I Am

When we introduce ourselves to others, most of us mention our profession, personal relationships, and where we live. If we wish to convince our hearers that we should be highly esteemed, we may tell them of our education, associations, and accomplishments. Our introductions, whether modest or elaborate, reveal facts about our past and present existence, and our self-revelation admits our dependent nature. We depend upon our decisions and relations, which depend upon our functional bodies and brains, which depend upon a universe and planet that are finely tuned for rational life. Our existence is possible because of factors beyond our consciousness, comprehension, and control. We are unquestionably contingent beings, who have been introduced into existence by something beyond us.

When we introduce ourselves to others, we also want our hearers to think we are good, and our self-esteem depends upon who we think we are and who we should be. Some of us might confess we have fallen short of glory and were caught by grace, but we all are tempted to highlight the best parts of who we are and gloss over our flaws, because we desire to be and measure ourselves by something we’re not. We must learn of something beyond ourselves to properly conceive of and improve the state of our soul, for the understanding and development of character depends upon something other than our character. Our values and morality are shaped and judged by criteria beyond us.

We can't deny our dependent nature, nor shake the belief that our existence and decisions matter, so weren't we introduced into this world by a will and purpose greater than our own?

We didn’t make ourselves, but we do exist, and we think of what and how we should be, which is good, because we were made to be good. To be sure, we can only say that which began to exist should inherently be a particular way if and only if it was created for a particular purpose, and our purpose to be good tells us something about what made us. Our holiest causes ultimately tell us about the ultimate Cause that constructed our bodies and holds together the contingent chain of events and variables that allows our minds to consider the necessary Being who spoke first.

If one spoke the universe into existence, how might this uncreated Being introduce itself to the created beings that could hear and understand it, so that we might know it is the Being with no beginning? What can the self-explanatory Agent who precedes all and is preceded by none say about oneself, which all beings that depend on Him can’t say about themselves? Might God first proclaim His moral perfection to affirm our convictions and appease our doubts?

If He did, we might be tempted to ask, “Is what is good loved by God because it is good, or is it good because it is loved by God?”

Plato posed this dilemma thousands of years ago in his instructive dialogue, “The Republic”,  and his riddle is resolved in realizing that it is a false dilemma held erect by a categorical mistake. Indeed, it is an ontological misunderstanding. It is a question with no answer other than “neither” because the very question itself wrongly assumes who God is and where goodness comes from, for Goodness is the very nature of God, and both God and Goodness are intrinsically and eternally inseparable. Consequently, God and Goodness can’t be discussed as though they are separate from and therefore affect each other: they are the same Cause. Posing Euthyphro’s Dilemma might be likened to asking, “What caused the first Cause?”, or “What causes our minds and wills to make moral decisions?” Nothing precedes the very first Cause, and our minds and wills are the causes of our moral choices!

We naturally wonder if we are good but asking if God is good is like asking if water is wet (1). Our understanding of goodness arises from the effects of God's character that we experience and embrace, but His character is the ultimate and complete Goodness, from which the goodness we witness originates. We must say God is good to clarify His nature because our nature is inconsistent, but if we were as good as we should be, our clarification would not be necessary. In other words, to God Himself, the self-declaration of His goodness is really a redundancy - a reiteration - because His nature is the origin of goodness; to us, of course, this declaration is an important reminder, because we aren’t always good. We know who to be by thinking about who we should be, which is obviously who God made us to be and better than who we choose to be. God knows who to be because only He knows who He is.

We are bad or should be good because of some reference point that goes beyond us, but God’s goodness simply is. To say God is good or God should be good is not really saying anything other than God is God and God should be God. We should be some way separate from how we can be, but God is the way, and other than His way, He simply can’t be (surely, it is weak, not strong, to be evil). We love our Creator because our Creator loves us, but our Creator loves us because, “our Creator is love” (1 John 4:8).

The effects that have led up to our existence can't regress infinitely, so a first Cause is logically necessary, and the cause is always greater than the effect, so God is most excellent. Thus, our Creator is the unprecedented and personal Cause behind the first thought ever conceived and first love ever expressed, on whom all of our thoughtfulness and acts of love hang: He is ontological Perfection that guides us to Goodness: He is the timeless and infinite Reference Point that gives stability and lasting meaning to our finite moments in time (2). “And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist” (Col. 1:17).

How then might our Creator, the only necessary and most excellent Being, simply and sufficiently announce His essence to us, so as to establish His self-existence, which is superior to and presupposed to explain all other sentient beings like ourselves?

According to near east ancient and first century Jews, God has introduced Himself to mankind, and He says, “I Am.” 

Men who feared the effects of lying wrote thousands of years ago that God appeared to a man who deserted Egyptian royalty to roam in the desert, and commanded him to free the Hebrew people, who were enslaved by polytheistic Egyptians for hundreds of years. How skeptical the Hebrew people must have been of Moses, who was raised by and ruled with their Egyptian oppressors, when he claimed to bear a message from God to liberate and lead them to the land God promised them. The Egyptians worshipped many gods with many names, none of which the monotheistic Hebrews believed in, let alone respected. And yet, the Hebrews believed in Moses when he gave them the name of the God who appeared to him in a burning bush, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (Ex. 3:14) (3).

Jesus, who studied and believed the Old Testament Scriptures, claimed two-thousand years ago to be the light of the world, and that if people abide in His Word, then they will be free from the sin with which they were conceived, with which they co-opted. Those who would not accept Jesus as He presented Himself, denied that they were born in fornication and claimed that God was their Father, but Jesus said that if God was their Father, well, they would love Jesus, because, as Jesus said, “I proceeded forth and came from God.” The disbelieving Jews then defended their allegiance to God via their ethnic connection to Abraham, who, according to the Old Testament, received God’s blessing and promises, but Jesus said that their father Abraham rejoiced to see His (Jesus’) day and was glad when he saw it. Those who were questioning Jesus’ honesty pointed out the impossibility of Jesus’ statement, since Abraham lived thousands of years ago and Jesus wasn’t even “fifty years old,” to which Jesus said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” (John 8:58)

We are tempted to suppress the knowledge of that which is greater than us (Rom. 1:18), and many in our culture encourage us to magnify ourselves, as though we are the master of our existence and purpose. Even though we can’t fully account for our finite existence, some of us succumb to the societal pressure to talk and live as though we are self-made and self-accountable. This other-minimization and self-magnification, however, will never change the fact that we came into existence by no will of our own and do not determine what is right. We are not self-explanatory. Consequently, since we are dependent upon something other than ourselves, we misrepresent ourselves if we put ourselves at the center of the universe, as though we are the point from which it arose. None of us can say, “I Am.”

"I Am”, which leans on nothing other than itself, describes oneself as entirely independent. Only the one who is dependent upon nothing -- who is self-sufficient -- can sufficiently introduce oneself by declaring one's consciousness as simply present. Therefore, if God wanted to make clear to those of us he made with consciousness and curiosity of our origins that the Voice we hear is the Uncaused that causes all else to exist - the Person who can always be trusted and gives us our function - the Standard that validates our moral judgements - the greatest conceivable Being - He may simply do so by saying, “I Am”.

Perhaps the most divine way Divinity could announce itself is by simply saying “I Am”, but nothing speaks divinity like existing and operating outside the physical boundaries and limitations we can’t change, let alone control. Therefore, if the one who says, “I Am”, accurately predicts the future, overrides the laws of nature, and acts throughout generations, shouldn’t we believe it is God? If the one who says, “I Am”, overcomes death after saying He would, mustn’t He be more than a mere man? If the one who says, “I Am”, is the beautiful Image by which we realize the ugliness in ourselves and the need to be cleansed, might we believe the Lowly Son comes from the Most High? “Who can this be, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?” (Mark 4:41).

I have heard people say that Jesus was a good man or moral teacher, but not divine, but Jesus made remarkable claims, all of which disqualify Him as good if any of them are not true, hence why He was crucified by those who believed He was lying when He said them. He claimed the title of Yahweh, and thereby self-identified as the uncreated Creator. He claimed to exist many years prior to His birth on earth, and thereby proclaimed his eternal nature. He claimed to have the power to forgive sins (Luke 5:25), and thereby assumed moral authority over humans, Jesus also said,

“come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” (Matt. 11:28-29)

Those who believe Jesus is divine consider these lovely verses, but how distasteful and delusional, rather than beautiful, those words are if Jesus is a mere man? Contrarily, couldn’t Jesus only honestly make this claim, without deferring to anyone else, if He is the Person who rests on nothing, on whom all else rests?

If one who leaves no trace of sin and shows grace to sinners says, “Come to me … and I will give you rest”, for I have come to “heal the brokenhearted, give sight to the blind, and liberate the oppressed” (Luke 4:21), shouldn't we take Him at His word? If we do not accept the divine status that Jesus attributes to Himself, we attribute his self-revelation to an unsound mind or untrustworthy will. How could we say Jesus is confused when His teachings have won over billions of bright minds with hard hearts for thousands of years? And how could we say He is ill-willed if no one, from the first to the twenty-first century, can make a charge against His character? If Jesus said He will be with those who believe and trust Him “always, even until the end of the ages” (Matt. 8:20), and many all over the world, including myself, experience His presence, might He be knowable, and shouldn’t we want to know Him? No Muslim says Muhammad overcame death and lives with them today. No Buddhist says the same of Buddha, and no Hinduist says the same of Krisha. Only Christians claim the Founder of their faith, who was pierced in His side and forsaken for their sins, never leaves their side and is one with the invisible Father of the universe. How could Christianity persist beyond the first century, let alone twenty-one centuries, had Jesus not raised from the dead and related with those who believe He is, “I Am”?

If Jesus was honest and His divinity is true, what will it take for us to believe He “is the truth”?"And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me?" (John 8:46). If the explanation of the truth is endless because God’s knowledge is infinite, how much explaining will it take for us to know of His love? “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3).

We conscience and contingent humans, who innately seek for explanations, can't adequately be explained if we do not come from Consciousness, so musn't there be a Consciousness who has always existed? And musn't this Consciousness lie within the one who claimed to be, "I Am", since He dissolved infirmities, multiplied food, calmed storms, and overcame death -- and is the most remarkable, influential, and self-confident human to ever live? "Whoever believes in Him will not be put to shame” (Rom. 10:11).

I’ve heard religious skeptics assume an all-knowing perspective by claiming that if God existed, He would manifest Himself per their preference, but if we do not know God and are curious if He exists and cares for us, might we ask God to reveal Himself to us on His terms, rather than saying to Him, “reveal yourself as I see fit”? Might we seek God to find out if He’s worthy to be praised rather than assume we are good and qualified to evaluate how God should be according to our impermanent and temporal standard of morality? And might we be tempted to praise God, if we learn that He has sacrificed Himself to save us from ourselves and given us His Spirit to elevate our bodies, minds, and wills beyond our wildest and purest dreams? “There stands One among you whom you do not know, who is full of grace and truth: the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:26, 14, 19).

God does not ask us if we love Him like we should, because He knows we don’t. Rather, while He upholds our souls in our bodies so that we can freely think and speak, and with caring eyes that cried and closed on a cross and opened in a grave, He simply asks us if we want His love to save us. Will we accept forgiveness for a wicked past and a promise for a righteous future? If God descends to us, with outstretched arms to embrace us, will we say, “Yes and Amen,” so that He can lift us out of our decaying world and set us in His heavenly presence? God extends His grace in a billion ways, and we must receive it by conceding only it can sustain and satisfy us forever. “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6).

For thousands of years, humans have ruminated about what precedes all else: mindless, coincidental matter or an immaterial, conscious Mind. How could the millennia old debate be settled in favor of the counterintuitive assertion that mindless matter and aimless energy precede mind and intent when nature is ordered and alive by a delicate balance that humans can apprehend and calculate? How incredible it is that ancient men who sang about the glory deserved for the order and brilliant precision on earth and in the skies, claimed to hear a transcendent, unembodied voice introduce itself as, “I Am". In a non-supernatural reality, how could honest men claim that an immaterial Person performed miracles and predicted a virgin birth, a perfect life, and a scandalous death, which led to a resurrection of one who also claimed to be “I Am”? It stretches beyond sanity that such events would be predicted and meaningful to humanity, and it is blasphemous for Jesus to say, “I Am" if behind the curtain of this universal show, there is nothing that can speak or be named by the speaking beings it coincidently coughed up.  

But if mindlessness is not the nature of eternity, because in the beginning was the “Logos" (4), this self-description, “I Am”, which was used by He who parted the Red Sea to set Jewish captives free, and He who rose from the dead to vindicate what He said and elucidate why He bled, should only be used by He who is “infinite” and “everlasting” – who “commits no evil” and “never changes” -- who “never lies” and "cannot deny Himself” (5).

If we deny the one who gives us the conviction and choice to be good, we lose touch with how we or God should be. But if we defer to the one who is necessary and most excellent -- the "I Am" -- we find sufficient grounds and guidance to be who we were made to be. We find ourselves in the middle of an introduction that is better than our own.“I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty" (2 Cor. 6:18).

References

1. Rewording of Peter Kreeft’s comment, “God does not fall in love for the same reason water does not get wet”, in a footnote in “A Shorter Summa”, p. 85

   
   

2. Referencing a quote from Jean-Paul Sartre, “No finite point has meaning without an infinite reference point.”

   
   

3. Archeologist, biblical scholar, and philologist, William F. Albright, says that, “The name of God in Exodus 3:14, should be understood when used in the third-person causative to mean ‘He Causes to be what Comes into Existence’.” Quote originally from, “The Stone Age to Christianity;” read in JR Miller’s, “Set apart,” p. 42

   
   

4. Greek for “Word”; John 1:1

   
   

5. Ps. 90:2; 1 John 1:5; Heb. 6:18; 2 Tim. 2:13c.