My Personal God
“O LORD, rebuke me not in Your wrath, and chasten me not in Your burning anger.” Psalm 38:1 NASB
O LORD – The Hebrew text does not use the word “Lord.” It uses the personal name of God, a name that is never spoken among the Jews today. Worshippers were careful to substitute the word “Lord” whenever they saw God’s name written in the text. “YHVH”, writes David. David does not address God’s status or divine position. He uses God’s intimate name. This God is no stranger to him. They know each other. All the more reason why David should recall his sinfulness. This God knows all about it. This God is closer than his best friend. Closer than a brother. There are no excuses and no exceptions. Using YHVH signals a conversation from the heart.
Over the ages we have substituted the noun of class for the name of God. “God” is technically a noun that describes the position or rank of a divine being. That’s why the Tanakh can speak of other “gods.” But there is no confusion when the Being Who holds divine status is referred to by His personal name, YHVH. There is only One God whose name is YHVH. Of course, today we think of the noun “god” as though it is also the name of God. That fact probably will never be corrected. It’s now a part of our religious vocabulary. But when you read what Yeshua said about this God, you don’t find him speaking like we do. He uses “Father,” Abba, and Lord. As an orthodox Jew, he would also have acknowledged the sacredness of God’s name. “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name” is not the same as saying “holy be the name ‘God.’”
What does David teach us with this address? We learn something quite important. Unless we know YHVH in the same way as the God who knows us by name, we are still one step removed from the intimacy He desires. YHVH knows you completely. He knows your name. He knows everything about that name; its past associations, its reputation, its nature and potential. And the God Who has a name calls you to know Him the same way. To know about His reputation, His history with men and women, His character and His intentions. Unless you know this God by name, you do not share that deep relationship that allows David to cry out to his personal God. In that arena, there is trust that the God whose name I know will hear my plea and not reject me.
But there is another side to this. How fearful it is to come into relationship with a God whose name I know. This is face-to-face with awful power, with undeniable holiness and with unspeakable majesty. Not one of us can survive in the presence of such a God, unless God knows your name and counts you as His own. When you draw near to this God Who has a name, you tread very lightly. Presumption of favor has no place here. There is a place in worship where the God with a name overwhelms all human existence.
Have you been there?
Topical Index: God, YHVH, fear, forgiveness, Psalm 38:1
“An elderly gent was invited to his old friends’ home for dinner one evening. He was impressed by the way his buddy addressed his wife with endearing terms-calling her Honey, My Love, Darling, Sweetheart, Pumpkin, etc. The couple had been married almost 70 years, and they appeared still very clearly in love. While the wife was off in the kitchen, the man leaned over and said to his buddy, “I think it’s wonderful that, after all the years you’ve been married, you still call your wife those loving pet names.” The old man hung his head. “I have to tell you the truth, he said. “I forgot her name about 10 years ago.”
While the joke is humorous, it is insightful. It has been longer than 10 years or even 10 centuries since the majority of Christians knew the name of YHWH. So we use God, Lord, King, etc. Christianity lost more than they gained when they seperated from Judaism in the 2nd century.
Do you think it is disrespectful of us as human beings to call the King of the Universe, his rightful Name when we address Him in prayer or refer to Him in conversation? If Yeshua did not, I would think it appropriate for us to do the same. Our Father, I believe is the appropriate Name for my God, the God of the Hebrews. Our God is to be hallowed and revered, the least we, His creation, can do is speak of Him with honour and the respect He rightfully deserves. He is not my best friend, or my mate. He is God Almighty and yes,YHWH is His name, I acknowledge that but should I, His creature call Him that?
No recorded instance of Yeshua using the name YHVH. However, King David clearly did. Does it not boil down to one’s own decision how to answer a question YHVH might ask: “Who do you say that I AM?”
Would not saying his name, YHVH, with the understanding of what his name actually means, instill greater respect and awe for him?
Just questions.
I hear your concern here Jacqualine, I’m just not sure there is a hard yes or no answer to this question though. Understanding and applying the concept of certain things being holy (set apart) as opposed to other things being for “common” use is a pretty good place to start from as it certainly would give us pause as to how we use this name. (but that’s just a start) Also I don’t know if we can say that Yeshua “didn’t” use that name (as in ever). His instruction on prayer is defined to a context and the “our Father” is relevant to that context insofar as “my” enemy isn’t necessarily God’s enemy. (He’s not exclusive to me) Perhaps the absence of it’s use in the gospel accounts has more to do with the fact that Yeshua understood the regard for that name and wasn’t willing to “unnecessarily” upset those He was ministering too. I also think it’s a good thing to go through the scriptures and began to find out the times and situations where it was appropriate to use that name and it’s relevance before we begin to use it, Skips correct in that, in the use of that name there is an intimacy, but at the same time a burning holiness and we need to tread lightly.
Robert, your statement: “I’m just not sure there is a hard yes or no answer to this question though” is an appropriate one in light of many inquiries for us today. It has been difficult for me to morph from my ‘gotta know a hard and fast, black and white’ answer to the more gray areas of thoughts. It’s interesting though, somehow, I seemingly have more comfort and resolve in grasping the open ended provocations that perplex the mind and heart. The ‘black and white’ answers invariably acted as the gauntlet being thrown down. The wonderous challenge of a well thought-out question provides a platform of community zest with individual applications. It’s like the daily question we face: Choose this day life or death. The final answer is revealed only in what you DO to answer the question THAT day. Does it not come down to being irrelevant what you think until it results in what you do in response to the question? Actions give clear texture and form to thoughts. And it all depends on the circumstances for that particular instance and issue.
What’s so very interesting to me is that we tend to want hard answers by training, not by design. We live in a world where everything we experience is in motion yet we are taught that to ascertain “truth” we have to observe the “unchanging nature” of something through “scientific” observation. Not that scientific observation is flawed in and of itself, it’s just that it doesn’t address the reality of the world we exist in. In relation to this question, I’m sometimes very comfortable with using the name YHWH, in public or private discourse, other times, not so much. In private, it has much to do with what I’m struggling with, where I’m at in my walk, etc. while my public discourse probably has to do more with the consideration of the ones I’m addressing. As you said, “The wonderous challenge of a well thought-out question provides a platform of community zest with individual applications.” Black and white doesn’t allow that, and maybe that’s why it’s used so often.
Yes. Well phrased and true to my observations as well.
Skip addressed some of this in his recent “Irreverent Consequences (Rewind)” post.
In David Stern’s commentary on his Jewish New Testament (JNT) he writes this about Matthew 1:20: “Long before Yeshua’s day, however, the word Adonai had, out of respect, been substituted in speaking and in reading aloud for God’s personal name… The Talmud [emphasis mine] (Pesachim 50a) made it a requirement not to pronounce the Tetragrammaton (the word means the ‘four-letter name’ of God), and this remains the rule in most modern Jewish settings. In deference to this tradition (which, in my view, is unnecessary but harmless) the JNT uses Adonai where ‘YHVH’ is meant… The JNT uses Adonai only when one can be certain that ‘YHVH’ is meant; it is not used if there is doubt. So far, editions of the JNT are conservative on this score;”
Stern’s conservativeness reveals YHVH to be, at a minimum, 68 times in the gospels alone, 22 of those times spoken by Yeshua. Three times during the temptation in Matthew and Luke (Chapter 4 in each) Yeshua speaks it while addressing the adversary. If Yeshua was sinless then he would obey the commandments of YHVH and speak the name rather than obey the doctrines of the Talmud. After all, his refusal to comply with all those rabbinic doctrines was a key reason he was hated by the Jewish leadership in his day. I’m having difficulty visualizing this scene with “HaShem”, or “the LORD”, or “Adonai”, or any other substitution, being spoken as Yeshua stands through this testing.
Perhaps part of the reason everyone’s eyes were fixed upon him as he read in the synagogue from the scroll of Isaiah was because he spoke the name!
And each of those times he spoke the Shema when asked what the greatest commandment was, he would have obeyed his Father and pronounced YHVH as the Torah is written.
Bible teacher Ray Vander Laan, MDiv, proposed that, in Luke 19, the leaders were asking Yeshua to “shush” his disciples because they were using “the name too holy to be pronounced” as they praised God.
And when Yeshua quotes David’s psalm (110), using the name – again as the psalm is written – would prevent confusion regarding who is sitting where, who is “my lord” (adoni). Yeshua shares that “deep relationship that allows David to cry out to his personal God.”
Very interesting, particularly regarding Vander Laan’s statement that Luke 19 was inferring to the talmidim’s utterance of YHVH. If that’s the case, Yeshua’s response that otherwise “the stones will shout,” surely opens the door to a proper verbalization of YHVH. Calling on the name of YHVH would present itself as a powerful and necessary way to converse about him, by name. If, by extension, stones would be impelled to call out the name YHVH, why shouldn’t his followers, i.e. us?
Hi Leslee, I’m not in disagreement with your very excellent observations, it’s just that, as I have considered them previously and as I still do now, what causes my hesitancy in their full acceptance is that I just can’t see Yeshua “needlessly” provoking either the leadership or the people in general. As you stated, the use of the name being substituted was common practice (although unnecessary) and it was regarded as a high form of respect. I’ve no doubt that He used it in personal applications, like the temptation, and most probably even among His disciples. Perhaps that was “edited out” by the writers of the gospels for the consideration of the readers and only those who knew the particular habits of the Jews in regard to these things would have been aware of it. I really don’t have a clue one way or the other, but I have a hard time seeing it as you presented it for these reasons. Maybe it’s just me. 🙂 (probably) What I don’t want to happen is to see this most gracious of names being used in a common way, either by myself because of familiarity, or by others for whatever reason they deem appropriate, but mostly, just because they can and most certainly because we are “rebelling” against the current religious establishment. I don’t think that will go over to well.
There seems to be something always missing in this issue. I am not sure what it is, though. On the one hand, there is the one and only El, YHVH, one who must reveal himself if we are to know anything about him. He is revealed in his name, we know, as are the numerous people he names and renames throughout the Tanakh. Names mean things and carry weight and information. On the other hand are a revered group of teachers, the Rabbis, who insist YHVH’s name is too holy to pronounce and must be identified by several cognomens (of sorts) that are less holy and common but acceptable enough to be pronounced. Who is qualified to say the name YHVH can not and should not be pronounced? At what point in anyone’s life can be acknowledged as that point which they are allowed to utter his name? If he provides a way for us to enter in to a real life relationship with him, does that still disallow the utterance of the name that offers a way out of everyman/woman’s dilema, death? Does he say to us, “I love you, but don’t dare say my name!”? What are the rules for protecting against uttering his name in a common fashion? Total abstinence, just to be sure? If so, what’s the point of even knowing his name? As we all go along this path toward learning to reflect his ways, we all face the challenge deciding this life or death issue that confronts us from this moment to the next. Isn’t refraining from uttering his name in fear of the possibility of profaning it equivalent to the monks who isolate themselves from the world so they won’t interact or be tempted to sin? Our life journey is one of learning how to honor and worship in daily deeds. If we learn and intend to honor him as best we know how based on his torah, should we not press forward with proclaiming his name as our power, strength and life? If we dishonor him in deeds/actions, we deal with that in a prescribed manner, we confess, repent, and return to the path of life. How is that any different in learning how to honor his name? Aren’t they connected? How are we to shout his name to the world from the mountain tops if we aren’t to USE his name?
Just thinking out loud about a perplexing problem that has lingered through the ages.
robert lafoy,
I agree with the thrust of your comment. I looked up how Stern’s CJB translates Matthew 5:33, and, indeed, ADONAI is used. I’m presuming Stern decided this based on the fact that Yeshua is quoting the Tanakh; however, given the prohibition (“custom”?) against using the Divine Name, I’d think those listening to the Sermon on the Mount would be quite taken aback at this. Moreover, this begs the question as to why Yeshua didn’t use ADONAI in the “Our Father” prayer in Matthew 6:9 (as can be inferred from Jacqualine Avery’s comment above).
Going further, I note that Stern uses ADONAI in Jude 1:5. Now, I’m assuming that Stern was taking the “Critical Text” (CT) of the NT—the Koine Greek—and ‘back translating’ into the Hebrew, and, assuming so, given that the CJB is copyrighted 1998, that would follow. However, the current CT has Iēsous, “Jesus”, at Jude 1:5, based on the best method of determining the original text here given the variants (which include “Lord”, “Jesus”, “God” and one other obvious scribal blunder). [I’d written about this issue years ago in a lengthy blog post, which can be found here: notunlikelee dot wordpress dot com/?s=jude+5.]
To reply to both you and Micheal in regards to this whole issue, I don’t agree that an across the board “prohibition” should be in place as it regards an individual or a “people.” My concern is simply this, (I’ll use this as a”picture”) as I’ve stood back and watched this exploration of our Hebraic roots, I’ve noticed that there’s a segment of people who take what should be a glorious and freeing thing and have turned it into a “bigger” stick to beat others with. I know that it’s kinda what happens but it so reminds me of those who were accused of tithing their spices but had little if no regard for mercy and true judgement and therefore were misreprenting the God whom they claimed to serve. How much more do we become hypocrites if we despise those who were accused and yet, ourself do the same. My concern boils down to us doing damage to others persception by our activities. My opinion is not that we shouldn’t declare His name, only that we realize that what we are capable of expressing is very precious and that if mishandled can burn us as well as those we interact with.
Robert, I certainly understand what you said here. And, btw, I accidentally hit the blue negative button when I was trying to hit the “Read more” button. I do NOT have a negative anything toward your comments! My apologies.
Going further/farther regarding your comment, Robert, I think people are going to misuse YHVH’s name regardless of anybodies warnings, including YHVH’s instruction. This is the case in most everthing. I think we are charged to be responsible for our own use as is the universal case. My sins are on me and, unfortunately, others feel the repercussions in one way or another. That is how sowing and reaping goes. Using the big stick is on them. Following your reasoning, we are to revere YHVH and everything associated with him and hope our examples good and bad will somehow lead to the right ways. After all, in our best efforts, I’m sure we all will fall short in usage more times than not, but, with improving efforts in demonstrating the right usage of YHVH. His name must be used correctly in order for those that don’t might properly learn to do so. Let’s just engage our lives to bring honor to him in our usage. Our noble calling. We can not stop simply because of someone’s improper display. Must not we step up and display his image via our image regarding his name. He stays true to his name as should we. The journey continues.
Thanks for your insights.
BTW – I just discovered I could negate my blue negative by hitting the green positive! Yay! Sorry for the distraction.
It works!
Just discovered it works in reverse too! If you change your opinion of my opinion from + to – it will take away 1 + from my tally ….and ruin my life work. Technology can be a cruel mistress.
Wonder how you learned that, Michael?
Craig, What has been interesting to me through the years is to look at Darby (1867-90), Greene (1962-98), the Apostolic Bible Polyglot (1996), the Hebrew New Testament (Dalman-Delitzsch, 1892 or Salkinson-Ginsburg, 1891 or Bible Society in Israel, 1995), and see in places like Luke 1:16-17 where the “the” in “the Lord” is grey and in italics or YHVH appears in the Hebrew (in the three HNTs at Jude 1:5 as well). These translators did their homework and continue to inspire me to do mine. A key reason I appreciate Skip is his continual asking of us: “What did it mean to the original audience?” I’ve queued up your blog post to read. Thank you!
You’re welcome!
ADDED: I just read through some of my own comments in response to others (or ‘talking with myself’), and I think some of those are worth looking at, as some are quotes of other scholars (scholars in addition to those I’d referenced in the article) offering some counterpoints to my own.
Interesting read Craig, unless I’m missing the “general application” of the rules of textual criticism altogether, it would seem that “The” Jesus is a superior rendering over Jesus for the same reasons that Jesus is a superior rendering over Lord. (please correct me if I’m mistaken and explain to me why) If that’s so, it brings up some pretty interesting observations as to why an author would use a proper name (Jesus, which means “the” salvation of YHWH) as a descriptive. (“the” salvation of YHWH) 🙂
With proper names in contexts in which the referent is clear (there’s only one “Jesus” in Jude), the use or non-use of the article is not critical. In fact, there’s dispute over what the presence/absence of the article indicates with proper names or monadic nouns (one of a kind). You’ll find, e.g., theos (God) sometimes without the article, when the context clearly indicates that the One True God is the referent (John 1:12: tekna theou, Children of God).
Buried in the piece I wrote is this parenthetical note: “(The O could have been inadvertently added or deleted, or purposely added in any of the variants above – scribes were less likely to purposely delete the article.)”. With the article present with “Jesus” in only two late “Western” text type manuscripts, it’s possible that scribes added them (or added one, and the subsequent manuscript is a later copy of same). Thus, since scribes were more likely to add the article than to purposefully delete it, and given the lack of the article in other mss, “Jesus” is more likely original without the article.
Thanks for the response, (boy did I read that backward!! 🙂 ) I recall the note, but I took the comment in a somewhat different vein, especially considering difficulty. I’ll take another look.
Knowing the amount of time it took me just to study the discipline of textual criticism in preparation for the writing of the piece, plus the time it took it me to research this one particular variant, and factoring in that these are likely new concepts and new terminology for most readers, I fully understand if one doesn’t completely grasp in one or two readings. Heck, I had to go back and reread it!
But, going back to your initial comment, Hort conjectured something that is somewhat close to what you stated. He postulated that originally only the article was present and that later scribes mistakenly replaced it with either “Jesus” (Ι͞C) or “Lord” (K͞C). If this were the case, the article would be a stand-alone, but used anaphorically—that is, referring back to the most logical antecedent. Then, one has to determine just what that antecedent is (in the article, I deem that it’s “Jesus”, but I can see that others could reach a different result). In any case, the reading would be ΟΤΙΟΣΩΣΑΣ or, properly spaced, ΟΤΙ Ο ΣΩΣΑΣ = that He-Who redeemed/saved/delivered (His people out of Egypt). The conclusion I reached yields that Jesus redeemed/saved/delivered.
It’s just interesting that if you allowed the definite article and kept the rendering of “Jesus” as in, “the Jesus” you wind up with a definite reference to verse 4. Rendering vs. 5 as, ….the Jesus a people out of the land of Egypt saved…..to be read as, ….the salvation of YHWH a people out of the land of Egypt saved (delivered)….ie a patterned word play in order to make a connection. Very Hebraic. 🙂
And….? that leads up to the other issue I wanted to mention. As I was reading the article, I noticed an almost irrelevancy applied to the definite article when attached to a “name”. At the least, not knowing why it was added. Hebraically speaking, it’s the difference between Adam and the Adam, or a man (as in functionality) opposed to “the man”. (The epitome of functioning as a true man) Just some thoughts concerning making Greek writing portray Hebraic thought patterns. Perhaps it needs to be reconsidered.
Robert,
With all due respect, you’re making a false equivalency. First of all, like Hebrew, Greek only has one article, and to call it (the Greek article) the “definite” article is a misnomer. It does not always function to definitize. And, the lack of the article may mean the associated noun is indefinite (a Samaritan) or it may not (the Samaritan), depending on context. For example, “Peter” is used with and without the article, even though the relative contexts indicate that Simon Peter is the referent. Scholars are divided on why this is the case. Its presence may serve some sort of discourse function. Or, its seemingly indiscriminate use/non-use can be a reflection of the haphazard way in which the author wrote. There are well-known grammatical anomalies throughout the NT, and this could be yet another.
But, more specific to your latter point, “Adam”, as I understand, can be used generically for a man (as opposed to a woman), mankind (to include women), or the name of one specific person. I don’t know Hebrew, but my understanding is that the Hebrew article (aleph) is added both to refer to the specific person Adam and also as a way to refer to a specific man not necessarily named Adam. Correct me if I’m wrong.
In any case, one cannot impose Hebrew language rules on the Greek (or any other language). Again, unless I’m wrong, I don’t believe that Hebrew uses the article (aleph) as a means by which to substantivize a participle (make it into a noun), for example, like Koine (and modern?) Greek does.
I understand why you would consider that a false equivalency. In the use of “proper” Greek, it would be exactly as you state. I’ll see if I can drag up a book I read concerning this very issue of transposing a Hebraic way of thinking by “manipulating” the Greek sentence structure to get a point across. However, the statement that you made is exactly the point I was attempting to draw out, and is the reason I said that perhaps it needs to be reconsidered. Good article and good thoughts though. Thank you for the link and your time in responding, it’s always a pleasure.
There are, of course, Semitisms in the NT. One example of notoriously ‘bad grammar’ towards this end can be found in Revelation 1:4, in which the writer uses a nominative just after a preposition. But, the obvious intent is to adhere as closely as possible to the LXX of Exodus 3:14 (“from He Who is, and He Who was…”).
I know that we have a different mind concerning these things and I want to qualify what I say here with the statement that it’s not about “proving” a point of view as right or wrong, only that, there may be another consideration available that hasn’t been considered in searching out the intent of scripture. That being said, I don’t think it has anything to do with an attempt to adhere to the LXX, but rather towards expressing the original intent of the Hebrew. (Not trying to open another can of worms in addition to the other can of worms) exodus 3 says, in the description of Himself, ah (aleph) chi (To be existent) hey, (to make manifest) Asher, and then repeats the first part. (pardon the technics) Chi means to be in existence, that’s the root of the word. The ah (aleph) which precedes that term, designates that term as an initiation. The Hey (the definite article) means to make it “evident” (you can see it). Asher (which is translated who or which) means to be upright or one that completes the promise made. In short, The I am who I am, is the one who brings to completion, what He initiated. Ie, let us make man in our Image. He started it, He will fulfill it, and we will see it! The “whole of creation”. I am, I was and I will be. It has nothing (in my opinion) to do with the LXX but rather to do with what the Hebrew actually says. All that to say, there aren’t “semitisims” in the New Testament but the whole of it is sematic. (Of course that’s only an opinion) I wouldn’t suspect that one who hasn’t gained familiarity with the Hebrew would be aware of these things but I trust that God in His mercy will meet us where we are at. Meanwhile, what advantage has the jew…Again, I thank you for the discourse, it’s always fun and more often a pleasure. YHWH bless you and keep you… and yours…
It seems we’re unintentionally talking past one another at times here—the limitations of this sort of interchange, without the benefit of real-time back and forth as in face-to-face conversing. My point in the immediately preceding comment was that the writer of Revelation used the LXX of Exo. 3:14 verbatim (ho ōn, He-Who is) in order to direct the reader to that passage and the intent behind it. Given that Revelation was written in Greek (and not Hebrew), this would be the only way to do such a thing. So, in that respect, I’m not in disagreement with you. [And, I went to the Hebrew text to follow what you just wrote.] Also, I’m keeping in mind that the LXX is a Jewish translation of the Hebrew here (which leads me to wonder why the LXX writers didn’t phrase Exo. 3:14 like Rev 1:4, i.e., to mirror your exegesis…).
However, I cannot go so far as to conclude that the NT is wholly Semitic, in the sense that the intent of the Greek NT is to wholly impart Hebraisms. Using your example of ho Iēsous (“the” Jesus), at least as I understand you here, the analogy doesn’t work in the way you’ve proposed above—which I’ve been trying to explain. Coming at this from a different angle: I checked every single usage of “Jesus” in Matthew (149!), and discounting textual variants containing/omitting the article, Matthew/Levi overwhelmingly uses the article. The exceptions can mostly be explained. Here are a few of the anarthrous (lacking the article) usages:
1:1
1:16
1:21
1:25
26:69
26:71
I’m not exactly sure why the very first instance of “Jesus” lacks the article. I’d read a while back that the introduction of a character upon a scene is signaled by the lack of the article (this was specific to Revelation, as I recall), but this doesn’t play out in Matthew, as the first occurrence of “the devil” (4:1) is arthrous (with article), as is the first occurrence of “Pharisees” (3:7). 1:16 can be explained because “Jesus” is followed by the modifier–(which includes the article, importantly, unlike 1:1’s)–ho legomenos Christos (the one called Christ). 1:21 and 1:25 can be explained somewhat similarly. 26:69 and 26:71 find “Jesus” in a prepositional phrase (PP), and it’s not uncommon for definite nouns to lack the article in PPs. However, one must ask why Matthew included the article with “Jesus” in PPs at other times.
In any case, I hope you see my point now. I don’t think your hypothesis that each time “Jesus” is with the article we should read it as “the salvation of YHWH” (and the times without just as a reference to his person?). Ironically, one of the few times “Jesus” lacks the article is the very time the name is defined (1:21)!
Like you, I appreciate the discourse, as I do find it fun. I always learn new things, which is a good thing! It forces me to look at some things a bit differently.
I wish YHWH’s blessing on you and yours, as well.
Thank you for the blessing as well, we’ll unfortunely have to drop the disscussion as this isn’t our site and I don’t intend to “crowd” into what is the intent of this website (briefly, I want to give due prudence and don’t want to overstay my welcome) However, if you want to continue to interchange ideas for mutual consideration, I would welcome it at pinezoo@aol.com. There’s certainly much to be discussed! ?
I may do that! However, for your protection, take out the “@” and replace with “at” so that spammers won’t find you as easily…
I say, spam away! (It’s happened before) if their that interested in talking, step up. It usually doesnt take that long to discourage them. ?? thankyou for the suggestion though, have the tee shirt. I limit it to sites like this but, I’m always amazed at who’s watching from the outside. It’s a risk. it’s an opportunity. Maybe it’s a crash, or not. pinezooataol.com. How dat!
Thank you Robert and Craig for a well thought through and well explained dialogue. I really appreciate the info shared.
Ι’m glad you got something out of the exchange!
Craig. I gained more insight in trying to understand the various translations from these ancient records, and the confusion they often cause to mislead theologist.
I also stand amazed at the depth and thoroughness you and other bloggers continue adding to discussions. At times it makes me feel I am not worthy to consider myself a faithful believer but that I am rather a distant critic…
A reminder to study more to show I want to also be approved… A worker of righteousness dividing the words correctly not needed to be reprimanded but find peace in trusting in knowing enough not to err. Then again when we think we do not sin, sin finds our weakness and we stumble again.
Ps 68:4 (KJV-1611) “Sing vnto God, sing praises to his Name: extoll him that rideth vpon the heauens, by his Name Iah , and reioyce before him.” The Geneva Bible also used “Iah”.
ביה שׁמו – יה – “Iah” – “by Yah, his name” Yah, as in Hallelu-Yah! The “poetic” form, we say it often!
Exo 6:3 (KJV-1611) “And I appeared vnto Abraham, vnto Isaac, and vnto Iacob, by the Name of God Almighty [El Shaddai], but by my name IEHOVAH [יהוה] was I not knowen to them.”
Yet Moses saw fit to pen the name יהוה in Genesis 2:4. And 6,822+ times this name is declared in the Tanakh. “Mr. Locke and others read [this verse] interrogatively, for the negative particle, lo, ‘not’, has frequently this power in Hebrew: “I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, and by my name Jehovah was I not also made known unto them?” -Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge by Canne, Browne, Blayney, Scott, and others, with introduction by R. A. Torrey. Published in 1834; public domain. [Emphases mine]
Jer 44:26 (ASV) “Therefore hear ye the word of Jehovah [יהוה], all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt: Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith Jehovah [יהוה], that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, As the Lord Jehovah [adonai יהוה] liveth.”
“At this point in history, God said that no man from Judah who dwells in the land of Egypt will pronounce the name of God. This isn’t the reason that most Jews will give for not saying the name of God, there are many other reasons. At least the Jewish people, by saying ‘Hashem’ [literally ‘The Name’], have done one very important thing, they have set apart ‘The Name’ as something special.” – Ross Nichols, UIWU (United Israel World Union), May 12, 2018, in his teaching titled “The Name”.
Pro 30:4-6 (CJB) “Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has cupped the wind in the palms of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know! Every word of God’s is pure; he shields those taking refuge in him. Don’t add anything to his words; or he will rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”
…and do not subtract from them – Deu 4:2, Deu 12:32 (13:1 H), Rev 22:18-19
I wonder if I deny Him, if I add to or subtract from His words, when I refuse to use or substitute something else for His name. I wonder if I have – like the Israelites did again and again – served the Baals [the Lords], or gone after them. I wonder.
Might our personal God be OK with our using personal names for Him?
Abba and Father seem to indicate that.
And since Yeshua was about as personal as you can get, I sense God
readily responded to Abba and Father.
Perhaps it’s also God’s way of bridging the gap, as it were, between His
unspeakable majesty and His loving heart.
abba. The basic and fundamental meaning of this word is something in the effect of strong house coming from the aleph and bet. It depicts a father as one who establishes, maintains, protects and leads a household. This would be a very important role for a family or tribe in a harsh and desolate desert area to call home. His umbrella of peace would have to come at a price fulfilled by his tenacious actions of protection and provision in an inhospitable and oppressive environment.
YHVH revealed as “I am that I am” or “I am being what I am being” or “I will be who I will be,” portends a mighty character indeed and someone to be feared with ultimate respect.
Rich, in thinking about your above statement, I agree that the abba term, meaning father, is truly an intimate identification and one that truly bridges the gap of understanding from high majesty to a loving heart. Still, one name doesn’t erase, preclude or diminish the other, does it? I wouldn’t think so, that is, outside of a dogmatic force being erected by someone, say a Rabbi. Considering the good and loving intent of the Rabbi’s in this declaration of name substitution, building a fence around it, isn’t it reasonable to view the prohibition as possibly destructive as well as helpful. As Leslee points out, substituting a replacement name for YHVH could be considered, shall I say it, replacement theology or even idolatry? Replacing his rightful and self expressed name with a man-made marker: a good or bad thing?
Anyway, thanks for all these words to ponder. It certainly helps me to congeal my thoughts in writing down responses. I value that immensely. Most of the time my thoughts are a scrambled mess. Interacting with this blog helps to massage many, not all, of the crazy kinks out somewhat. 🙂
Why not? Like David if you know each other and depending on the degree of relationship & intimacy you would address him accordingly and your YHVH will respond according to whom He has revealed himself (Matt. 11:27). Rudolf Otto in his book, The idea of the Holy: an inquiry into the non-rational factor in the idea of the Divine and its relation to the rational, says “it cannot be transmitted or taught, it must be awakened from the spirit…known only by a direct & living experience”. This knowing is like the relationship of love, first it is awakened between two people (1Jn.4:19) and deepens or wanes as the relationship grows.
Yes
If name is about character, then shouldn’t that be taken into consideration? If we call upon His Name, but the content (or intent) of the call denies or distorts His character in some way, then would that not be “taking His Name in vain”?
To us in the West, a name is a form of someone, but isn’t a name more of a function of that person in the East? Perhaps we could extend this extremely earnest conversation a little more if we worked out a little better what proper and improper usage looks like in light of this possibility?
Gotta love the way Skip’s can opener can zip open those worm cans!
Interestingly enough, that command is the primary reason for my “hesitancy” to use this name in particular situations. That term to “take up” or bear the name is key for me. Another form of it (just “voweled” differently) means to lend on usury. I’m not sure how other’s would take that, but for me it’s pretty simple. We are given the gift of that name to use, just like the gift of money, the use of it at an additional cost to another for our benefit is not permitted. The Israelites weren’t permitted to charge their own people usury either. The “in vain” part of that command also isn’t just about emptiness, but about destruction. YHWH is a God of life (He is Life) and true freedom and His self stated desire is to lift up and not tear down. We need to learn to demonstrate that according to the Word He’s given.
Thank you, Robert. That clarifies a really nagging feeling I have had about the misuse and abuse of His Name through history and today, too. Lots of extracting of value from others for gain (um, that would be the “usury”, right?): lots of seizing power over others: lots of downright abuse of nature and people alike; all in the ‘name’ of God. What do people think? That He doesn’t care? Perhaps that He doesn’t even exist? Where do we even get this sense of license from?
Many times in the Tanakh we are commanded to praise his name and remember his name. If you want an interesting read on how the rabbinic “ban” on saying the name came about and an excellent argument for speaking the name, check out Nehemiah Gordon’s “Shattering the Conspiracy of Silence”. Gordon is a Karaite Jew with degrees from Hebrew University in Jerusalem who has done much research on the Name and the history of the ban and transmission of the pronunciation of the name.
Then we come across the next hurdle… Is it to be Siboleth or Shibboleth as at the ford in the OT…. to test whom you would kill of your brothers when you are warring with them? We are so trapped in what we get caught up in. Ahh. Be blessed.
If we are all the bride of Christ wouldn’t we call God my Beloved or Husband ?
And from reading Anne Hamiltons book – “God’s Poetry” names were changed before threshold crossings and tied to covenant ….