Those who try to understand the meaning of this name used by the people of Israel to identify their God, generally translate El Shaddai as “God Almighty,” the name used in several English translations of the Bible (see Genesis 17:1, NRSV, NIV, ESV). However, the translation “God Almighty” does not actually provide the basis for the proper understanding of the true meaning of El Shaddai.

The translators who worked on the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, did not understand the meaning of the name El Shaddai. They translated the name El Shaddai in several different ways. In the book of Job, they used the word pantokratōr sixteen times to translate the name Shaddai. The word pantokratōr means “The Ruler of All.”

Oehler (p. 90) said that early interpreters associated the name Shaddai with the Hebrew words “še” and “day” and translated the name El Shaddai as “He Who Is Sufficient.” However, this interpretation of the divine name has been rejected by modern scholars.

Other scholars have associated El Shaddai with the Hebrew word šad, a word that means “breast.” Thus, according to these scholars, El Shaddai should be translated “The God with Breasts” and be identified with a fertility goddess who nurtured and provided for her devotees.

Harriet Lutzky, in her article “Shadday as a Goddess Epithet,” Vetus Testamentum 48 (1998): 15-36, identified El Shaddai as the name of the goddess Asherah. Lutzky found an association with Shaddai and breasts in Jacob’s blessing of his sons. In blessing Joseph, Jacob said: “The God of your father who will help you, by God Almighty who will bless you with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that couches beneath, blessings of the breasts and of the womb (Genesis 49:25). The association of El Shaddai with breasts and the goddess Asherah has been rejected by most scholars.

Other scholars have associated the name El Shaddai with the Hebrew word šadād, a word meaning “destruction.” Joel 1:15 speaks of “the destruction from Shaddai.” However, as Mettinger wrote, this association of the Hebrew word for destruction with the name El Shaddai “is probably a pun, not a linguistic historical derivation” (p. 70).

Most scholars have accepted the meaning of the word proposed by W. F. Albright in his article “The Names Shaddai and Abraham,” Journal of Biblical Literature 54 (1935): 173-204. Albright proposed that the name Shaddai comes from the Akkadian word šadû, a word that means “mountains.” Based on this view, El Shaddai should be translated as “The God of the Mountain.”

This meaning of the divine name probably means that God was one who appeared to his people on a mountain. When Abraham came to the mountainous region east of Bethel, he pitched his tent, built an altar to God, and invoked the name of the God who had appeared to him (Genesis 12:8). The name El Shaddai may also explain the reason the God of Israel was known as “The Rock” (Deuteronomy 32:4).

The divine name Shaddai appears forty-eight times in the Hebrew Bible. Seven times the name appears as El Shaddai and 41 times it appears simply as Shaddai. The name Shaddai appears in several sections of the Hebrew Bible:

9 times in the Pentateuch.
2 times in the book of Ruth: Ruth 1:20-21.
4 times in the prophets: Isaiah 13:6, Joel 1:15, Ezekiel 1:24, 10:5.
2 times in the book of Psalms: Psalms 68:14, 91:1.
31 times in the book of Job.

The title El Shaddai appears primarily in the patriarchal narratives found in the book of Genesis. The passages where the title El Shaddai appear are: Genesis 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; Exodus 6:3; and Ezekiel 10:5. The reference to El Shaddai in Ezekiel is the only place where Shaddai appears with the word El outside of the Pentateuch.

Besides the six occurrences in the Pentateuch mentioned above, the name Shaddai appears also in Jacob’s patriarchal blessing (Genesis 49:25) and in the oracles of Balaam (Numbers 24:4, 16).

The divine name Shaddai also appears in the names of Israelites during the times of the Exodus: Zurishaddai (Numbers 1:6) and Ammishaddai (Numbers 1:12). The same Shedeur (Numbers 1:5) also contains the root of the name Shaddai. The name Shedeur is an abbreviation of Shaddai-ur

Frank M. Cross, in his book Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), p. 53, said that the name Shaddai-ammi appears on an Egyptian figurine dated c. 1300 B.C.

The name Shaddai generally appears in the Hebrew Bible in the context of promises and blessings. El Shaddai appeared to Abraham and promised him that he would “be the father of a multitude of nations” (Genesis 17:4). It was Shaddai who blessed Sarah and promised that she would conceive a son in her old age (Genesis 17:16). Shaddai also promised Abraham that he would bless Ishmael (Genesis 17:20).

When Isaac blessed Jacob, he blessed him with the promise that he would become the father of many people: “El Shaddai bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples” (Genesis 28:3).

El Shaddai himself exhorted Jacob to be fruitful and multiply: “I am El Shaddai: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall spring from you” (Genesis 35:11). Shaddai also appears in Jacob’s blessings of his children (Genesis 49:25) and Balaam’s blessing of Israel (Numbers 24:6,16).

The same motif of blessing is associated with Shaddai in the book of Job. Eliphaz the Temanite told Job that it was Shaddai who blessed the wicked and filled their houses with good things (Job 22:17-18). Job himself recognized that Shaddai was the one who had blessed him with wealth, health, and children (Job 29:5). Naomi complained that Shaddai had taken away the blessings he had given to her in the past (Ruth 1:20-21).

After God revealed his true name to Moses, the name El Shaddai was seldom used by the people of Israel. When Moses came before the people in Egypt, he came speaking to them in the name of Yahweh, therefore proclaiming that Yahweh was the true God, the God who had appeared to the fathers as El Shaddai. El Shaddai was the God of promise; Yahweh was the God who was about to fulfill the promises made to the ancestors.

Thus, the patriarchs experienced El Shaddai as a God who blessed them and promised them a hope and a future. Although the people of Israel experienced their God as one who appeared to them in the mountains, they did not worship the mountains as some people did. The psalmist asked: “I lift up my eyes to the hills– from where will my help come?” (Psalm 121:1). Their faith was not in the mountains of God, but in the God who created the mountains.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

W. F. Albright. “The Names Shaddai and Abraham,” Journal of Biblical Literature 54 (1935): 173-204.

Frank M. Cross. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Harriet Lutzky. “Shadday as a Goddess Epithet.” Vetus Testamentum 48 (1998): 15-36.

Tryggve N. D. Mettinger. In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.

Gustave F. Oehler. Theology of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.

G. Stein, “שָׁדַּי,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vol. 14. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 204), 418-446.

Read El Shaddai – Part 1

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

I couldn’t tell you what the source of the sound I’m hearing this morning is.  I think there’s just enough distant and near traffic alongside the blood moving through the veins in my ears for it to sound like a background of wind, or more accurately Spirit, behind and under everything.

Things having being (sometimes) remind me of God, and that is a great joy.  It’s not just that these things ‘exist’ but that they ‘are.’  So for me, the question of the ‘existence’ of God really doesn’t matter.  Does God exist?  That we would ask this threadbare question means that we will end up at best with a threadbare answer, no God or a God who doesn’t matter.  A more important question is this:  ”Is God?”  There is a question that matters for everything that also “is.”

From the burning bush, God says, “I Am,” and it appears throughout the Hebrew Scriptures as God’s personal name.  We Christians throw around the transliteration ‘Yahweh’ because we think we know something, and because it is still a foreign word, we throw it around lightly.  We are incapable of reverencing it.

But what if we began to call God “I Am?”  That, after all, is what Moses heard.  We might realize quickly why observant Jews have honored the Name by avoiding speaking it for thousands of years.  We might have to notice that it is no casual thing to speak the Name of God.

“I believe in I Am” (a condensed version of the ecumenical Christian Creeds in their entirety).  If we begin to know what we’re saying in that simple prayer, then we will find that five words can totally exhaust every emotional and spiritual resource we have.  Reach 1st grade understanding, and we would speak it and then not be able to pray for a year.  Reach an adolescent understanding, and as we spoke, our whole bodies would rattle and smoke like a satellite burning up in re-entry.  In fact, if we actually could understand the fullness of that phrase, we would be totally incapable of speaking it at all.

I couldn’t tell you what the source of the sound I’m hearing this morning is.  I think there’s just enough distant and near traffic alongside the blood moving through the veins in my ears for it to sound like a background of wind, or more accurately Spirit, behind and under everything.

Things having being (sometimes) remind me of God, and that is a great joy.  It’s not just that these things ‘exist’ but that they ‘are.’  So for me, the question of the ‘existence’ of God really doesn’t matter.  Does God exist?  That we would ask this threadbare question means that we will end up at best with a threadbare answer, no God or a God who doesn’t matter.  A more important question is this:  ”Is God?”  There is a question that matters for everything that also “is.”

From the burning bush, God says, “I Am,” and it appears throughout the Hebrew Scriptures as God’s personal name.  We Christians throw around the transliteration ‘Yahweh’ because we think we know something, and because it is still a foreign word, we throw it around lightly.  We are incapable of reverencing it.

But what if we began to call God “I Am?”  That, after all, is what Moses heard.  We might realize quickly why observant Jews have honored the Name by avoiding speaking it for thousands of years.  We might have to notice that it is no casual thing to speak the Name of God.

“I believe in I Am” (a condensed version of the ecumenical Christian Creeds in their entirety).  If we begin to know what we’re saying in that simple prayer, then we will find that five words can totally exhaust every emotional and spiritual resource we have.  Reach 1st grade understanding, and we would speak it and then not be able to pray for a year.  Reach an adolescent understanding, and as we spoke, our whole bodies would rattle and smoke like a satellite burning up in re-entry.  In fact, if we actually could understand the fullness of that phrase, we would be totally incapable of speaking it at all.

This Dvādaśākṣara Mantra or 12-syllable-mantra Oḿ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya is for worshiping Lord Kṛṣṇa. One should install the physical forms of the Lord, and with the chanting of the mantra one should offer flowers and fruits and other varieties of foodstuffs exactly according to the rules and regulations prescribed by authorities. But this should be done in consideration of place, time, and attendant conveniences and inconveniences.

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 4.8.54

Many of you, as spiritual seekers, would be practicing japa sadhana. When you were initiated you would have been told that you should do japa, chanting of the Divine Name. Tat japah jadarthabhavanah – the recitation, chanting or japa of the mantra is to be accompanied by a contemplation on its importance or meaning. As a matter of fact, japa, according to Patanjali, is not merely a mechanical chanting of the Name, although chanting is also Japa, but it is tadartha bhavana or the contemplation on the meaning of the mantra. To give an instance, ‘Om Namo Bhagavate Vaasudevaya’ is a mantra. Chanting this is japa. Japa can be of two kinds: external verbal japa, as well as internal manasika japa, or mental japa. Japa is the repetition of a mantra, which is a mysterious group of letters or phrases so connected with one another that when the mantra is chanted a peculiar sensation or vibration is generated in the entire system. That is the difference between ordinary words or sentences or groups of phrases and a mantra. A mantra is the result of a vision of a seer and it is the concrete manifestation of the deity or devata through the world of language, , which is made to manifest in the mantra. When you chant a mantra correctly and systematically with proper intonation, there is immediately set up a vibration in the nervous system in such a manner that a harmony is established in the whole world. Different mantras produce different vibrations and they invoke different devatas.

‘Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya‘ is a mantra of Bhagavan Sri Krishna. It means literally: “Prostration to Bhagavan Vasudeva.” ‘Surrender to Sri Vasudeva’ is implied therein. Now, the prostration, salutation, is an external symbol of the internal union. When we do namaskara to a deity in the temple, to a friend or any person, we join both the palms and bend ourselves low. This namaskara, and the joining of the palms are indicative of the feeling of­ union of oneself with the other. “I and you are one” - that is prostration, that is namaskara. “Bhagavan Vasudeva, I am one with you” is a spirit of surrender, and here begins meditation on Bhagavan Vasudeva. When this mantra is chanted you have also created the requisite atmosphere in the mind for contemplation on Bhagavan Vasudeva, to begin meditation and to feel His presence. This rule applies to all other mantras, also.

Most of you will have this practical difficulty when the mantra is chanted and meditation begins. The mind ordinarily gets confused as to how to start, what to begin with, what to think, what to feel, etc. When you chant a mantra you may think of the letters of the mantra. Perhaps you may also feel that the meaning of the mantra is “prostration to Bhagavan”. But how are you to proceed further? Mentally, feel that the Lord is seated or standing in front of you, and slowly, after an adequate length of time or period, you will begin to feel His omnipresence in front of you, to the right and to the left, above and below, and so on.

The thought of God is like a fire which will burn up all desires. The highest knowledge is nothing but the deep feeling of the presence of God everywhere. That is the highest wisdom and that will give a deathblow to the desires of the world. The desire for God is a desire to destroy all desires. It is not a desire in the ordinary sense of the term. As a single matchstick can reduce to ashes a huge mountain of straw, so too a single thought of the omnipresence of God, the immanence of God and the omnipotence of God is enough to burn up all desires pertaining to this world, because God is the fulfillment of our aspirations and when we feel His presence, there need be no other desire. When we have the ocean we do not want a drop, for the drops are in the ocean. A single moment of honest, genuine deep thought of God is greater than the performance of several asvamedha sacrifices, agnihotmas, rajasuyas and so on. It is the highestsacrifice, the highest yajna and the greatest truth. All sadhanas lead to this goal of meditation, and this spiritual‑consciousness which is the center and the path of all meditation, should animate all your activities in life. In one sense, you should be in a meditative mood always. I think this is what Bhagavan Sri Krishna means in the gospel of the Bhagavadgita.

Though life appears to be very complicated, it would become very simple, a joyous process when you practise japa sadhana. The more you practise, the greater the strength it will give you. Yesterday’s practice will give you additional strength to practise today, and today’s will give you strength tomorrow. Every day you will become stronger and stronger by profounder thoughts of God and deeper contemplation on Him. There is no loss of merit in the practice, says the Bhagavadgita. Even a little that you have done is great indeed and it is a wonderful asset which will help you in the future. May the Almighty Lord give you strength to do more and more japa sadhana.

First, let me remind readers that I have already written several posts on the divine name. The following posts deal with the name of God:

Pronouncing the Divine Name – Part 1

Pronouncing the Divine Name – Part 2

Pronouncing the Divine Name – Part 3

Pronouncing the Divine Name: An Explanation

The name Jehovah is not the real name of God. Let me explain. The word Jehovah, a popular English name used by Christians to identify the God of the Old Testament, was not used until after 1278 A.D.

In the Hebrew Bible, the name of God is expressed by four consonants: YHWH. These four consonants are also known in academic circles as the Tetragrammaton. The name of God was revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai:

13 Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”

14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations” (Exodus 3:13-15 RSV).

When God sent Moses back to Egypt to bring the people out of their oppression, God told Moses: “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations” (Exodus 3:15). In Hebrew the name “the LORD” is YHWH.

Over the centuries, the Jewish community has avoided using or pronouncing the divine name in public. Thus, when reading the name of God in Hebrew, the Masoretes wrote the four consonants YHWH and inserted the vowels of the Hebrew word Adonai, a word that means “the Lord.”

The name Jehovah is a hybrid name. The name was formed by the use of the Tetragrammaton YHWH with the vowels of Adonai and the result was YeHoWaH. This hybrid name became the basis for the Latinized name Jehovah.

The name Jehovah was not known until sometime after 1278 when a Dominican monk by the name of Raymundus Martini, a Spaniard, first used it in his book Pugeo Fidei. The name Jehovah appeared in English when William Tyndale translated the book of Moses in 1530. Thus, the name Jehovah is an artificial creation that was not used until the Middle Ages. It does not reflect an accurate rendering of the divine name in the Hebrew Bible and its use should be avoided.

Most Christian Bibles today follow the example of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and of the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible by Jerome. The Septuagint translated the Tetragrammaton YHWH by Kurios, “Lord” and the Vulgate rendered the divine name as Dominus, “Lord.”

The name Jehovah appears in the King James Bible in four places: Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; and Isaiah 26:4. The poetic form of the name, Yah (or Jah in the KJV) appears in Psalm 68:4. The divine name appears in several passages in the Bible compound with other words: “Jehovahjireh” (Genesis 22:14 KJV), “Jehovahnissi” (Exodus 17:15 KJV), and “Jehovahshalom” (Judges 6:24 KJV).

Most modern English translations follow orthodox Jewish tradition and avoid using the divine name. Instead, these translations substitute the word “the LORD” for the name Yahweh. The following are the usages of the divine name in most English Bibles:

1. The word “God” translates the Hebrew name Elohim.

2. The word “GOD” translates the divine name Yahweh.

3. The word “Lord” translates the Hebrew word Adonai.

4. The Word “LORD” translates the divine name Yahweh.

I respect my Jewish readers who refrain from using the divine name as a way of honoring God. This reluctance to use the divine name reflects their love and reverence for God and a recognition of the holiness of God’s name. Instead of using the divine name, they use “Adonai,” and “Hashem,” a Hebrew word meaning “The Name.”

As a Christian, however, I believe that this reluctance to pronounce the divine name goes contrary to God’s own wishes. God said to Moses:

“Say this to the Israelites: Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever; this is how I am to be remembered in every generation (Exodus 3:15 HCSB).

God clearly tells Moses that he wants to be remembered forever by his name. However, if we do not call God by his name, how can people know him by his name?

The Psalmist wrote: “Sing to God! Sing praises to His name. His name is Yahweh.” (Psalm 68:4 HCSB).

The Psalmist also wrote: “Proclaim with me the greatness of Yahweh, let us acclaim his name together (Psalm 34:3 NJB).

To sing praises to God’s name and to acclaim his name requires the worshiper to know God’s name and to use it and pronounce his name aloud.

The prophet Joel wrote: “Everyone who calls on the name of Yahweh will be saved” (Joel 2:32 HCSB). However, how can people call upon the name of God when the name of God is not used?

Christians should avoid using the name Jehovah because it does not provide an accurate translation of the Hebrew name for God. And, although I am going against the majority of Biblical scholars on this issue, I believe we should take seriously God’s desire that he wants to be remembered forever by his name.

If Christians and Jews are to use the divine name, it must be done so with reverence, for we must remember God’s own admonition: “You shall not misuse the name of Yahweh your God, for Yahweh will not leave unpunished anyone who misuses his name” (Exodus 20:7 NJB).

This is the final post (at least presently) of a series on Monotheism, you can click the sub-headings to see the corresponding previous posts

As we turn the pages from the revelation of YHWH seen in the Hebrew Bible to the person of Jesus seen in the Christian New Testament the climax of the Divine Identity comes into sharp focus. It was one thing to understand YHWH as god as he was seen throughout Israel’s history but to then take that same name and apply it to a man was to take a step which is seemingly impossible within the Greco-Roman worldview. Yet, when we understand how YHWH was understood within Second Temple Judaism as the one true god we are better prepared to see the way in which the New Testament writers make the drastic shift of equally assigning divinity to Jesus of Nazareth.

If the god which the New Testament is claiming Jesus to be is that of Hellenistic thought and Platonic Dualism, then the philosophical gymnastics required to make the phrase “Jesus is God” plausible in any metaphysical or ontological way approaches impossibility. That deity is simply too far removed from the space-time continuum of human affairs to come into any real contact with the spatial realm. We are left standing with Arius and Docetism and Gnostics trying to somehow philosophize a way in which Jesus could somehow accomplish that which he is said to have accomplished without Jesus being that which Platonic thought made an impossibility, namely being equally fully human and fully divine.

We must have a shift in worldview though. Those writers, and indeed those disciples who first believed in Jesus as divine and later wrote about him, were not unaware of how radical it was to incorporate a man into Deity, and yet without seemingly any philosophical or theological conflict as to betray their strictly monotheistic consciousness, they do exactly that. In the worldview of these rigidly Monotheistic Jewish men who left their livelihoods to followed after this carpenter turned Rabbi, the concept of incorporating a man into the Identity of Divinity was perhaps improbable but ideologically not impossible.

What must be understood, as we have looked at in the previous posts, is that within the Hebraic worldview there were clear boundary lines which defined that which was divinity and that which was not. Where Greek though identified God by that which he was not, and characterized him by his removal from the visible world, in the minds of first century Jews, and indeed in the minds of those very ones who followed Jesus and later wrote of him, deity was divined by actions and the one who had done certian things was divine. Therefore had Jesus, though now being a human, been participatory in the actions that characterize the Identity of the Divine, then in must follow that he himself must in fact be divine.

Creational Monotheism

What is perhaps the clearest action the New Testament writers apply to Jesus is his participation in the creative event. Continually throughout the Old Testament the action of creation, as we have seen, is ascribed to YHWH alone. The claim that it was Jesus who had been active in the event of creation makes him synonymous with the creator himself and clearly identifies him as one with the Divine Identity. If it is YHWH only who created the heavens and earth and Jesus is said to have created the heavens and earth than Jesus must be YHWH.

Three of the clearest New Testament passages concerning the personhood of Jesus, each from the pen of three different writers; Paul, John, and the author of Hebrews, attest to Jesus’ unique identity in creating all things. They not only set him apart as creator, but establish that his creation of the world means that he himself was not a created being. Jesus is placed up and above all the created order in a way which monotheism would have dictated pure idolatry be it ascribed to any other figure, be that man, angel, animal or demon.

All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:3

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

Colossians 1:16

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Hebrews 1:1-2

Sovereign Monotheism

The second distinctive of divinity which we have discussed previously and we find throughout the New Testament readily applied to Jesus is the subject of his rule over all things. This is commonly talked about by reference to his ascension over or above “all things” and his position at the “right hand of God.” What was clear in the early Jewish context was that this was not merely an exaltation of a human figure to a function of deity, but that this was in fact an open declaration of what had been true concerning Jesus all along, namely that he was YHWH, the only one who could sit above all and be on the divine throne,

Even as early as the first Christian sermon at Pentecost a mere fifty days following Jesus’ resurrection we see the apostle Peter preaching a fully formed Christology of the exalted Christ. Jesus resurrection was not viewed as merely an external work of God resuscitating a human figure from the dead, but was seen as a definitive act of declaring Jesus’ identity to be fully divine.  When he was declared to be above all things, Jesus was understood to share in the sovereign rule of YHWH over the whole earth. Since only one could be the supreme ruler over all other rule and power, then Jesus having this position would necessarily require that he was a part of the divine Godhead itself.

This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God… For  David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,
“‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool.’
Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Acts 2:32-33, 34-36

that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Ephesians 1:20-23

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Matthew 28:18

For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.”

II Corinthians 15:27

…his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things… After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Hebrews 1:2, 3

…Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

Hebrews 12:2

Covenantal Monotheism

Though perhaps not as immediately evident, the New Testament is replete with references to Jesus’ participation the acts of YHWH in the old Testament, specifically those acts related to YHWH’s covenants with Abraham and Israel. Jesus is seen as being one who not only had himself personally entered into covenant with Israel and preformed such ransom acts as rescuing Israel from Egypt and sustaining and chastising them in the wilderness but who also initiates Covenant with Israel.

For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

I Corinthians 10:1-4

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Jude 1:5

Perhaps the strongest argument of Jesus participation in Covenantal Monotheism, and as such in the divine identity, is his enactment of the New Covenant with his followers. Whereas Moses served merely as an intermediary, going between God and Israel to enact the Mosaic Covenant, Jesus acts unaided when at the Last Supper he explicitly enters into a New Covenant with his disciples. The imagery could not have been stronger, the bread his flesh, wine blood and the twelve disciples mirroring the twelve Israelite tribes, all pointing to the fact what Jesus was doing was something which only YHWH could do. Jesus was, unaided and singularly, rewriting the Covenant between God and Israel around himself and thus redefining who the covenant people were and how that covenant was entered. To those early Jewish believers, and those present at the table that night, this was a clear sign that Jesus was in fact fully divine, fully YHWH, the covenant keeping God.

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Luke 22:20

Eschatological Monotheism

One of the strongest ways in which Jesus is included within the divine identity is the way in which the New Testament authors hold Jesus as the one to which all creation will look and acknowledge as Lord and God. Jesus is seen as the object of the Eschatological day and when he is vindicated before the nations as truly being YHWH then monotheism itself would be vindicated. Jesus was given not only the right to judge the world, but the promise that he would be the one to which all creatures would look and acknowledge as God.

Jesus himself claimed that Judgment of the world had been given to him, and the New Testament authors upheld this belief as they proclaimed that the one who was raised from the dead was indeed to be the one at the end of all things who passed judgment on the whole earth. This act as a eschatological judge clearly stated Jesus participation in an event which was to be the vindication of YHWH alone above all others. As such Jesus is necessarily included within that identity as being YHWH.

The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,

John 5:22

because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

Acts 17:31

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.

Revelation 19:11

What is more though, is that Jesus is accorded that highest place of being the one to which all the nations look and acknowledge as YHWH at the Eschatological day when the God of Covenant at last confronts the nations of the earth. The one who the Hebrew Bible declared the gentile nations would look to and recognize as the one true God who is over, above, and uttering shames their no-god idols the New Testament declares is no other than this Jesus of Nazareth. The reorganization of Jesus as God is an event none other than the eschatological vindication of monotheism, and subsequently Israel at the end of the age.

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:9-11

And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Revelation 5:13-14

Cultic Monotheism

With the assertion of the previous categories of divine identity in place it is no wonder than that the response we see given to Jesus is that which would be expected of a deity. Jesus is accorded worship by those who followed him. Though the act of falling prostrate in front of a figure, (the meaning of the word, proskuneo, translated in most English translations as “worship”) does not, in the first century context, necessarily mean ascribing deity to n object (as it could mean simply honoring an authority), the way in which the writes of the New Testament speak of Jesus shows that their devotion exceeded that of merely an honored figure. Their response to Jesus is emblematic of belief in his worth of receiving the honor which was accorded to YHWH alone.

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.

Matthew 28:16-17

The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

John 5:22-23

To Jesus staunchly monotheistic Jewish followers there appears to be no contradiction in applying that same honor and laud which was expressly forbidden to be given to any but YHWH to Jesus. What is more, it would seem that to the early church, to refuse to give this worship to Jesus was in fact to be outside of the family of God. Worship of Jesus was as such that worshiping him did not take away from the sole worship accorded to YHWH alone and failure to worship him resulted in failure to worship YHWH at all.

Cultic adoration of Jesus was what distinguished the Early Church from both first century Judaism and the pagan world of the Greco-roman empire. While Judaism looked at Christians as idolaters for worshiping one they considered to be other than YHWH, the Rome condemned Christianity for their refusal to worship any other. It was this cult of the crucified man which distinguished Christianity and ultimately attests to a early view of Jesus as being fully divine and as such fully worthy of such adoration.

And again, when he brings the firstborn (Jesus) into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

Hebrews 1:6

And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Revelation 5:13-14

The Divine Name

The final issue with grasping a Christological Monotheism is to see the way in which the divine name was applied to Jesus in the New Testament and the teaching of the early church. While a shift in language (from the Jewish scripture being written in mostly Hebrew and some Aramaic, to the New Testament writings being in Greek) and the hyper-legalism  of Second Temple Judaism (the Tetragrammaton [YHWH] was not spoke aloud and had been replaced by a interposed letters of the Hebrew Adonai  in the Hebrew holy texts) obscure the usage of the divine name in reference to Jesus, its usage is not totally lost. It is still possible to detect clear ways the apostles and the early church assigned the divine name to Jesus.

The change in languages in Israel led to the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek and the predominate language of religious writing following suit. When the Tetragrammaton was recorded in the Greek Septuagint it was either rendered as the four Hebrew characters, the Greek equivalent (ΠΙΠΙ) or a Greek transliteration (IAΩ).^[1] While none of these translations were used in the writing of the New Testament, what was used was the Greek Kurios. Kurios became used as the representative replacement for the Tetragrammaton in Greek copies of Jewish religious writings of the first century A.D. While Kurios can carry a range of meanings, not necessarily referring to deity and could identify merely and authority figure such as a governor or Caesar, the New Testament writers contunially extend its meaning to include much more.

One of the clearest ways in which this is seen is the through the way the word Kurios is uses in the place of YHWH in the New Testament’s quotations of the Old Testament. These quotes and allusions, two of which we will examine below, take the Greek word Kurios, emphatically apply to it the full weight of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, and then even more emphatically, and without hesitation apply its meaning to Jesus.

The first passage to look at briefly is the famous passage in Philippians 2.

Therefore God has highly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord (Kurios),
to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:9-11

Paul describes the exaltation of Jesus, interposing his own unique Christological interpretation with a clearly monotheist quotation from Duetero-Isaiah.

“Turn to me and be saved,
the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
By myself I have sworn;
from my mouth has gone out in righteousness
a word that shall not return:
‘To me every knee shall bow,
every tongue shall swear allegiance.’

Isaiah 45:22-23

Within this context the name given then to Christ, and the force of the confession of all in heaven, on earth and under the earth that “Jesus Christ is Lord,” is more than a mere kingly authority as might be appropriate to give an earthly deity. The interposed quotation, coupled with the monotheistic declaration of Jesus as Lord show that Paul intended that Kurios carry the full meaning of the divine name YHWH.^[2]

The second scripture to be considered is Paul’s uses of the Shama, (“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” Deut 6:4) the quintessential monotheistic declaration of Judaism as well as established language of creational monotheism to assert Jesus’ participation in the unique divine identity. In a passage addressing the participation in food sacrificed to idols, Paul asserts a typical Jewish statement of their belief in one god, and yet extends its bounds to include Jesus into that definition of one god.

Richard Bauckham lays out the verse as follows to best show the way in which Paul echoes established monotheistic identity to include Jesus within the bounds of Jewish Monotheism^[3]

a)         yet for us there is one God, the Father,
b)                    from whom are all things and for whom we exist,
c)         and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
d)                    through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

I Corinthians 8:6

Lines a) and c) reproduce all the words to the Shema and yet rearranges them to reflect both an assertion of one God and of Jesus being within that unique identity of one God. Therefore to Paul, there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. Thus the word God (Greek [I Cor. 8:6]: Theos, Heb[Deut 6:4]: Elohim) is applied to the Father, and the word Lord (Greek [I Cor 8:6]: Kurios, Heb [Deut 6:4]: YHWH) is applied to Jesus. The Shema then becomes divided in a way to apply both to Jesus and the Father while still maintaining a belief in one supreme God.

This point is only strengthened by Paul’s interposing of traditional assertions of creational monotheism (lines b) and d)) which applies the participation in the creative work equally to both the Father and Jesus Christ. Paul thus extends the meaning of both allusions in such a way as to make it clear that Jesus is to be understood as YHWH himself. Jesus is not one merely bearing e separate identity apart from YHWH the Father but he is indeed YHWH himself manifest to the world. With the application of the divine name YHWH to Jesus the New Testament writers where making the unabashed claim to Jesus indeed being fully included in the unique monotheistic identity and thus fully divine, and completely God.

Conclusion

The treatment of Jesus within the New Testament is unique not in that it shrinks back from making clear statements concerning Jesus’ identity, but in that it uses, when looked at within the first century Jewish cultural, some of the clearest distinctions to apply to Jesus the full identity of God. Using the concept of divine identity, that is, defining God in the way in which the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism (the context in which Christianity was birthed) defined him, it becomes easy to see the clear ways in which the earliest Christians understood Jesus’ participation in that identity of the one true God.

The identity of Jesus −­ far from being an ambiguous subject slowly developing to maturity with a fully divine Christ somewhere after the council of Nicaea − was well established and firmly rooted in the Jewish context of the early church almost as soon as Christ ascended from amongst them. The earliest Christians understood Jesus as sole creator, sovereign ruler, the maker of covenant with Israel, subject of the eschatological vindication of monotheism, the only one due all worship, and the bearer of the divine name YHWH. In this way Jesus was clearly seen as with the boundaries of the unique divine identity and this fully-divine himself.

From this perspective the New Testament authors were able to clearly communicate Jesus as God without having to perform philosophical gymnastics of Greek thought in order to maintain Jesus deity without effectively nullifying his humanity while at the same time not reducing Jesus to a quasi-divine demigod or mere human. These Jewish categories allow us to appreciate Jesus in his full historical context, in the way in which he presented himself and the way in which his earliest followers understood him, without the weight of baggage brought on by such Greek philosophical approaches concerning metaphysical distinctions and ontological qualifications introduced and maintained by Origen, Augustine, and (perhaps unknowingly) Nicaea and Chalcedon. In this way we can once more into the eyes of that Jewish carpenter and see reflected there the true Messiah, fully God and fully man, and say along with Thomas, “My Lord and my God.”^[4]

^[2] Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel. Wm. B. Eerdmans. Grand Rapids. 2008. 37-38

^[3] Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel. Wm. B. Eerdmans. Grand Rapids. 2008. 27-28

^[4] John 20:28

YHWH comes to Moses in the Burning Bush

This is a continuation of a series on Monotheism, you can find the previous part here.

We have looked at the characteristics of Jewish Monotheism throughout the scriptures and the way in which Judaism used actions and events rather than metaphysical attributes (which define what deity is) to define who the one true god is. As we have examined, to Israel the true god is (1) the creator, (2) who is sovereign over all the cosmos, (3) who entered into covenant with Israel and rescued them from Egypt, (4) whom all the nations will some day acknowledge as the true god, and (5) to whom all worship is due. From this Divine Identity then comes forth the singular name with which Israel would identify their god. Chief among the sacred things of Judaism was the Name of God. It was the specific revelation given to Israel which finally distinguished them and their god from the nations of the Earth. The one true god over all the cosmos is YHWH.

The Tetragrammaton —  — the four consonants which make up the name for Israel’s god, was the name which finally identified the their god from all other gods of the nations. YHWH had made himself known to them and in all his acts he had given them a name which would distinguish himself from all others. In the context of the exodus event the covenant god speaks to Moses and gives to him the Name by which all future generations would call on their god.

God spoke to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, (El Shaddai שדי‎ אל) but by my name YHWH I did not make myself known to them.

(Exodus 6:2-3)

This is the highest expression of Jewish Monotheism. The one who was God had given to his people his Name. When Moses asked who he was to say sent him to deliver Israel from slavery, YHWH responds with the “I AM WHO I AM” (אהיה אשר אהיה), which would go on to be the one of the most meaningful references to the Divine Identity, becoming, some believe, the meaning of the Tetragrammaton, that YHWH would be who he would be.

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” (Or ‘I AM WHAT I AM’, or ‘I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE’) And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

(Exodus 3:14)

The Shema Yisrael (ישראל‎ שמע; “Hear, [O] Israel”) became the mantra of all of Judaism. Regularly repeated in prayer and worship, it was the cornerstone of Identifying who the god to which they prayed actually was. This instruction to the people was that they would remember the Name and the Identity of the one who had worked mightily on their behalf. As the Hebrews prepare to enter the Promised Land Moses gave to them instruction on how they were to live once they entered into the Land. At the heart of this was this singular command

אחד יהוה אלהינו יהוה ישראל שמע
Shema Yisrael YHWH Eloheinu YHWH Echad
“Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one.”

Deuteronomy 6:4

In is within the exodus event that the fullness of the God of Israel’s name is displayed to the people. First was given the “I AM,” then later the Tetragrammaton, and but finally, as Moses crouches in the cleft of the rock, Israel’s God trumpets his name once more in a manner which would become the repeated theme through out Judaism. To Israel, the Name of their god meant the fullness of who he was in reality. What was revealed to Moses in the rock cleft, as the glory passed before his eyes, was the Name which Israel would repeat again and again throughout their history.

The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “YHWH, YHWH, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

(Exodus 34:6-7)

This was the identity of the god of Israel. It was the name by which he was called, that by which he was remembered and distinguished from the idol-gods of the nations. Throughout the Torah, the Psalms and the Prophets appears the reminder that this name which was given on the mountain was the name by which the god of Israel was to be called.

‘YHWH is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.’

(Numbers 14:18)

To a nation all to often caught in disobedience and far from the one who had called them out of Egypt, the reminder in Israel’s worship was that YHWH was merciful. Throughout the worship songs of the nation there is the repetition of this Divine Name, the Tetragrammaton and the description that accompanied it. This was Monotheism expressed to its fullest; that the god who had revealed his Identity to this people was now worshiped as he truly is by his people

But you, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious,
slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.

(Psalms 86:15)

YHWH is merciful and gracious,
slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.

(Psalms 103:8)

YHWH is gracious and merciful,
slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.

(Psalms 145:8)

The Prophets continued with the theme, calling to mind the Name of YHWH. The message to Israel was that on account of this Name even in this late hour of sin and rebellion, Israel might remember the Identity of the one who they were to worship and respond to him. Joel reminds them of YHWH’s mercy and forbearance so that a people might turn and find their god relenting from doing harm. It was to the honor of the Divine Name that the Prophet appealed for mercy for his people.

and rend your hearts and not your garments.”
Return to YHWH, your God,
for he is gracious and merciful,
slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love;
and he relents over disaster.

(Joel 2:13)

And at the eleventh hour as destruction for Jerusalem is certain, Jeremiah brings to mind once more the Divine Name given to Moses. Israel’s god was one who is merciful and yet just in all his ways.

You show steadfast love to thousands, but you repay the guilt of fathers to their children after them, O great and mighty God, whose name is YHWH of hosts,

(Jeremiah 32:18)

And then as the exiles return to the Land, Nehemiah again calls to mind the name of the one who had brought the nation out of Egypt, through the Red Sea, planted them in the Land, drove them to Exile, and was now bringing them home again. The Divine Name was the hope of the nation. It was the assurance that the one who had been faithful to them in the past would be faithful to them even now.

They refused to obey and were not mindful of the wonders that you performed among them, but they stiffened their neck and appointed a leader to return to their slavery in Egypt. But you are a God ready to forgive, gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and did not forsake them.

(Nehemiah 9:17)

YHWH is the culmination of the Divine Identity. Israel knew their god through that which he had done, that which he was — creator, sovereign ruler, covenant maker, ruler over the echelons and worthy of all worship — and to all of that, to the one who had done all that they were given a Divine Name. Within that name was tied up the entirety of who the one true god was. “What is in a name” the Bard asks and the response of Jewish Monotheism is “the entirety of Deity.” The only true divine one, the only god worthy of adoration had given to a real people, to a real nation, a singular name by which he was to be known.

YHWH, YHWH a god merciful and gracious…

If you’ve ever read much of the Old Testament (OT) and paid attention, you’ll notice that there are two primary words* used for the Divine: “God” and “LORD.”  But why is that?  Religious people of various persuasions would say that they are simply synonyms and move on.  But is that fair?  Are we missing something by doing that?

Generally speaking, “God” (Hebrew ‘ELOHIM) is often used in the OT to refer to God’s universal lordship over all creation (see Genesis 1; Psalm 66; etc.).  “The LORD” (Hebrew YHWH, sometimes rendered Yahweh or, erroneously, Jehovah), however, is often used in the context of the universal God’s particular relationship with Israel, his covenant people (see especially Exodus 3:14).

A quick bit of background (I’m sure someone else has expounded this more thoroughly; this is just my quick explanation.): Historically speaking, following the exile, the Jewish people went out of their way to avoid breaking the third commandment: “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.” (Exodus 20:7 NRSV)  So they began substituting Adonai (our Lord) in place of the Divine Name, lest they besmirch God’s glorious identity revealed in his name.

And when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek, the common language of the Mediterranean world, during the third century before Christ, this practice was enshrined: YHWH was translated as Kurios (“Lord”).  Incidentally, most Christian Bibles correctly continue this translation tradition of substituting LORD in place of YHWH in the OT.

This leads to the sensational claim that is made frequently throughout the New Testament (NT).  The NT authors often claim that Jesus is Lord.  Which, considering the history just related, is breathtaking!  Get this: Jesus is Lord; Jesus is THE Lord; Jesus is YHWH!

Luke regularly uses Kurios to refer to Jesus, even in passing (Luke 18:6; Acts 7:59; Acts 9:10-11, 43 etc.).  John also refers to Jesus as Kurios (John 21:7; etc.).  And Paul repeatedly proclaims that Jesus is Kurios (Romans 1:4; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Corinthians 4:5; Philippians 2:11; to name just a few!).

This means that the appearance of the God-Man, Jesus the Messiah, totally redefines our understanding of who God is and what his relationship with creation and his covenant people has been.  When Paul (who was inspired by the same Holy Spirit who spoke to the ancient prophets) says, quoting the prophet Joel that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved,” he really means that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord Jesus will be saved”! (See Romans 10:13)  It’s the same as saying that “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9 ESV).

Theologically and biblically speaking, this is seismic.  The whole of inspired Scripture speaks of one God, who is both “God” and “Lord,” who is mysteriously revealed in the man from Nazareth who was proclaimed “Kurios/Lord” from the beginning.  Following this profound truth (throwing in a few other passages such as Matthew 28:19 and 1 Corinthians 12:4-6), the doctrine of the Trinity is a mere formality!

And for me, as a Jesus follower, it’s amazing to re-read with the OT with this in mind.  When it says “the LORD” I try to imagine that the Bible is talking about a pre-incarnate Jesus: “The Lord Jesus is my shepherd, I shall not want” (Psalm 23:1).  “I saw the Lord Jesus sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up” (Isaiah 6:1).  “The word of the Lord Jesus came to me” (Ezekiel 3:16).  Truly humbling.

This amazing, biblical truth also confounds those religious groups who would like to sever Jesus the man from the eternal Godhead.  Many apologies to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other groups who contend that Jesus is just a man or some kind of angelic being, but not God!  The truth is that Jesus is none other than the Lord/Kurios/YHWH.

Check back next week for the second installment!

* There are other titles and “names” used for God that all have significance, but these are the two primary, personal monikers for God in the OT.

52 The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”

58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

Questions to Consider
1. Who do the Jews accuse Jesus of being?
2. Who does Jesus say he is?

Food For Thought
This final scene is the climax of the temple conflict in John 8. The entire scene is like a verbal sparring match between Jesus and the Jewish leadership. They move back and forth, making claims and trying to persuade others of their truthfulness.

Here in this section, the argument comes to a head as the Jews claim Jesus is a demon-possessed liar. Jesus’ claims about “never seeing death” sound ridiculous, because the Father of Judaism (Abraham), died. Surely Abraham kept God’s words, yet he died.

The point comes to one of authority. How does Jesus have the authority to say such things? Because, as Jesus makes clear, he is equal with God. Jesus makes one of the boldness claims in the Bible by identifying the divine name (I AM), with himself. If you doubt Jesus is making an important statement, just notice how the Jews seek to stone Jesus (the penalty for blasphemy according to Leviticus 24:16).

Lots of things could be said here, but this one idea must suffice. Jesus didn’t come just to be our friend, our moral teacher, or our lawgiver. Jesus is more important (and older) than any created man. What’s in a name? Everything, because Jesus came with the authority of God, because he is God.

Moment of Reflection
1. How do you respond to those in authority?
2. How do you respond to Jesus?
3. Is there something you can do different in responding to our ultimate authority?

Closing Prayer
Father, through the aid of the Spirit, help me to live as one who recognizes your authority, and the authority you gave your Son. Amen.

Jesus, we want what you want.

By: Curtis W. Lindsey

The translation of the Septuagint was inherited by the early Christians, and the Fathers of the Church frequently used this version. As mentioned by the document, they concluded that during this pre-Christian era, the four Hebrew letters YHWH were translated as the Greek word Kyrios, which means Lord.

The Vatican, therefore, in editing the document, uses the argument of tradition and the theological meaning of God as revealed by Christ, as the One and Triune God.

Today, only octogenarian priests remember that in the former breviary, the prayer book of priests, was the proclamation of faith called Quicumque, meaning Whoever, which said:

“Whoever wishes to be saved must believe that this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity; neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance. The three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are distinct, but they possess one Godhead, equal glory, and co-eternal majesty….”

The Apostles’ Creed which we recite on Sundays is the same: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord,” and later, “I believe in the Holy Spirit.”

So continues this most beautiful and fervent proclamation on the Holy Trinity, that is not included in the four Hebrew letters YHWH.

To me, to ban the pronunciation of the divine name because it does not proclaim the Holy Trinity, is not good theology. If the God of the New Testament is the same God of the Old Testament, then the concept of the Trinity, although not explicit in the divine name, is implicit in the nature of the God of the Bible The same “I AM” (ἐγὠ εἰμι) of Exodus 3:14 is the same “I AM” (ἐγὠ εἰμι) of John 8:24.

Other Posts on the Divine Name:

Pronouncing the Divine Name – Part 1

Pronouncing the Divine Name – Part 2

Pronouncing the Divine Name – Part 3

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Divine Name, I AM, Jesus, YHWH

In his introduction to the article on YHWH in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, David Noel Freedman wrote (p. 5:500): “The correct pronunciation of the name was lost from Jewish tradition some time during the Middle Ages; late in the period of the Second Temple the name had come to be regarded as unspeakably holy and therefore unsuitable for use in public reading.”

The primary reason for this reluctance to pronounce the divine name is unknown. In the book of Deuteronomy, God’s name is called “this glorious and fearful name” (Deuteronomy 28:58). In Leviticus, the word “Hashem,” “the Name” stands for the Tetragrammaton (Leviticus 24:11). Probably it was the fear of profaning God’s name (Leviticus 22:2) that prompted Israel to restrict the use of the divine name.

Post-exilic books such as Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs do not use the Tetragrammaton. In the book of Daniel, a book that probably reflects the situation in the days of the Maccabees (2nd century B.C.), the name of God appears only in chapter 9.

The translators of the Septuagint followed the Jewish community’s tradition regarding the use of the divine name. The Septuagint translates the divine name as Kyrios, Lord. The writers of the New Testament followed Jewish practice and also used the word Kyrios to translate the divine name. A good example is seen in Joel 2:32:

MT: “And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of YHWH shall be saved.”

LXX: “And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord (Kyrios) shall be saved.”

NT: “For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord (Kyrios) shall be saved” (Romans 10:13).

In the New Testament the name “Lord,” the same word used in the Septuagint to translate the divine name YHWH, becomes a title used to identify Jesus Christ.

Josephus, writing in the Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94 A.D.) abstained from using the divine name. He wrote:

“Moses having now seen and heard these wonders that assured him of the truth of these promises of God, had no room left him to disbelieve them; he entreated him to grant him that power when he should be in Egypt; and besought him to vouchsafe him the knowledge of his own name; and, since he had heard and seen him, that he would also tell him his name, that when he offered sacrifice he might invoke him by such his name in his oblations. Whereupon God declared to him his holy name, which had never been discovered to men before; concerning which it is not lawful for me to say any more” (Ant. 2, 12, 4).

William Whiston, the translator of Antiquities added a note to Josephus’s statement. He wrote (p. 80) that the fear of pronouncing “the name with four letters, which of late we have been used falsely to pronounce Jehovah . . . is never, I think, heard of, till this passage of Josephus.” Josephus was also unwilling to write down the words of the Ten Commandments. Josephus wrote: “And they all heard a voice that came to all of them from above, insomuch that no one of these words escaped them, which Moses wrote on two tables; which it is not lawful for us to set down directly” (Ant. 3,5,4). According to Whiston, the fear to pronounce God’s name and the reluctance to write down the words of the Decalogue were taught to Josephus by the Pharisees.

The prohibition concerning the pronunciation of the divine name also appears in the Talmud. For instance, in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 90a is written:

All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it is written, ‘thy people are all righteous; they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified’ but the following have no portion therein: he who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros [an adherent of the Epicurean philosophy]. R. Akiba added: one who reads uncanonical books. Also one who whispers [a charm] over a wound and says, I will bring none of these diseases upon thee which I brought upon the Egyptians: ‘for I am the Lord that healeth thee.’ Abba Saul says: also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelt.

The fear of pronouncing the divine name may come from a possible misunderstanding of the meaning of the word נקב (naqab) in Leviticus 24:16. The New Revised Standard Version translates Leviticus 24:15-16 as follows: [15] And speak to the people of Israel, saying: Anyone who curses God shall bear the sin. [16] One who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death.”

The Septuagint, however, has a different understanding of the word. The Septuagint translates Leviticus 24:16 as follows: “And he that names the name of the Lord, let him die the death.” The Jewish Publication Society’s (TNK) translation of this verse follows the Septuagint: “[15] And to the Israelite people speak thus: Anyone who blasphemes his God shall bear his guilt; [16] if he also pronounces the name LORD, he shall be put to death.”

The text in which this legislation appears relates the story of a man whose mother was an Israelite and whose father was an Egyptian. This man was fighting with another man and in the process he blasphemed the name of God in a curse (Leviticus 24:10-16).

The NRSV translates Leviticus 24:11 as follows: “The Israelite woman’s son blasphemed the Name in a curse.”

The TNK translates Leviticus 24:11 as follows: “The son of the Israelite woman pronounced the Name in blasphemy.”

Both translations render naqab as “blasphemy.” However, in Leviticus 26:16, the TNK translates the word naqab differently from the NRSV.

NRSV: “ One who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death.”

TNK: “if he also pronounces the name LORD, he shall be put to death.”

So, the issue in question is: does the word naqab mean “to blaspheme” or “to pronounce”? I believe that the proper interpretation of this text determines whether the divine name can be pronounced. According to J. Scharbert, the root naqab appears in most Semitic languages and it means “pierce, make a hole.” The word also appears in Akkadian with the meaning of “deflower.” However, the word never appears with the meaning “to pronounce.” Scharbet wrote (p. 552):

In Lev. 24:11,15f. naqab takes on a different nuance in conjunction with the name of Yahweh. Because the verb parallels the piel of qll, it is usually translated “blaspheme (the name of Yahweh).” The different legal consequences (“bear the sin” in the sense of “have to live with the curse conjured up by the act” vs. ‘be put to death”’ show that nqb denotes a more serious offense than qillel. “Cursing” refers to careless derogatory speech concerning God; “blaspheming” refers to deliberate slanderous speech concerning Yahweh, with explicit emphasis on Yahweh’s name. It is unlikely that this passage already interprets the prohibition against wrongful use of Yahweh’s name (Ex. 20:7; Dt. 5:11) as an absolute prohibition against any use whatever of the name. The text refers rather to a negative “branding” of the name of Yahweh.

God said: “I am YHWH, this is my name” (Isaiah 42:8). God also said: “This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation” (Exodus 3:15). Giving his name to Moses and to all Israel was an act of divine grace which demonstrated how serious God was in his desire to establish a personal relationship with his people. As Fretheim wrote in his commentary on Exodus:

Giving the name entails a certain kind of relationship; it opens up the possibility of, indeed admits a desire for, a certain intimacy in relationship. A relationship without a name inevitably means some distance; naming the name is necessary for closeness. Naming makes true encounter and communication possible. Naming entails availability. By giving the name, God becomes accessible to people. God and people can now meet one another and there can be address on the part of both parties.

So, I do not believe there is a biblical admonition against pronouncing God’s personal name. But, should Christians pronounce God’s name? Since God revealed his name, a name by which he wants to be remembered from generation to generation, I believe Christians should be free to use God’s personal name with respect and reverence. However, since we do not know how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton, the use of “Yahweh” may suffice. The name “Jehovah” should be avoided because such a name does not exist. However, people will continue to use it in traditional hymns; I prefer not to use it.

I seldom use God’s name in preaching; in this I follow the biblical tradition and use either “Lord” or “God.” I generally use ‘Yahweh” or “YHWH” when writing or teaching. In using the divine name, however, I remember the principle established by the Apostle Paul. Since my Jewish brothers and sisters may be offended by the use of the divine name, I do not use God’s name in their presence for I do not want to offend them.

REFERENCES;

Freedman, David N. “Yhwh.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vo. 5. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.

Fretheim, Terence. Exodus. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991

Scharbert, J. “Naqab.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vo. 9. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998

Whiston, William. The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, n.d.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Divine Name, Leviticus 24, Lord, Yahweh, YHWH

This reluctance to pronounce God’s name is contrary to God’s will as expressed by God himself to Moses on Mount Sinai. When God revealed his name to Moses, God said: “Say to the Israelites, ‘YHWH, the God of your fathers– the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob– has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation” (Exodus 3:15).

Mariottini further argues that the name of God was celebrated in the liturgy of Israel. But he laments the fact that no one knows how to pronounce the tetragrammaton YHWH anymore. He promises another post on the reasons the divine name cannot be pronounced and whether or not Christians should pronounce it.

UPDATE 2008-08-28: Dr. Mariottini has posted his Part 3 of Pronouncing the Divine Name

J.L. Sweelengrebel, “Translating the Divine Names,” The Bible Translator. Vol 3:4 (October 1952): 171–196.

J.L Sweelengrebel, “Discussion of Translating the Divine Names,” The Bible Translator, Vol. 3:4 (October 1952): 196–199.

Noel D. Osborn, “This Is My Name Forever: ‘I AM’ or ‘YAHWEH’? The Bible Translator, Vol. 39:4 (October, 1988): 410-415.

Robert E. Smith, “By My Name YHWH, I Did Not Make Myself Known,” Notes on Translation, Vol. 4:4 (1990): 51-52.

Ray Pritz, “The Divine Name in the Hebrew New Testament,” Jerusalem Perspective, Vol. 4:2 (March/April, 1991).

David Bivin, “‘Jehovah’—A Christian Misunderstanding,” Jerusalem Perspective Vol. 4:6 (Nov./Dec., 1991).

David Bivin, “The Fallacy of Sacred Name Bibles,” Jerusalem Perspective, Vol. 4:6 (Nov./Dec., 1991).

Euan Fry, “Editorial – A special issue,” The Bible Translator. Vol 43:4 (October, 1992): 401-402

Since the above reference introduces many others that follow, I reproduce the text here and below each of the articles he introduces…

This is a special issue of Practical Papers devoted to a single topic. We visit again the topic of translating the names of God, especially in the Old Testament; and all of the articles and other contents of this issue will be on that topic.

Over all the years The Bible Translator has been published (since 1950) there have been many articles written from various perspectives about translating the names of God. Besides articles there have also been some books written about the names of God. One book which was made available to Bible translators for a time was The Lord is God by Hellmut Rosin. A more recent study is the book entitled In Search of God by Tryggve Mattinger.

Translating the names of God is a matter of great concern to many Bible translators. All translators have to deal with it almost as soon as they start translating seriously. It can be both a difficult issue and a divisive issue for a translation team. It is also an issue on which readers and hearers of the Scriptures have strong feelings. In my own experience as a Bible translator it was the hardest issue of all to work through in bringing together two different large churches in a single translation project.

It has become clear in recent years, if it wasn’t clear earlier, that no one solution to the problems we face in translating the names of God will meet all situations. There are variations and differences in the way names are used in different languages and cultures around the world; there are also wide differences in the existing names and ways of referring to deity. For this reason different approaches to translating the names of God in the Bible are necessary in different situations. And this is not to mention the variety of church usage and church teaching in different places and different Christian traditions!

It is not my place to go into the topic at length. This is just an introduction to what you will find in reading this issue of Practical Papers. However I must refer in this introduction to an important gathering which was held in May last year, which was an occasion for a number of papers and discussions on the topic of translating the names of God. This was a UBS Translations Workshop at Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe; and the first item in this special issue is a statement entitled “How to Translate the Name” from the group of UBS consultants and advisers meeting there.

Following the important statement from the UBS Workshop are a number of articles, which are mostly papers or parts of papers presented during the meetings. In all cases they have been edited for publication in Practical Papers. My special thanks in this connection go to my colleague Kees de Blois who was responsible for the selection and first editing of the material which makes up this special issue. He also prepared the bibliography which is the final item.
The first of the articles is in fact written by Kees de Blois.

“How To Translate The Name,” The Bible Translator, Vol. 43:4 (October, 1992): 403-406.
[Statement by the "Names of God" Study Group, UBS Triennial Translation Workshop, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, 8-21 May 1991]

Kees F. De Blois, “Translating the Names Of God: Tryggve Mettinger’s analyses applied to Bible translation,” The Bible Translator, Vol. 43:4 (October, 1992): 406-414.

Starting from Tryggve Mattinger’s study on the names of God, he discusses its consequences for translation. He underlines the importance of the associated meaning of the “tetragrammaton” yhwh, while still recognising its function as a proper name. He then summarises the three most widely adopted approaches to the translation of yhwh hyh with arguments for and against each.

Noel D. Osborn, “The Name: When Does It Make A Difference?” The Bible Translator, Vol. 43:4 (October, 1992): 415-422.

Noel Osborn writes of his conviction that choosing just one option to deal with all occurrences of yhwh is not the best we can do in translation. He discusses a number of references where understanding yhwh as a name makes a great deal of difference to our understanding of the passage; and he then makes a good case for transliterating yhwh in those passages. An important part of his article is a classification of 129 sample references in twelve different categories, with a recommendation as to how the name yhwh should be handled in each type of context.

Donald J. Slager, “The Use Of Divine Names In Genesis,” The Bible Translator, Vol. 43:4 (October, 1992): 423-429.

In the next article Donald Slager studies the occurrence and use of the two terms yhwh and ‘élOhîm ‘lh in Genesis from a literary perspective. He compares the source critical approach with that of more recent literary analysts; and he presents some explanations from a literary perspective for the name switching that is found in some well-known stories.

Ernst R. Wendland, “yhwh- The Case For Chauta ‘Great-[God]-of-the-Bow’,” The Bible Translator, Vol. 43:4 (October, 1992): 430-438.

Ernst Wendland gives a very revealing discussion of the translation of the term yhwh in the Chichewa Bible. He refers to the way the name was transliterated in the older translations, and then describes the approach of the most recent Chewa translation team to the problems of rendering it meaningfully.

Nitoy Achumi, “Translation of ‘God’ and ‘Lord’ in Some Naga Bibles,” The Bible Translator, Vol. 43:4 (October, 1992): 438-443.

The two final articles are both studies of the way the terms yhwh and ‘élOhîm have been translated in some of the languages of North India. Nitoy Achumi presents a study of translation in three of the Naga languages. He studies in particular the key terms in those languages for spirits or deities, and discusses how some of those terms have been taken and used in Bible translation. He notes a wide variation between the three languages studied in the way the name yhwh has been treated.

Benjamin Rai, “What Is His Name? Translation of Divine Names in Some Major North Indian Languages,” The Bible Translator, Vol. 43:4 (October, 1992): 443-446.

Benjamin Rai focuses on four major languages which are all derived from Sanskrit: Bengali, Hindi, Nepali, and Assamese. At the end of his discussion he concludes “that the last word has not been said on the question of rendering … yhwh in North Indian (and other) languages.”

On that note I will end my comments. We hope that the contents of the statement “How to Translate the Name” and the articles, along with the bibliography of previous TBT articles and other references, will be a useful resource for translators who face the issue of translating the names of God now and in the future.

Howard Hatton, “Notes: Translating yhwh: Experience In Thailand And Micronesia,” The Bible Translator, Vol. 43:4 (October, 1992): 446-448.

David Thomas, “A Further Note on YHWH,” The Bible Translator, Vol. 44:4 (October, 1993): 444-445.

Jørgen Larsen, “Still More on YHWH,” The Bible Translator, Vol. 45:2 (April, 1994): 243-244.

Marcelo Epstein, “On The “Original” Septuagint,” The Bible Translator, Vol. 45:3 (July, 1995): 322-329.

Daud H. Soesilo, “Sir, Teacher, Master, Lord,” The Bible Translator, Vol. 47:3 (July, 1996): 335-340.

Mary Steele, “Translating the Tetragrammaton YHWH In Konkomba,” Notes on Translation, Vol. 11:4 (1997): 28-31.

Katharine Barnwell, “Translating the Tetragrammaton YHWH,” Notes on Translation, Vol. 11:4 (1997): 24-27.

David DeGraaf, “Translating ‘God’ and ‘Sacrifice’ into Nyarafolo,” Notes on Translation, Vol. 13:3 (1999): 34–49.

Daud Soesilo, “Translating the Names of God: recent experience from Indonesia and Malaysia,” The Bible Translator, Vol. 52:4 (October, 2001): 414-423.

Norm Mundhenk, “Who is God in Papua New Guinea?” The Bible Translator, Vol. 55:2 (April, 2004): 215-227.

John David K. Ekem, “The Rendering of the Divine Name YHWH in Some Ghanaian Bible Translation Projects,”
The Bible Translator, Vol. 56:2 (April, 2005): 71-76.

Vitaly Voinov, “Pronominal Apostasy? Or: Whose God Do You Mean?” The Bible Translator, Vol. 56:4 (October, 2005): 239-245.

Nico Daams, “Translating YHWH,” Journal of Translation, Vol. 1:1 (2005): 47-55.

A letter dated 8 August 2008 was sent from Bishop Serratelli (Chairman of the U.S. Bishop’s Committee on Divine Worship) to U.S. Catholic bishops introducing directives from the Vatican in a statement from Cardinal Arinze on the pronunciation and translation of the divine name.

The divine name was revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14 and written as יהוה (YHWH — ‘Yahweh’), also known as the tetragrammaton (“4 letters”). The divine name appears 6877 times in the Hebrew Torah (according to the masoretic text published in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia), but it is normally read as ‘Adonai’ (meaning ‘Lord’) by Jews–but also by many Christians, especially students of the Hebrew scriptures–in order to respect God’s name “and keep it holy.” More recent trends have seen the use of ‘Yahweh’ appear in songs, prayers, and even some translations (e.g. the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible), and it’s wider use is evident the popular song ‘Yahweh’, written and recorded by Bono of the band U2.

Here is the letter introducing the Vatican’s directives…

Your Eminence / Your Excellency,

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has sent the attached
letter containing several directives on the use of “the Name of God” in the Sacred Liturgy.

We welcome this guidance on the use of particular terminology for the Divine Name, as it helps
to emphasize the theological accuracy of our language and appropriate reverence for the Name of God so consistent in our tradition. While the directives contained here do not force any changes to official liturgical texts, including our continuing work of the translation of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, which already follow the spirit of the directives, there may be some impact on the use of particular pieces of liturgical music in our country as well as in the composition of variable texts such as the General Intercessions for the celebration of the Mass and the other sacraments.

This instruction from the Congregation provides also an opportunity to offer catechesis for the
faithful as an encouragement to show reverence for the Name of God in daily life, emphasizing
the power of language as an act of devotion and worship.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Rev. Arthur J. Serratelli
Bishop of Paterson
Chairman

This letter, including the other letter with the directives from the Vatican, can be viewed here. Basically, what this all means is that the Catholic Church is instructed to…

1. no longer vocalize the divine name YHWH with such pronunciations as ‘Yahweh’, ‘Yahwè’, ‘Jahweh’, ‘Jahwè’, ‘Jave’, ‘Yehovah’, etc. in the liturgy, songs and prayers
2. render the divine name in modern language translations of the Bible with the equivalent of Adonai/Kyrios: ‘Lord’, ‘Signore’, ‘Seigneur’, ‘Herr’, ‘Señor’, etc.
3. in translating biblical texts that include both the Hebrew term Adonai as well as the tetragrammaton YHWH one after the other, Adonai is to be translated as ‘Lord’, and the tetragrammaton is to be translated as ‘God’.

So what’s so STRANGE about all of this?

First of all, it’s a bit strange that the issue of present day Jewish-Christian dialogue has come almost to the forefront in much of the discussion about this. See Fritz Voll here, Iyov here and here. Some of the best ideas concerning issues related to pronunciation appear in these posts and the discussions among the comments…

Charles Halton: “Yahweh or Adonai?”

John Hobbins: “The Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton in Christian Worship: Unanswered Questions”

Kevin Edgecomb: “The Four-Letter Word”

In truth, the directives from the Vatican do not mention “Jewish” relations at all, although one of the bases for these directives was explained in the ancient pre-Christian tradition…

The venerable biblical tradition of Sacred Scripture, known as the Old Testament, displays a series of divine appellations, among which is the sacred name of God, revealed in the tetragrammaton YHWH (יהוה). As an expression of the infinite greatness and majesty of God, it was held to be unpronounceable and hence was replaced during the reading of Sacred Scripture by means of the use of an alternate name: ‘Adonai’, which means ‘Lord’.

The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the so-called Septuagint, dating back to the last centuries prior to the Christian era, had regularly rendered the Hebrew tetragrammaton with the Greek word Kyrios, which means ‘Lord’. Since the text of the Septuagint constituted the Bible of the first generation of Greek-speaking Christians, in which language all the books of the New Testament were also written, these Christians, too, from the beginning never pronounced the divine tetragrammaton.

Comment: Nowhere does this letter refer to present day Jewish-Christian relations. In fact, it seems that Cardinal Arinze and Archbishop Secretary Ranjith went out of their way NOT to include explicit reference to the “Jewish” people—ancient or contemporary—in this letter. Even the above reference to pre-Christian tradition is not mentioned out of sensitivity to Jewish tradition, but for the express purpose of tying these directives from the Vatican to the tradition of the early Church that was inherited from ancient practice. This comes out very clearly at the very end of the first part of the letter that explains the bases for the directives…

Avoiding pronouncing the tetragrammaton of the name of God on the part of the Church has therefore its own grounds. Apart from a motive of a purely philological order, there is also that of remaining faithful to the Church’s tradition, from the beginning, that the sacred tetragrammaton was never pronounced in the Christian context nor translated into any of the languages into which the Bible was translated.

Certainly, Jewish-Christian dialogue must proceed on the basis of appropriate principles of humility and respect for differing traditions. But outside of Jewish-Christian dialogue (which the Vatican’s letter is), it is certainly appropriate for the Christian community to ask if the divine name can be spoken with due reverence.

So what’s so WONDERFUL about all this?

The most wonderful thing I have seen in this is something that has received hardly any attention at all, and some may feel that it actually flies in the face of Jewish sensitivities. One of the longest parts of the Vatican’s letter relates the ancient practice of translating the divine name as “Lord” in the Septuagint and the early Church to New Testament Christology…

This fact has had important implications for New Testament Christology itself. When in fact St. Paul, with regard to the Crucifixion, writes that “God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name” (Phil 2:9), he does not mean any other name than “Lord,” for he continues by saying, “and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil 2:11; cf. Is 42:8: “I am the Lord; that is my name”). The attribution of this title to the Risen Christ corresponds exactly to the proclamation of his divinity. The title in fact becomes interchangeable between the God of Israel and the Messiah of the Christian faith, even though it is not in fact one of the titles used for the Messiah of Israel. In the strictly theological sense, this title is found, for example, already in the first canonical Gospel (cf. Mt 1:20: “The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream.”) and one sees it as a rule in Old Testament citations in the New Testament (cf. Acts 2:20: “The sun shall be turned into darkness… before the day of the Lord comes (Joel 3:4); 1 Peter 1:25: “The word of the Lord abides for ever” (Is 40:8)). However in the properly Christological sense, apart from the text cited of Philippians 2:9-11, one can remember Romans 10:9 (“If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved”), 1 Corinthians 2:8 (“they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”), 1 Corinthians 12:3 (“No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit”) and the frequent formula concerning the Christian who lives “in the Lord” (Rm 16:2; 1 Cor 7:22; I Thess 3:8; etc.).

It is also a bit strange that…

Most online discussion has centered around the pronunciation of the divine name and have paid little attention to what this means for translation. Some have even said that this does not apply to Bible translation. Doug Chaplin here raises an interesting possibility: “The instruction does not target biblical translation per se, only liturgical use.”

Well, actually, in the three directives at the end of the letter, one is about pronouncing the name, and two are about translation. The very beginning of the letter begins by introducing the main topic…

…to communicate to the Bishops’ Conferences the following as regards the translation and the pronunciation, in a liturgical setting, of the Divine Name signified in the sacred tetragrammaton, along with a number of directives.

Can the phrase “in a liturgical setting” be understood to modify ‘translation’ as well as ‘pronunciation’? Does translation occur in a liturgical setting? Perhaps this refers to the use of the Jerusalem Bible–which frequently spells out Yahweh–in the liturgy. Doug Chaplin explains, “Although the lectionary is based on the Jerusalem Bible, the readings printed out in lectionaries and missals use the convention of replacing the divine name with ‘Lord’.” On the other hand, the end of the Vatican’s letter is clear…

For the translation of the Biblical text in modern languages, destined for the liturgical usage of
the Church, what is already prescribed by n. 41 of the Liturgiam authenticam is to be followed; that is, the divine tetragrammaton is to be rendered by the equivalent of Adonai/Kyrios: “Lord”, “Signore”, “Seigneur”, “Herr”, “Señor“, etc.

This can only mean the process of translating the Bible that happens prior to liturgical usage.

The letter continues with an explication of Bible translation philosophy…

The words of Sacred Scripture contained in the Old and New Testament express truth which transcends the limits imposed by time and place. They are the Word of God expressed in human words and, by means of these words of life, the Holy Spirit introduces the faithful to knowledge of the truth whole and entire and thus the Word of Christ comes to dwell in the faithful in all its richness (cf. Jn 14:26; 16:12-15). In order that the Word of God, written in the sacred texts, may be conserved and transmitted in an integral and faithful manner, every modern translation of the books of the Bible aims at being a faithful and accurate transposition of the original texts. Such a literary effort requires that the original text be translated with the maximum integrity and accuracy, without omissions or additions with regard to the contents, and without introducing explanatory glosses or paraphrases which do not belong to the sacred text itself.

As regards the sacred name of God himself, translators must use the greatest faithfulness and respect.

Comment: On the whole, this is a worthy translation philosophy to attain to, but it really is an impossible task. Any linguist is aware of the vast differences between languages and understands that no translation can truly be made “without omissions or additions with regard to the contents, and without introducing explanatory glosses or paraphrases which do not belong to the sacred text itself.” Obviously, translation teams must try to minimize these elements, but that this goal might actually be attained seems a bit overstated. It is this overstatement of translation philosophy that makes the directive to render the divine name always as the equivalent of Adonai / Kyrios / ‘Lord’ a bit simplistic for a more complex translation problem.

Question: How do directives like this and the Liturgiam authenticam relate to the Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible, the New Revised Version, Rome (1987). In these guidelines, “The clear goal of this interconfessional effort is to produce editions of the Holy Scriptures which provide all speakers of the language with a common text.”

People from different backgrounds and of different faiths can say the same words but sound very different form each other.

I think this is evident mostly in the usage of the name of Jesus. (I know, the title to the post could be a little misleading, thinking I would be addressing the use of yhwh.) This struck me last night as I heard a small part of a conversation between two other people.

I grew up in Utah attending the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Over the nineteen years I spent in the same ward I suppose I heard the name of Jesus spoken thousands of times. From the years in primary when we’d sing songs about trying to be like Him, to the days sitting in seminary and listening to the teacher testify that only through Him can we have hope for salvation. And in all those nineteen years, for all the times I heard his name spoken from hundreds of different mouths, I think it mostly sounded the same. It was the Mormon way of speaking His name.

Then I served a mission. Two years in Michigan brought me into contact with thousands of individuals who also believed in Jesus and trusted in Him for salvation. I had fruitful discussions with many of these individuals, and heard His name spoken many many times. And from the mouths of so many of these wonderful Christian people the name of Jesus sounded different. I couldn’t pinpoint exactly what it was, but there was something different in the way they said it. This was particularly the case with those of a Pentecostal background (as I met more who considered themselves Pentecostal than anything), but from my experience translates into that broad category of Evangelicalism.

Then last night, as I overheard a small part of this particular conversation, I heard the name of Jesus spoken again. This time it was spoken by someone who believes in a large range of philosophies and religions, and he’s not really holden to one or the other very much. When he spoke Jesus’ name, it sounded different from both the Mormons I know and the Evangelicals.

I’ve definitely got a sense of some cross-over cadences as well. One of my Mormon professors at BYU had a very Evangelical tone in his voice when he spoke Jesus’ name. A lot of academics who are approaching scriptural texts using a particular scholarly methodology kind of have a mix of all three cadences (depending on their own beliefs or lack thereof).

It’s really quite fascinating. I’m wondering though, am I the only one who hears this, or do others as well?