530 A Glad New Song
Soon I shall sing the glad, new song,
Of Moses and the Lamb,
With all the sainted hosts above,
Before the great I Am.
159 Wondrous Love
To God and to the Lamb,
I will sing; I will sing;
Who is the great I Am,
While millions join the theme,
I will sing.
These "I AM" uses appear to me to have a double reference. First, to God's name as given to Moses on the mountain, from the burning bush (not familiar with this? pick up a Bible and start reading Exodus -- some spots are a bit hard but overall it's a ripping good story)
Exodus 3:14
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (kjv)
So, in this case, I AM is a translation/explanation of the divine name. The Hebrew could also be rendered into English as: I am who I am, I am what I am, I will be who/what I will be, I will be whatever I will be!
I'm afraid I've loaned out my Jewish Torah commentary (Torah = first five books of the Judeo/Christian scripture; Exodus is book two.) so I can't give you the fuller treatment of this.
So on to second reference: picking up on the name of God, the writers of these songs doubtless also thought of Jesus and the "I am" saying given to us in John's Gospel, e.g. "I am the door", "I am the true vine", "I am the good shepherd", etc
(... also "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me." Interesting to me that even the most literalist of Bible interpreters do not imagine that Jesus was made of wood and had a handle, or had roots and leaves and you could pick grapes from him, yet the thought that this statement might also be metaphorical is seen as gravest heresy. For the record, it is my experience and belief that Jesus is indeed the way, and countless Buddhists, Hindus, aboriginal peoples, etc are faithfully following in the way without the least thought of Jesus. Thankfully, God is not limited by our logic.)
19 comments:
I'm curious about the presumption that "I Am" also refers to Jesus. Why do you think the writers had that in mind? Do you know something about Jonathan Atchinson's personal theology or approach to hymnody that you're not sharing here? I'm definitely interested in learning about it if you do.
From my perspective, the "I Am" in 159 could be referring simultaneously to two of the three persons of God. Otherwise, it doesn't work gramatically (a plural subject is used with a singular verb). But in 530, 80 or so years after the text for 159 first appeared in print, Atchinson avoids the confusion by disassociating the plural subject (in this case Moses and Jesus, rather than God and Jesus) from the actual reference to "I Am" in a way that seems to make it even more clear that they are not references to the same thing. He writes about singing the song *of* Moses and Jesus in the presence of God in heaven. If "I Am" also refers to Jesus, that means he expects to sing the song of Jesus *for* Jesus, which doesn't seem as spiritually/theologically relevant to me as praising Moses and Jesus before God does.
You may be right in the strict construction of the words in 530. Though it does not seem unreasonable to me that one would sing the song of faith sung by Moses, sung by Jesus, before the thrones of God the Father and Christ Jesus seated at his right hand.
I think I will stand by the presumption that no one in that time frame / religious background (I'm truly presuming here -- I know nothing about Atchinson) could use I AM without having in the back of their minds at least the connection to Jesus' "I am" sayings and, unless Atchinson was a unitarian, "I AM what I AM" would call up a sense among other things of "I AM three in one"
Well, that's how it seems to me.
Do you know anything about Atchinson? I have one source book that might mention him. It's at the office so I'll check tomorrow.
Post a Comment