God is a paradox. Ratzinger classifies the biblical depiction of God into two components: the personal and the ultimate. Continuously we see a contrast between a God bound to us, and a God bound to nothing. Ratzinger writes that Scripture depicts a “personal and person-centered God, who is to be thought of and found on the plane of I and You.” Somehow, God is present to every individual, and yet, Ratzinger then immediately begins writing about how God stands above everyone and everything else as the embodiment of all power. God is simultaneously near at hand, while also so removed from our level and understanding as human beings.
Ratzinger points out that God’s conversation with Moses at the burning bush can be interpreted as a refusal to give a name, a refusal to define Himself. This instance of revelation emphasizes the mystery of God, making God revealed and concealed at the same time. God becomes present to Moses and makes His continuous presence and protection of the Israelites clear while also being so distant from them. The etymology of Yahweh cannot be clearly traced but the concept behind the name is not as important as the fact of the name. God naming Himself establishes His coexistence with humankind. As we spoke about in Genesis 1, naming is extremely significant because it establishes a relationship. The story of the burning bush shows the Israelites that God is present and that God is one of them, one of us.
It is also important to consider the polytheistic backdrop on which Scripture was written. Other faiths in the area believed in numerous gods, all of whom represented something specific and easily definable. In contrast, the God of the Hebrews cannot be defined in that He is a universal and absolute Being. Ratzinger writes that “Yahweh rises simply, needing no commentary, in the expression “I am,” which describes its absolute superiority to all the godly and ungodly powers of this world.”
Julia Dubuque 
I understand Ratzinger’s explanation of “I am” much more after your reminder that the Old Testament can be seen as a resistance piece to the Babylonian religion. In that case, do you think that a theme such as that might compromise the true essence of God if it is in constant opposition with the gods of the Babylonians?
LikeLike
I really like how you elaborated on Ratzinger’s idea of God being close to us, yet at the same time distant because he is God. When you say that God naming himself establishes a coexistence with humankind, do you believe that the God of the Israelites was considered “close” and immanent or more of a transcendent God?
LikeLike
Nice connection between naming, forming a relationship – showing the significance of naming in order to form a relationship. What is the significance of God refusing to name himself? Does God do so because only we, as humans, can decide if we are to enter in a relationship with God? Is it a challenge for us to name God in order to have a relationship and stay in the communion?
LikeLike
You mentioned how God’s response to Moses can be interpreted as His refusal to give a name, but I interpreted it as “I am who I am” is his definition of who he is, he is God. However, I do agree that his statement creates both mystery and clarity for Moses and the Israelites.
LikeLike