God’s accompanying presence in suffering: “I will be with them in this trouble as I will be with them in future troubles.” (Sefaria)

From a conservative evangelical standpoint, this is not controlling authority over Scripture, but it is historically valuable as evidence that a presence-in-history construal is not a modern invention; it is a natural hearing within Jewish interpretive memory.

5) Textual variants (only what matters)

There is no major meaningful variant here driving theology; the main interpretive divergence comes from translation philosophy (Hebrew imperfect vs Greek ontological rendering), not from competing Hebrew base texts.

Theological analysis

(Tracing: Scripture → ontology → spiritual dynamics → practical implication)

A) Arminian/Provisionist + Dispensational synthesis

Scripture-level claim: In the Exodus commissioning, God grounds the mission in who he is and how he will be present with his covenant people (Exod 3:12–15). (StudyLight.org)

Ontology (metaphysical level):

  • God’s “being” is not derivative (aseity) and not hostage to the created order. The phrase’s self-referential structure (“I will be … I will be”) functions as a verbal marker of self-existence and self-determination.
  • Yet the passage’s mode of revelation is not abstract speculation; it is being-for: God’s reality is disclosed as faithful presence in redemptive action (Exod 3:12). (StudyLight.org)

Spiritual dynamics (psychological–spiritual level):

  • For Moses, the name answers the fear beneath the question: Who guarantees this mission? God’s answer supplies a warrant aimed at Moses’ will and courage: “I will be with you.” (StudyLight.org)
  • For Israel, the “name” is a rallying point for trust and obedience, but it does not coerce response; it grounds responsibility: the God who will be present is also the God who commands and judges in history.

Divine-perspective level:
God reveals enough to secure obedient action while preserving the Creator–creature distinction: you can truly know him, but you cannot reduce him to a manipulable concept. The “open” imperfect form is fitting: God binds himself by promise, not by human definition.

B) Contrast with Calvinist/Reformed emphases (brief, for clarity)

Reformed readings often lean harder on the immutability/aseity implications (especially as mediated through the LXX’s “the One who is”). That emphasis is not wrong, but in a commissioning context it can become distorted if it eclipses the text’s main pragmatic force: the God who is “independent” is precisely the God who is present and faithful in redemptive history (Exod 3:12–15). (StudyLight.org)

Historical context

In the ancient Near East, “knowing the name” of a deity could imply access or even leverage in ritual contexts. Exodus 3 resists that: God gives a “name” that simultaneously reveals and blocks control—a self-referential declaration rooted in God’s own freedom and covenant commitment.

Scholarly insight (conservative)

  • NET Bible note highlights the grammatical reality that the Hebrew form can be rendered “I am” or “I will be,” and that the clause is bound up with the preceding promise of divine presence (Exod 3:12). (classic.net.bible.org)
  • Leon Morris argues that John 8:58’s wording is striking precisely because one would expect a past tense (“I was”) if Jesus were claiming merely pre-existence; the present “I am” is rhetorically and theologically loaded. (Apologetics Press)

SBL reference: Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 473. (Apologetics Press)

And what did Jesus actually say when applying this to himself?

1) What the NT text actually records (Greek, NA28)

The most explicit instance is:

  • John 8:58 (NA28): πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγώ εἰμι
    Transliteration: prin Abraam genesthai egō eimi
    Sense: “Before Abraham came to be, I am.” (Die Bibel)

Other “absolute” uses (no predicate) that function as identity claims in John include:

  • John 8:24 (NA28): ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι … (“unless you believe that I am …”) (Die Bibel)
  • John 13:19 (NA28): … ἵνα … πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι (“…that you may believe that I am”) (Die Bibel)
  • John 18:5–6 (NA28): λέγει αὐτοῖς· ἐγώ εἰμι … (they draw back/fall).

2) How this relates to Exodus 3:14 (and why it is not a “verbatim quote”)

  • Exodus 3:14 in the LXX is not merely “ἐγώ εἰμι” but “ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν” (“I am the One who is”). (Die Bibel)
  • John’s Jesus most often uses ἐγώ εἰμι without ὁ ὤν. So, strictly, Jesus is not “quoting the full LXX wording” of Exod 3:14.
  • However, the absolute “ἐγώ εἰμι” functions as a recognizable divine self-identification pattern in the Greek OT, especially in Isaiah (e.g., Isa 43:10 LXX: “…that you may know and believe … ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι”). (Die Bibel)

So the best synthetic claim is:

John presents Jesus using the OT’s divine self-identification formula (“egō eimi”), which naturally evokes Exod 3:14’s Greek tradition and Isaiah’s “I am” declarations, culminating in statements like John 8:58 where the grammar is intentionally unexpected (“I am,” not “I was”).

3) What Jesus said in Hebrew/Aramaic?

[Inference] Jesus almost certainly spoke in a Semitic vernacular (Aramaic, with Hebrew in liturgical/scriptural settings), but the Gospels do not preserve a Semitic transcript of John 8:58; they preserve the inspired Greek form. Any precise reconstruction of an underlying Aramaic/Hebrew phrasing would be speculative beyond what the text provides.

Practical application (non-devotional, text-driven)

  1. Translation discipline: Treat “I AM WHO I AM” and “I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE” as two English attempts to express one Hebrew imperfect-based formula; let Exod 3:12 carry controlling interpretive weight in-context. (StudyLight.org)
  2. Doctrinal control: Build doctrine from the passage’s full communicative act: God’s name is not only about “existence,” but about faithful presence and sovereign freedom in redemption.
  3. Christology: The NT’s strongest data point is not a claim that Jesus recites the entire Exod 3:14 LXX, but that he appropriates “egō eimi” in ways that align with YHWH’s self-identification in the Greek OT and that John frames as an identity claim of the highest order. (Die Bibel)

Bibliography and primary-source pointers (SBL-style where feasible)

  • Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 473. (Apologetics Press)
  • Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28), John 8:58; 8:24; 13:19; 18:5–6. (Die Bibel)
  • Septuaginta (LXX), Exodus 3:14; Isaiah 43:10. (Die Bibel)
  • Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), Exodus 3:12, 14. (StudyLight.org)
  • b. Berakhot 9b (on Exod 3:14 as presence in present/future troubles). (Sefaria)
  • Tg. Onq. Exod 3:14; Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 3:14 (Aramaic renderings/paraphrases). (sefaria.org.il)

 

PART 2.

 

A semantic options map

In the form of a into a tight decision tree (“when to prefer ‘I am,’ when to prefer ‘I will be,’ and what each choice commits you to theologically”) using only these primary witnesses and the Morris reference already identified.

Summary of main points

  • The decision between “I am” and “I will be” turns primarily on (1) Hebrew aspect (imperfect) and immediate context (Exod 3:12 “I will be with you”), versus (2) canonical reception in Greek (LXX “ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν”) and English “name-like” idiom.

  • “Who” vs “what” reflects the flexibility of אֲשֶׁר (ʾăšer); “who” foregrounds personhood/identity; “what” foregrounds role/manifestation in history.

  • None of the options requires you to deny the others; each choice spotlights a different facet and carries predictable theological “commitments” and “misread risks.”

Tight decision tree for אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (ʾehyeh ʾăšer ʾehyeh)

Root: What are you trying to optimize?

1) If your priority is Hebrew grammar + immediate context (commissioning/promise)

Key control: Exod 3:12 uses the same verb: כִּי־אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ (kî-ʾehyeh ʿimmāḵ, “for I will be with you”).

  • Then prefer: “I will be who/what I will be.”

    • Why (linguistic): אֶהְיֶה (ʾehyeh) is Qal imperfect 1cs of היה (hāyâ, “be/become/come to pass”); imperfect naturally carries open, forward-facing force in this setting.

    • What it commits you to (theologically):

      • Covenantal presence: God is identifying himself as the One who will prove faithful and present in the coming redemption (not a mere abstract label).

      • Divine freedom: the self-referential form signals, “I define myself; you do not control me by a name.”

    • Main misread risk to manage: readers may hear “I will be” as God changing in essence (process-theology drift).

      • Guardrail: specify that “will be” refers to how God will manifest his already-true character in history, not an alteration of divine being.

1A) Under this branch: “who” or “what”?

  • If you want to foreground personal identity/personhood: choose “who” (a “name-like” English relative).

  • If you want to foreground role/manifestation in redemptive action: choose “what.”
    Both are defensible because אֲשֶׁר (ʾăšer) is a flexible relative (“who/that/which/what”).

2) If your priority is English name-function + traditional idiom in Exod 3:14b

Problem to solve: Exod 3:14b requires a short “name-like” form: “Say … אֶהְיֶה (ʾehyeh) has sent me.” Rendering that as “I will be has sent me” sounds unnatural in English.

  • Then prefer: “I am who I am,” and in 3:14b “I AM has sent me.”

    • Why (linguistic/functional): this is an idiomatic English packaging that preserves the self-referential structure while producing a usable “name-like” handle.

    • What it commits you to (theologically):

      • Aseity/independence (implied): God’s identity is not contingent on creation or circumstance.

      • Stability/faithfulness: God is reliably himself across time (without requiring you to turn the verse into a purely philosophical slogan).

    • Main misread risk to manage: readers may over-abstract it into timeless metaphysics detached from Exod 3:12 (“with you”).

      • Guardrail: explicitly tether the “I AM” to the commissioning promise: the One who is “I AM” is the One who says “I will be with you.”

3) If your priority is canonical Greek reception / ontological explicitness (LXX)

Key control: LXX renders Exod 3:14 as ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (egō eimi ho ōn, “I am the One who is/exists”), and uses ὁ ὤν as the sent-one formula.

  • Then prefer: “I am the One who is” (or “the Existing One”).

    • Why (text-historical): you are choosing to translate the Greek construal of the Hebrew, which makes the being/existence dimension explicit.

    • What it commits you to (theologically):

      • Strong ontology emphasis: God as the One whose existence is underived and necessary.

      • Natural bridge to later Christian theological vocabulary (without claiming the Hebrew itself is written in Greek metaphysics).

    • Main misread risk to manage: you can unintentionally privilege Greek conceptuality over the Hebrew discourse function (commission/presence).

      • Guardrail: state plainly: “This is the LXX’s interpretive sharpening; the Hebrew foregrounds presence-in-history in this context.”

What each choice “commits you to” (one-line contracts)

  • “I will be who/what I will be.”
    Contract: God pledges future-proved faithfulness/presence and asserts freedom in how he will show himself in redemption history (Exod 3:12–14).

  • “I am who I am.” / “I AM.”
    Contract: God asserts self-defined identity in a “name-like” English form; tends to foreground aseity/stability, but must be tethered back to Exod 3:12 to avoid abstraction.

  • “I am the One who is” (LXX: ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν).
    Contract: you are foregrounding the ontological reading explicit in the Greek tradition; strong for metaphysical clarity, weaker for the Hebrew commissioning pragmatics unless you annotate.

How this decision tree interfaces with Jesus’ “ἐγώ εἰμι” (brief, direct)

  1. Exod 3:14 LXX uses ὁ ὤν as the “name-like” element; John 8:58 uses the absolute ἐγώ εἰμι:

    • John 8:58 (NA28): πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγώ εἰμι (prin Abraam genesthai egō eimi).

    • Exod 3:14 (LXX): ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν.

  2. Decision implication:

    • If you prefer Branch 3 (LXX-ontological), you will tend to frame Jesus’ absolute ἐγώ εἰμι as participating in the Greek OT divine self-identification register, even though it is not a verbatim repetition of ὁ ὤν.

    • If you prefer Branch 1 (Hebrew commissioning/presence), you will tend to emphasize that John’s “I am” claims still function as divine self-identification, but with an interpretive bridge that highlights covenantal presence + identity rather than only abstract existence.

Source pointers (online primary/notes; SBL-ish formatting for web)

  • Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Exodus 3 (online), accessed January 26, 2026.

  • Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Septuaginta (LXX), Exodus 3 (online), accessed January 26, 2026.

  • Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28), John 8 (online), accessed January 26, 2026.

  • Biblical Studies Press, NET Bible, Exodus 3:14 note (online), accessed January 26, 2026.

 

 

Categories: Word & Topic Studies