Tag: Name of God

Notes on Prayer: 1 Kings 8:44-53

1 Kings 8:44-53

Solomon’s Prayer in 1 Kings 8 concludes with two contrasting situations for the people (and the kingdom) involving warfare. The situations each begin with the particle yK! followed by an introductory verb:

    • “When [yK!] your people goes out [ax@y@] against its enemy…” (v. 44)
    • “When [yK!] they do wrong [Waf=j#y#] to you [i.e. sin against you] … and you give them (over) to (the) face of (the) enemy…” (v. 46)

In each instance, the people go out to battle a foreign enemy. In the first instance (vv. 44-45), it is assumed that the people, as a whole, have been faithful/loyal to the covenant with YHWH (and its Torah); as a result, the expectation is that, when they pray to YHWH (in the direction of the Temple), He will hear their prayer and answer them (that is, give victory to them).

In the second instance (vv. 46-50), when the people have sinned against YHWH, transgressing against the covenant (as a people/nation), then they will be defeated by the enemy in battle. As is typical in the Old Testament, such a military defeat against God’s people is viewed as a manifestation of Divine judgment. The wording here makes it clear that defeat comes from YHWH’s initiative: “…you give them (over) to (the) face of (the) enemy”. The same basic situation was described briefly in vv. 33-34, along with an allusion to the exile of the population; the theme of exile is given much greater prominence here:

“…to (the) face of (the) enemy, and they take them captive (as) their captives to (the) land of the enemy, (whether it is) far or near” (v. 46b)

The dual-use of the verb hb*v* (“take captive”) is emphatic, emphasizing the captivity of the defeated people, being exiled off to a foreign land. Many commentators feel that this emphasis on exile is an indication of a Exilic date for the Prayer; at the very least, it does seem likely that the reality of exile played a role in the literary shaping of the Prayer (in the context of Kings) as it has come down to us. However, this need not mean that the Babylonian Captivity (of Judah) had already taken place when the Prayer was composed (and/or edited). If the reign of Josiah is the primary setting for the book of Kings (and the editing of the Deuteronomic history as a whole), then the Judean kingdom would still have been intact (along with Jerusalem and the Temple), but the reality of exile would have been experienced through the earlier Assyrian conquests (including the conquest/exile of the Northern Israelite Kingdom).

In any case, the prospect of exile for a defeated population would have been natural enough at any time in the ancient Near East. It is not necessary to make any definitive judgment regarding the background and composition of the book of Kings (or the Prayer in particular), in order for this passage (and the situation it describes) to be relevant for the audience. As in vv. 33-34, here the promise is that, if the people genuinely repent, confess their sins, and pray to YHWH, then He will forgive their sins and eventually restore them to their land (vv. 47-50).

Again, a sign of their faith and devotion is that, when they pray to YHWH, they pray in the direction of the Temple:

“And (if) they return to you with all their heart, and with all their soul, in the land of their enemies who took them captive, and they make prayer to you (on the) path (to) [i.e., in the direction of] their land that you gave to their fathers, (and) to the city that you chose, and the house that I have built for your name…” (v. 48)

The Temple as the unifying focal point of prayer for the people has been emphasized throughout vv. 31-50, being specifically mentioned in each of the examples given. As I have noted, the importance of this symbolism lies in the idea that YHWH’s name resides in the Temple. Even though God actually dwells in heaven (where He hears the prayer), the prayer itself is made in the direction of the Temple, as a symbolic point on earth where God’s people can direct their worship and devotion to Him.

The presence of God’s name also indicates ownership and possession. That is to say, it is an indication that the Temple belongs to YHWH; the Temple is the focal point at the center, but the sign of ownership radiates outward, encompassing the city of Jerusalem, the territory of Judah, and the entire land/kingdom of Israel (along with its people). All of it belongs to YHWH, even as Israel is God’s own people. This is the theological point emphasized in the concluding verses 51-53:

“For your people, they indeed are your inheritance, which you brought forth from (the) land of Egypt, from (the) midst of (the) pot for (smelting) iron, (so that) your eyes (are) to be open (to the) request for favor by your servant, and (to the) request by your people Yisrael, to listen to them in every (moment) they call to you. For you separated them for yourself, for an inheritance, from all (the) people of the earth, just as you spoke (it) by (the) hand of Moshe your servant in your bringing forth our fathers from Egypt, my Lord YHWH.”

The Prayer closes much as it began, with a reference to the Exodus (v. 16). This defining moment in the history of Israel, essentially marking the beginning of their ‘birth’ as God’s people, frames the Prayer. It provides the backdrop for the choice of Jerusalem and the centralization of worship focused on the Temple building. The name of YHWH that resides in the Temple properly symbolizes the covenant bond between YHWH and His people—they are His people (belonging to Him), and He is their God.

The same essential symbolism applies, even when the concept of being God’s people has shifted and expanded to include all believers in Christ. The idea of the unifying presence of God’s name, as an abiding sign of the covenant bond, continues for us today as believers. In the next study, we will begin to explore this line of interpretation further, even as we examine the concluding verses of 1 Kings 8, looking again at the Prayer in its narrative context.

Notes on Prayer: 1 Kings 8:41-43

Before proceeding with the next section of the Prayer of Solomon (in 1 Kings 8), it may be worth considering several points of interpretation, established from our study thus far, as they might apply to Christians (both in the New Testament era and today).

In terms of the religious and historical background of the Prayer, a key theme is the centralization of worship for the Israelite people, focused on the kingdom-capital of Jerusalem and the site of the Temple (Zion). This theme runs throughout the entire Deuteronomic history, beginning with the book of Deuteronomy and climaxing with the religious reforms in Judah under Josiah (2 Kings 23). For people all over the kingdom, Jerusalem (and the Temple) was to be the focal point of their religious devotion. Sacrificial offerings were to be presented only at the Jerusalem Temple, adult males were to travel to Jerusalem for (at the very least) the three great pilgrimage festivals, and, as expressed here in 1 Kings 8, prayers were to be directed toward the Temple.

The Temple filled the ritual and symbolic role as YHWH’s dwelling place among His people, His “house”. And yet, as the Prayer makes clear, God does not actually reside on earth in the Temple sanctuary, but in heaven. This important theological principle is made repeatedly, in spite of the reference (in vv. 10-13) to the older conception of God’s manifest presence residing within the sanctuary (of the Temple, and earlier Tent-shrine).

It is only God’s name that truly resides in the Temple. The name represents the person, if only in a symbolic and ritual sense; it also signifies ownership—i.e., the Temple building belongs to YHWH, just as the city of Jerusalem belongs to Him, and also the Israelite/Judean people (as His people). It is for these reasons, that the people are to demonstrate their devotion and loyalty to YHWH by praying in the direction of the Temple, to the place where His name resides.

This idea of the centralization of worship, focused on the Temple, has important implications for Christians, in light of the Christological principle that Jesus Christ essentially replaces the Temple, fulfilling in his own person the symbolic and ritual significance of the Temple building. For more on this subject, cf. my earlier articles in the series “Jesus and the Law” (part of “The Law and the New Testament”). This shift in focus is already evident early on in the New Testament, within the historical traditions of the Gospels and Acts, emphasizing the Temple as a place for prayer (and teaching/preaching), rather than sacrificial ritual. In this regard, early Christians were essentially developing the very emphasis we find here in the 1 Kings 8 Prayer.

The focus on the name of God also is significant in this regard. We may mention, for example, the well-established early Christian tradition that prayers were to be made in Jesus’ name. Even more important, from a theological standpoint, is the idea that Jesus (the Son) makes the name of God the Father known to believers. This is a prominent theme in the Gospel of John, particularly in the great Discourse-Prayer of chapter 17 (vv. 6, 11-12, 26). It serves as another key example of how Jesus fulfills the role of the Temple as the dwelling place for God’s name.

Finally, we should mention the related idea of believers as the dwelling place for God’s presence—now no longer symbolically, but through the reality of God’s own Spirit. The image of believers—both individually and collectively—as the Temple of God is most prominent in the Pauline letters. Paul applies the image to individual believers in 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16, while in Eph 2:21 it is applied to believers in a collective sense. The presence of God—both manifest through His Spirit, and through His name—in believers (as His Temple) demonstrates that we belong to Him and bear His name.

These points will be discussed and developed further as we approach the end of our notes on 1 Kings 8.

1 Kings 8:41-43

“And also unto (the) foreigner, he who (is) not from your people Yisrael, but comes from a land far off in response to your name— ” (v. 41)

Verses 41-43 make clear that the role of the Temple, applies, not only to Israel (as YHWH’s chosen people), but to people from other nations as well. The adjective yr!k=n` (cf. also the related rk*n@) is used as a substantive, denoting something that is “(not) recognized”, derived from the root rkn (“recognize, acknowledge”), presumably in a privative sense. From an ethno-cultural standpoint, yr!k=n` refers to a foreigner, to be distinguished, however, from the foreigner who comes to reside among the Israelite people (the word rG@ is used for such a person). Here, the idea is of a foreign visitor to the land of Israel, but particularly one who has traveled to Israel “in response to” (/u^m^l=) the name of YHWH—that is, because he/she has heard about the great things that YHWH, as the God of Israel, has done for His people. This qualification is clearly expressed in verse 42:

“for they shall hear of your great name, and (of) your strong hand and your arm (out)stretched— “

The “hand” and (outstretched) “arm” of YHWH are euphemisms for the exercise of His Divine power and strength, through miracles and mighty deeds performed on behalf of His people. This motif-pair is part of the Deuteronomic language, occurring repeatedly in the book of Deuteronomy (4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 11:2; 26:8; cf. also Jer 21:5; Cogan, p. 286), but the basic imagery is traditional—see, for example, its use in the Song of the Sea (15:6, 12, 16). In that ancient Song, as here, it is assumed that people in the surrounding nations will hear of the mighty things done by YHWH (vv. 14-16), demonstrating that He is far greater than any of the deities they worship (v. 11).

The second half of verse 42 picks up from v. 41:

“…but he comes and makes prayer to(ward) this house”

The fact that the foreign visitor makes prayer toward the Temple demonstrates two important points: (1) he/she recognizes YHWH as God, worthy of worship, and (2) she/he acknowledges the role of the Temple within the Israelite religion (i.e., the worship of YHWH). It is clear that Solomon (and the author of Kings) expects that YHWH will answer the prayers of such a devout foreigner, no less than He will those of His own people:

“you shall hear (him from) your dwelling place (in) the heavens, and shall do (for him) according to every(thing about) which the foreigner calls to you, so that (as a result) all (the) peoples of the earth might know your name, (coming) to fear you (just) like your people Yisrael, and to know that your name is called over this house that I have built.” (v. 43)

The prayer-wish is that, through the witness of such a devout foreigner, many other people, throughout all the surrounding nations, will come to respond in like manner—learning to know and fear YHWH, acknowledging Him (His name) as true God and Sovereign, and recognizing the Temple (in Jerusalem) as the place where His name dwells. This is an early example of a theme that would be developed in the later Prophets (and subsequently in Jewish eschatology)—namely, the prospect of people from the surrounding nations coming to Jerusalem in order to worship YHWH, and even joining with Israel to become part of the people of God. It is a theme that would feature prominently in early Christian thought, and, as a principle, would underlie the entire early mission to the Gentiles (cf. Mk 13:10 par; Lk 2:30-32; 24:47; Acts 1:8; 10:35ff; 13:46-47ff; 15:7-11, 14-18ff, etc). A key reference to the Temple, in this regard, is found in Isaiah 56:7, a Scripture cited by Jesus in the context of his Temple-action (according to the Synoptic tradition, Mk 11:17 par); the emphasis, as here, is on the Temple as a place associated with prayer.

Within Old Testament tradition, the Queen of Sheba (1 Kings 10:1-13) is the most notable example of a foreign visitor who comes to Israel and acknowledges YHWH as God (v. 9). Naaman (in 2 Kings 5) also features as a foreigner who recognizes that worship must be given to YHWH alone (vv. 17f); cf. Cogan, p. 286. In the New Testament, in the context of the early Christian mission, Cornelius (Acts 10-11) is the type-figure for the God-fearing non-Israelite who becomes a believer.

References marked “Cogan” above are to Mordechai Cogan, I Kings, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 10 (Yale: 2001/8).

Notes on Prayer: 1 Kings 8:33-40

1 Kings 8:33-40

Verses 31-32 (discussed in the previous note) dealt with the ritual role of the Temple, in the context of a specific socio-cultural situation. In verses 33-40 that follow, there is a return to the principal theme (and point of emphasis) in the chap. 8 Prayer of Solomon: the Temple as a unifying focal point for the prayers of the people. The idea is that the Israelite people, from every part of the kingdom, should be unified in their focus on the Temple, as the conceptual and symbolic location for the presence of YHWH (specifically, His name). In the vv. 31-32 example, the individuals involved are expected to travel to the Temple precincts in Jerusalem; however, in the examples of vv. 33-40, one simply may look toward (la#) the Temple, praying in the direction of the actual site in Jerusalem.

It is assumed that, while people may respond as individuals, in the face of dangers and crises facing the nation, ultimately the action will be collective—i.e., the entire nation unified in its prayer to YHWH, directing its petition to the place where God’s name symbolically resides.

Three different situations of crisis are given as examples, utilizing a formal pattern (with some variation). The first situation (vv. 33-34) will serve to delineate the elements of the process of the people’s prayer:

“In your people Yisrael being struck before the face of (the) hostile (one), (in) that [i.e. because] they have done wrong to you, and (if) they (then) turn back to you and throw (praise to) your name, and they make prayer and a request for favor to you in this house, then you shall hear (it) in (the) heavens and shall grant forgiveness for (the) wrong of your people Yisrael, and you shall return them to the land that you gave to their fathers.”

The condition is introduced by a construct phrase that is governed by a preposition and verbal noun (infinitive). Literally, it reads “In (the) being struck of your people…”; however, the passive (Niphal stem) verb makes this especially awkward in English, and I alleviate this somewhat above (“In your people being struck…”, i.e. “When your people are struck…”). Clearly, this refers to a military attack by an enemy nation; the verbal noun by@oa literally means “(one) being/acting hostile”, i.e. one who is hostile.

The context of verse 34 implies that the land (and its people) have been conquered by the enemy; this may simply allow for the most extreme example of being “struck” (vb [g~n`) by an enemy nation. However, the idea that the people who would pray are far away (in exile) gives added weight to the principle that, even when the people are dispersed over a great geographic distance, they are still unified in thought and purpose when they pray in the direction of the Temple. The use of the preposition B=, in the expression “in this house” (hZ#h^ ty]B^B^), can be misleading in this regard, since it might suggest that the prayer is to be made within the Temple precincts (as with the example in vv. 31-32). While individuals might, indeed, make prayer at the Temple itself, the real point of emphasis is on praying “in the direction of” the Temple; the preposition B= would then function like la# (“to, toward”). Principally, it is YHWH’s symbolic presence—His name—that resides in the Temple.

The people’s response implies repentance and a return to faithfulness. The verb bWv (“turn (back), return”) is frequently used in this religious-ethical sense. By turning back to God, one also turns away from sin. It is clearly indicated, in this example, that Israel’s defeat is a consequence of the people’s sin. For consistency with vv. 31-32 (cf. the previous study), I have translated the verb af*j* as “do wrong”. In vv. 31-32, a person does wrong to another person; however, here the wrong is done to YHWH, i.e., the sin is against God, implying a violation of the covenant.

It was common in ancient Near Eastern thought to consider military defeats, especially when they involved the destruction of cities and the exile of populations, etc, as a manifestation of divine judgment. The ancient Israelites were no different, and, indeed, the Old Testament typically explains Israel’s defeats in this way. It is an especially prominent theme in the Deuteronomic history, particularly as recorded and presented in the books of Kings. Idolatrous worship of deities other than YHWH is the principal violation of the covenant that brings about catastrophic judgment on the nation.

If the people, collectively, repent of their sin, turn back to YHWH, praising His name and focusing their prayers in the direction of the Temple (where His name dwells), then the expectation is that God will hear and answer their prayers, and will (eventually) restore any exiled populations back to the land. The sin will be forgiven (vb jl^s*), and the covenant bond between YHWH and His people will be restored.

In verses 35-36, a different kind of national crisis is referenced: an extended lack of rain (drought). This is introduced in the same way as the condition in v. 33, with a construct phrase using the preposition B= and a verbal noun (infinitive):

“In (the) closing up of (the) heavens, and there is (thus) no rain, because they have done wrong to you…”

The syntax overall is very similar to the earlier passage; it continues:

“…and (if) they pray to(ward) this standing place [i.e. where the Temple stands], and throw (praise to) your name, and turn back from their wrong (so) that you would answer them, then you shall hear (in) the heavens and shall forgive (the) wrong of your servants, even your people Yisrael…”

There is some variation in wording, but the formula here in the Prayer definitely follows the pattern from vv. 33-34. The expected response by YHWH, however, is given in a more expanded form:

“…(so) that you might instruct them (in) the good way in which they must walk; and you shall give (then the) rain upon your land that you gave to your people for an inheritance.”

Clearly, the drought, like the military defeat/conquest of the people, is viewed as the consequence of sin against YHWH (i.e., violation of the covenant). In the ancient world, for agricultural and pastoral societies, a lack of rain could be just as devastating (and life-threatening) as a military attack. Repentance from sin, accompanied by faithful worship and prayer to YHWH, will bring about a return of the needed rains.

In addition to the restoration of the pre-sin condition (i.e., abundance of rain), mention is made of the idea that YHWH would give instruction/direction (vb hr*y`) to His people, once they have repented, so that they would be able to remain faithful to the covenant in the future. This particular promise underwent development in the later Prophetic writings (of the exilic and post-exilic period), being specifically tied to the role of God’s Spirit in the New Age of Israel’s restoration. The Instruction (Torah) will come to be written on the heart of the people, so that they might fulfill the covenant without needing to be taught or disciplined (as in the past) any longer. For a list of the key Prophetic passages, with links to detailed notes, cf. the introduction to the recent series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”.

The final example (vv. 37-40) involves a famine (lit. “hunger,” bu*r*) in the land. Drought and famine are often closely related; however, life-threatening hunger can be caused by other circumstances, such as a military attack/siege, forced migration, displacement of populations, the shifting of rivers, and so forth. Verse37 actually mentions some of the agricultural conditions that can lead to failed crops (and thus hunger/famine): pestilence/disease, blight, mildew, locust (using two different terms, hB#r=a^ and lys!j*), and the siege (of a city) by a foreign enemy. This suffering from famine/hunger is broadened to include the idea of any “touch” (of disease) or “sickness/weakness” (the terms ug~n# and hl*j&m^, respectively).

Again, prayer to YHWH, directed toward the Temple, will bring forgiveness, and (it is implied) a restoration of healthy conditions. This example does differ from the previous two, as it implies that certain individuals or communities may experience suffering that others do not (v. 38). However, the expectation is that, for anyone who repents and prays earnestly to YHWH in this manner, the prayer will be answered (v. 39). This focus on the individual provides an important counterbalance to the collective/national emphasis in vv. 33-36:

“Indeed, you shall give to (each) man according to his ways, (in) that you know his heart—for you alone know (the) heart of every (one) of (the) sons of man” (v. 39b)

As in verse 36 (see above), Solomon’s prayer here also includes the hope that the Israelite people would learn from any such discipline, however painful, so as to remain faithful to YHWH (and the covenant) into the future:

“…so that they might fear you all the days that they live upon (the) face of the land that you gave to our fathers.” (v. 40)

Next week, as we continue our study on the Prayer (looking at vv. 41-45), we shall begin drawing some exegetical conclusions, based on our analysis thus far, which can be applied to the life-situation of Christian believers today.

Notes on Prayer: 1 Kings 8:27-30

The Monday Notes on Prayer feature for the remainder of Summer (in August & September) is focusing on the Prayer of Solomon in 1 Kings 8. Verses 22-26 were discussed in the previous study.

1 Kings 8:27-30

With verse 27, the focus of the Prayer shifts to the role and purpose of the Temple. This is significant, since the purpose indicated in the Prayer differs noticeably from the emphasis earlier in vv. 10-13. The shift in emphasis began already in vv. 16-17ff, with the statement that the “house” (i.e., the Temple) was built specifically for the name (<v@) of YHWH. The distinction is between a dwelling for YHWH Himself and a dwelling for His name.

In vv. 10-13 (cf. the earlier study), the clear implication is that YHWH personally comes to dwell in the “house”, being present through the theophanous cloud. This reflects an older line of religious (and theological) tradition, drawing upon anthropomorphic and cosmological-mythic concepts—i.e., the Deity is personally present and manifest in the theophanous cloud, with the Temple building (esp. the sanctuary) serving as His dwelling-place on earth.

While this line of tradition is acknowledged in vv. 10-13, it disappears completely from the remainder of the narrative. Indeed, within the Prayer proper, there is no mention at all of YHWH Himself dwelling in the Temple, but only His name. This is especially clear here in verse 27:

“But (is it) that (the) Mightiest can truly sit [i.e. dwell] upon the earth? See, the heavens—even (the) heavens of the heavens—can not contain you, (and) even (less) that this house which I have built (could do so)!”

The theological point is that the Creator El-YHWH cannot truly, in a metaphysical sense, dwell in a building on earth. His true dwelling is in heaven—and yet, even the heavens cannot actually contain him. The verb lWK has the concrete meaning “contain” (as in a vessel), implying that a physical/material substance is involved. This is one of the clearest statements in the Old Testament Scriptures regarding the transcendence of God, expressed in terms of size. YHWH is simply too great and vast to be contained in any physical space.

The expression “heavens of the heavens” (<y]m^V*h^ ym@v=) is idiomatic; it follows a pattern—e.g., “holy of holies”, “king of kings”, “song of songs” —in Hebrew (and other Semitic languages), using this particular mode of construct expression as a superlative. The particular meaning of the expression here is “the greatest heaven,” “the highest heaven”, etc.

The ancient Near Eastern cosmology was geocentric, with the surface of the earth dividing a cosmos that tended to be seen as spherical in shape, the upper half certainly being hemispheric. There were layers—commonly three layers (i.e., three ‘heavens’)—to the upper hemisphere. Eventually the concept of a concentric spherical cosmos, with seven layers/heavens, came to be adopted on a widespread scale throughout the ancient world. According to this traditional cosmology, YHWH would be seen as dwelling in the ‘highest’ heaven.

Clearly, if YHWH cannot be contained in the vastness of the heavens, he certainly cannot be contained in a single building (built by human beings) on earth. In spite of this, Solomon continues:

“Yet may you turn to (the) prayer of your servant, and to his request for favor, O YHWH my Mighty (One), to listen to (the) cry and to (the) prayer which your servant prays before you th(is) day, (and for) your eyes to be opened to(ward) this house, night and day, to(ward) this standing place of which you said ‘My name shall be there’, (and) to listen to (the) prayer which your servant shall pray to(ward) this standing place.” (vv. 28-29)

The basic request, at the heart of the entire prayer, is that YHWH would pay attention to prayers made in the direction of (la#, “toward”) the Temple. As becomes clear in the remainder of the prayer, the Jerusalem Temple is to become the focal point of Israelite worship—in particular, for the prayers made by the people. Solomon (as king) represents the people in this regard. At the beginning of the request (in v. 28), Solomon refers to himself as YHWH’s loyal servant (“your servant”); but, at the close of the request (in v. 29), the same expression “your servant” stands for any faithful Israelite who prays to YHWH (as is clear from v. 30, cf. below).

There is a symbolic and ritual aspect to prayer, in relation to the Temple building. The location of the Temple (lit. its “standing place,” <oqm*, i.e., the place where it stands) has a unifying role for the people, and as a religious expression of their faith and devotion to YHWH. By praying in the direction of the Temple, the place where YHWH’s name dwells, this demonstrates that a person’s heart is directed toward God. Such prayer can be made at any time (“night and day”); according to Solomon’s request, YHWH’s eyes will constantly be open, attentive to any such prayer, and listening to (lit. hearing, vb um^v*) it. In the traditional religious idiom, for God to “hear” a prayer means that He will answer it.

The root llp is used several times in vv. 28-29, both the verb (ll^P*) and the related noun hL*p!T=; it is the basic Hebrew root denoting prayer to God. Prayer here is also defined specifically as a request made to God that He would show favor—i.e., respond favorably, giving help and bestowing blessing or benefits, etc. The noun signifying such a request is hN`j!T= (from the root /nj), which is formally parallel to hL*p!T=. Another word used is hN`r!, which means a ringing cry or shout; it can connote either a desperate plea (i.e., cry for help), a joyful expression of praise, or a confident shout (of triumph, etc).

From a theological standpoint, it is most significant that it is YHWH’s name, specifically, which “dwells” in the Temple. While YHWH Himself dwells in the heavens, His name dwells on earth among His people. In ancient Near Eastern thought, a person’s name represented and embodied (in a quasi-magical way) the essence and nature of the person. This was equally true in a religious context, when applied to a deity; to know a deity’s name meant knowing the deity. This name-theology represented a more abstract and rational/intellectual way for a person to relate to a deity. In this regard, it is particularly meaningful that YHWH’s name is related to the act of prayer. This is the aspect of the Temple’s purpose that is being emphasized here, rather than its role in the sacrificial ritual, for example.

The name of YHWH was important in Israelite religious tradition from the earliest times, but the name-theology took on special prominence in the book of Deuteronomy (and the subsequent Deuteronomic History, of which 1-2 Kings is a part). Beginning in chapter 12 (vv. 5, 11, 21), and then throughout the book of Deuteronomy, the implicit location of Jerusalem (and the Temple site) is repeatedly referenced as the place chosen by YHWH to set His name. The names of the Canaanite deities are to be removed from the land (Deut 12:3), replaced entirely by the name of YHWH, the one true Creator God, with whom Israel is joined in a special covenant-bond. His name is thus closely connected with the covenant, as is clear implicitly from the references here in vv. 9, 21. The people belong to Him, and this is symbolized by the Temple which bears His name, indicating a sign of ownership, etc. God’s faithful vassals (“servants”) will pray in the direction of the Temple—that is, toward His name—as a sign of covenant loyalty and devotion to their Sovereign.

The people, collectively, as YHWH’s servant(s), are emphasized in verse 30:

“May you indeed listen to (the) request of your servant for favor, and of your people Yisrael, when they shall pray to(ward) this standing place; you shall listen at (the) place of your sitting [i.e. dwelling] (in) the heavens, and (when) you listen you shall forgive.”

As noted above, the expression “your servant” refers not only to the king, but to the people as a whole; this point is made quite clear here in v. 30. Solomon’s request is that whenever the people pray toward the Temple, YHWH will respond favorably to them, answering their prayers, even to the point of forgiving (vb jl^s*) their sins.

The preposition la# has a dual-meaning in this verse; on the one hand, the directional aspect of praying “to(ward)” the Temple is in view (continued from vv. 28-29), but in the second half of the verse it also is used in the locative sense of YHWH’s dwelling in the heavens. This dual-use may be intentional, as a subtle way of juxtaposing the dwelling-place of YHWH’s name (i.e., the Temple) with the place where He Himself dwells (in heaven). For more on this, see the discussion above.

In the verses that follow (vv. 33-44), a number of examples are given of circumstances under which the people might pray to God, using the Temple as their religious focal-point. In the next study, we will begin examining these.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 33 (Part 2)

Psalm 33, continued

The central core of Psalm 33 is the hymn of vv. 4-17, recognizing God (YHWH) as Creator and Ruler of the universe. It may be divided into two parts, as indicated by the outline below.

    • Vv. 1-3: Call for the righteous to praise YHWH
    • Vv. 4-9: YHWH’s authority over Creation
    • Vv. 10-17: YHWH’s authority over the Nations
    • Vv. 18-22: Exhortation for the righteous to trust in YHWH

Verses 4-9 (discussed in last week’s study) focus on YHWH’s authority over Creation, while vv. 10-17 emphasize his authority over humankind (the Nations).

Verses 10-17

Verse 10

“YHWH makes the purpose of (the) nations crumble,
He causes (the) thoughts of (the) peoples to fail.”

YHWH’s control and power over Creation extends to humankind—the various peoples (<yM!u^) and nations (<y]oG) on earth. He has power even over those things which human beings (and their governments) intend and plan to do. God’s ability to know the thoughts and the “heart” of human beings came to be expressed by the traditional designation “heart-knower” (Greek kardiognw/sth$, Acts 1:24; 15:8), i.e., one who knows the heart (of a person). Here the Hebrew words are hx*u@ (“purpose, plan, counsel, advice”) and hb*v*j&m^ (pl. “thoughts, plans, intentions”), which overlap in their meaning.

Not only does God know the intentions of people, He has the power to frustrate them, causing them to remain unrealized and unfulfilled. The implication is that such intentions and plans are contrary to righteousness and justice of God, and reflect the wickedness of humankind; however, YHWH’s power over humankind is absolute, and He may choose to frustrate the plans of a people, even if they are not wicked per se. A pair of verbs, each in the Hiphil causative stem, is used to express this ability of YHWH: rr^P* (“break, crumble”) and aWn (“refuse, forbid, oppose”). The connotation of the latter verb in the Hiphil here is “make (something) stop working”, i.e. cause it to fail.

There is thus a clear synonymous parallelism in this 3-beat (3+3) couplet.

Verse 11

“(The) purpose of YHWH stands (in)to (the) distant (future),
(the) thoughts of His heart (in)to circle and circle (of life).”

In contrast to the plans of human beings (v. 10), what YHWH intends can not be frustrated or made to fail. His purpose is fulfilled, and what He intends comes to pass and stands (unaltered) long into the distant future, after each revolution or “circle” (roD) of time, and with it each generation of human beings, has come and gone.

Quite possibly, this difference between YHWH and human beings is expressed poetically by the difference in meter: a 4-beat (4+4) couplet in verse 11, compared with a 3-beat (3+3) couplet in v. 10.

Verse 12

“Happiness of the nation (for) whom YHWH is its Mighty (One),
the people He has chosen for a possession (belonging) to Him!”

This couplet draws on the religious and cultural tradition of Israel as the people belonging to YHWH, the nation He has chosen (vb rh^B*) as His own. The terminology used in this verse occurs in many other Old Testament passages—see especially the ancient poetic references in Exod 15:7 and Deut 32:9. There is a strong covenant context to this language. On Israel (and the righteous) as God’s “possession” (hl*j&n~), cf. Ps 28:9, and other references in the Psalms (68:10 [9]; 74:2; 78:62, 71; 79:1; 94:5, 14; 106:5, 40). At the same time, the covenant bond also leads to Israel being given a possession by God; and the noun hl*j&n~ is frequently used in this sense as well (Ps 135:11; 136:21-22, etc). On the nations as God’s possession, cf. Psalm 2:8, and note, in particular, the Messianic interpretation of that verse.

For any nation—whether Israel or another—who recognizes YHWH as its God, there is truly blessing and happiness. On the use of the construct plural yr@v=a^ to introduce the beatitude-form, cf. Ps 1:1, and the previous study on Psalm 32 (v. 1). There is a bit of wordplay here between yr@v=a^ (°ašrê) and the relative particle rv#a& (°¦šer).

Verses 13-14

“From (the) heavens YHWH gives a look,
He sees all (the) sons of men;
from (the) fixed place of His sitting, he gazes
at all (the) sitters [i.e. dwellers] of (the) earth.”

This pair of couplets, with synonymous parallelism, expresses, in colorful and picturesque imagery, the authority and rule of YHWH over all humankind. His position of rule is His throne in heaven, on which he sits, and from there He looks down upon all the ones sitting (i.e. dwelling) upon the earth. Clearly, there is a bit of wordplay in the second couplet involving the verb bv^y` (“sit”).

Verse 15

“The (One) fashioning (them) looks on their heart,
the (One) discerning, to all their works.”

This is another couplet with synonymous parallelism; the two substantive participles (with definite article) are descriptive titles for YHWH:

    • rx@Y)h^, “the (One) fashioning”, i.e. forming human beings, like a potter out of clay; a traditional idiom for referring to God as Creator.
    • /yb!M@h^, “the (One) discerning”, i.e. God as one who knows and understands all things, esp. the thoughts and intentions (the “heart”) of human beings (cf. above).

Dahood (p. 202) is almost certainly correct in reading djy as the main verb of the couplet, which has been mispointed by the Masoretes. It is to be derived from the root hd*j* III (= Ugaritic µdy), “see, look, gaze”. This meaning fits perfectly with the context of vv. 13-14, and gives a fine sense to the lines. The couplet thus declares, in more general terms, what was stated in verse 10 (cf. above)—that YHWH sees and knows the “heart” (i.e., the thoughts and intentions) of human beings. Such immediate knowledge and discernment is due to His role as Creator; having created (“fashioned”) human beings, YHWH has full knowledge of their thoughts and impulses.

Verses 16-17

“There is no king being saved by (the) multitude of (armed) force(s),
(and) a mighty (warrior) is not snatched away by an increase of power;
the horse (is) a false (source) for (bringing) help (to him),
and by a multitude of his force(s) he shall not make escape!”

The thoughts and actions of the nations are controlled by YHWH, and this fact is illustrated most dramatically through the idiom of military force (“force, strength”, ly]j*), as representing the pinnacle of the power of the nations (and their kings). Ultimately, even the greatest kings are powerless in the face of YHWH’s overriding authority, which determines the course and outcome of any military action. It is not the strength and skill of a nation’s military that ultimately determines the outcome, but the providential, governing power of God Himself. Even the use of the horse-drawn chariot (and horse-riding cavalry), generally seen as embodying the peak of military technology in the ancient Near East (late Bronze and early Iron Age), will not bring victory if victory has not been determined for that people by YHWH.

Verses 18-22

The final section of the Psalm is an exhortation for the righteous, the people of God (cf. verse 12), for them to continue trusting in YHWH. It is parallel with the opening section (vv. 1-3) and the call for the righteous to praise Him.

Verses 18-19

“See, (the) eye of YHWH (looks) to (those) who fear Him,
to (the one)s waiting (in trust) for His goodness,
(for Him) to snatch away their soul from death,
and to keep them alive in the hunger!”

The watching eye of YHWH is a theme that dominated the hymn in vv. 10-17 (cf. above), in terms of His authority and ruling power over humankind. Now the focus shifts to the righteous, and YHWH’s all-seeing power is especially directed at His people, the ones who fear (vb ar@y`) Him and trust (vb lj^y`) in Him. The latter verb denotes waiting, but often in the sense of waiting with hope, with the confident expectation (and trust) that things will come out for the good.

The trust of the righteous is particularly aimed at being rescued by God from the danger of death. A number of the Psalms we have studied deal with this basic idea, sometimes in the specific context of being healed/delivered from a life-threatening illness. Here, in the final line, it is hunger (bu*r*) that is in view. In the ancient world, life-threatening hunger, as a result of famine, war, and other causes, was a pervasive danger felt by much of the population. In an agricultural society, the failed crop of a single season could put the survival of the population at risk. While the Psalm here may simply refer to the hunger of human beings in this way, it is also possible that there is a dual-meaning, and that the line is also drawing upon the traditional idiom of Death as a being with a ravenous, devouring appetite (i.e., “hunger”).

Verse 20

“Our soul waits for YHWH—
He (is) our help and our protection!”

The exhortation of vv. 18-19 is repeated here, in the form of a declaration–collectively, by the righteous. A different verb (hk*j*) is used to express the idea of waiting for YHWH (lj^y` in v. 18, above), trusting that He will act to bring deliverance. The terms “help” (rz#u@) and “protection” (/g@m*) have a military connotation, and thus relate to the imagery in the closing lines of the hymn (vv. 16-17, cf. above). The contrast between the people of God (the righteous) and the nations, frequent in the Psalms, is very much present here. While the nations (and their kings) trust in military power and technology, the righteous trust in YHWH Himself for protection.

Verse 21

“(And it is) that our heart shall find joy in Him,
for in (the) name of His holiness we sought protection.”

Here the protection YHWH brings is defined in terms of His name, lit. “the name of His holiness” (i.e., His holy name). In ancient Near Eastern thought, the name had a magical, efficacious quality, representing and embodying the nature and character of a person. In a religious context, to know (and call on) a deity’s name enabled a person to have access to the presence and power of the deity. This was very much true in ancient Israelite religion as well, in relation to YHWH and His name. The idea was enhanced by the specific covenant relationship between God and His people—Israel belonged to YHWH, and was under His protection as part of the binding agreement. The righteous seek out that protection, trusting in God; and, in finding it, they also find the joy that comes from being in that place of safety and security. According to the ancient idiom, they are protected by the name of YHWH—meaning, by the presence of YHWH Himself.

Verse 22

“May your goodness, YHWH, come to be upon us,
according to (the way) that we wait (in trust) for you!”

The final couplet of the Psalm takes the form of a prayer, by the righteous (collectively), addressed to YHWH. In it the righteous declare their trust, affirming that they “wait” (lj^y`, cf. verse 18 above) for Him, expecting that He will act on their behalf and deliver them in time of trouble. The prayer expresses the hope that, in response to this trust, God will bless the righteous, bestowing his “goodness” (ds#j#) upon them. As previously noted, the noun ds#j# (“goodness, kindness”) often connotes faithfulness and loyalty, when used in a covenant context, as is frequently the case in the Psalms. The righteous, in their loyalty to YHWH, hope (and expect) that He will give blessings to them in return, according to the principle (and terms) of the binding agreement.

October 27: Philippians 2:10a

Philippians 2:10a

i%na e)n tw=| o)no/mati Ihsou=
“(so) that, in the name of Yeshua…”

This clause—indeed, the whole of vv. 10-11—is subordinate to v. 9, and depends on the exaltation of Jesus by God (making him “high over [all]”, v. 9a, note) as being defined by “the name th(at is) over every name” (v. 9b, note), which God gives to him as a special favor. The “name th(at is) over every name”, given to Jesus, is clearly the same “name” (o&noma) referred to here. Strangely, many readers (and commentators) seem to understand the phrase in v. 9 in light of the expression here in v. 10, rather than the other way around. Moreover, in this regard, a casual (and careless) reading of the passage could lead one to think that “the name over every name” is simply the name Jesus (Yeshua). While Jesus/Yeshua, as a name, was certainly of great importance to early believers (cf. below), it almost certainly is not the focus or point of reference here. There are two ways one can understand the genitive relationship in the expression “the name of Yeshua” here:

    • an explicative genitive = “the name Yeshua”
    • a possessive genitive = “the name belonging to Yeshua”

The latter option is to be preferred as correct, if for no other reason than that the name is something given to Jesus (after his death and resurrection), implying that it was not something he already possessed (during his earthly life). What, then, is the “name th(at is) over every name”? A correct understanding requires that we pay close attention to the overall structure and context of hymn. In particular, I would make the following points:

    • The name relates specifically to the exaltation of Jesus (v. 9a)
    • The chiastic structure of the hymn, with its juxtaposition of “making low” vs. “making high”, indicates that the exaltation entails a return to the sort of (exalted) position Jesus held prior to his earthly life
    • Traditionally, in early Christian belief, the exaltation of Jesus is defined in terms of Jesus standing alongside (“at the right hand of”) God in heaven
    • Based on the description in v. 6, this would seem to imply that the exaltation involves the idea of his “being equal with God” (ei@nai i&sa qew=|)

All of this would imply that the name given to Jesus must be related to God’s own name. Bearing in mind the significance of names and naming in the ancient world (cf. the previous note), the “name” of God is no mere word or label, but represents and embodies the very nature and character of God Himself. There were two titles, applied to Jesus by early believers, which serve to express a belief in the divine status, or deity, of the exalted Jesus: (1) “Son of God”, and (2) “Lord”. In the earliest Christology, both titles were applied to Jesus primarily in terms of the resurrection, and, as it happens, by way of a distinctive interpretation of two Psalm passages (2:7ff and 110:1). This is clear enough from the early Gospel preaching (kerygma) recorded in the book of Acts (cf. 2:24-36; 13:30-33ff); the same basic kerygma surely underlies the formal usage of both passages in Heb 1:3b-13 and 5:5-10 as well.

However, given the more ambiguous nature of the title “Son of God”, which at an early stage was also applied to Jesus at the time of his baptism and earthly ministry (Mk 1:11 par; Lk 3:22 [v.l.]), it seems rather more likely that the title “Lord” (ku/rio$) is in view here in the hymn. There are several factors which would tend to confirm this; for one thing, it is the title that is actually applied to the exalted Jesus here in the hymn (v. 11, to be discussed). Also, the wording in Acts 2:36, reflecting the early kerygma, seems to be especially relevant; it states, somewhat uncomfortably (perhaps) for orthodox Christology, that “God made him (to be) Lord” (ku/rion au)to\n…e)poi/hsen o( qeo/$) at the resurrection. Vv. 9-10 of the hymn seem to be expressing much the same idea.

The importance of this title, ku/rio$ (“Lord”), as applied to the exalted Jesus, lies in its traditional use as a substitution when reciting the name of God (i.e., hwhy/YHWH/Yahweh). In Hebrew, the word /oda* (yn~d)a&, “my Lord”, cf. my earlier article on this title) was used, with the corresponding ku/rio$ for Greek speakers. While Jesus’ followers may originally have called him “Lord” as a simple honorific (= “Master”, “Rabbi”), the title soon carried a deeper religious (and theological) meaning for believers, as they increasingly came to realize the special divine status (and nature) which Jesus possessed. Indeed, there are instances in the New Testament when one cannot be entirely certain if the title ku/rio$ refers to God the Father, Jesus, or both together; for most early Christians, it seems, the title could be used interchangeably.

The Gospel of John expresses this identification of Jesus (the Son) with the deity of God the Father in a slightly different manner (which may be unique to the Johannine tradition). First, we have the numerous “I am” (e)gw/ ei)mi) statements by Jesus in the Discourses, which, in their own way, connect Jesus with the name of God (YHWH, cf. Exod 3:14 and my earlier article on the name). Second, there is the important theme, emphasized primarily in the great Prayer-Discourse of chapter 17, of Jesus (the Son) manifesting the name of the Father to his followers (believers)—cf. verses 6ff, 11-12ff, 26. The name also serves to define the special relationship between Son and Father at various points throughout the Discourses (5:43; 10:25; 12:13, 28; and note also the emphasis on Jesus‘ name [“my name”] in the Last Discourse).

Thus, for the reasons outlined above, I would tend to agree with those commentators (e.g., O’Brien, pp. 237-40) who identify the “name” given to Jesus as God’s own name, represented by the divine title (in Greek) ku/rio$, “Lord”. This interpretation follows (and is supported by) the line of early Christian tradition that associates the title specifically with the resurrection of Jesus and his exaltation to the “right hand” of God (cf. Acts 2:36 and the discussion above).  To call Jesus “Lord” in this sense recognizes that he holds a divine position and status alongside of God the Father (i.e., equal with God, v. 6). It is a ruling position, in which Jesus rules “over all” —which means that the “name” given to him is likewise high over all other names and titles, being the name/title of God Himself.

It remains now to consider the expression in the context of the full prepositional phrase: “in [e)n] the name of Yeshua”. Typically, in the New Testament (and early Christian tradition), the phrase “in the name of Jesus” is understood two ways:

The use of phrase here in the hymn is related to, but not exactly the same as, this traditional usage. There is the common theme of Jesus as an intermediary, through whom believers are able to worship and relate to God the Father in a new (and more direct) way. The idea of Jesus as a divine representative of God Himself is fundamental to early Christian belief, and is reflected here in the hymn as well. Similarly, our trust in Jesus is ultimately based on his special divine status as the Anointed One of God, His Son, who can be recognized as the very Lord Himself. Our salvation (from the Judgment), and with it the promise of eternal life, is rooted in the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus; when we “call on the name of Jesus” (= trusting in Jesus’ name), we participate in the symbolic imagery that runs through vv. 9-11 of the hymn. In particular, our salvation (through trust in Jesus) allows us to pass through the scene of Judgment alluded to in the climactic lines of verses 10-11. This will be discussed further in the next note.

References marked “O’Brien” above, and throughout this set of notes, are to Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, The New International Greek Testament Commentary [NIGTC] (Eerdmans: 1991).

August 6: Exodus 3:13-15 (continued)

Exodus 3:13-15, continued

Verse 15

In the previous note, we looked at the famous revelation of God’s name, Yahweh (YHWH/hwhy), in Exodus 3:14. There is strong evidence, both here in the book of Exodus (see esp. 6:3), and in the Patriarchal traditions of Genesis, that Israel’s ancestors did not worship or refer to the Creator God primarily as Yahweh, but as °E~l. This makes the revelation of the divine name in verse 14 something genuinely new—a distinctive revelation to his people from God himself. At the same time, as we saw, there are indications that the name Yahweh (in older form, Yahw£ or Yaµw£) would not have been entirely unknown to the Israelites in Egypt in the time of Moses.

The evidence is perhaps best explained by positing that Yahweh was an epithet or title used of the high Creator °E~l, in certain parts of the Semitic-speaking world (i.e., among Canaanites and Amorites), by  the mid-2nd millennium B.C. It may have come to greater prominence, as a divine name, among the peoples of south Palestine, the Negev, and Sinai, reaching even to the Israelites in Egypt. It is plausible to surmise that the name was in use among the Midianites and Kenites, SW Semitic peoples closely associated with Moses and the Israelites in early tradition. The narrative episode of chapters 3-4 is, of course, set in the context of Midian. The extent to which the name was in use among the earlier ancestors of Israel in Canaan is a matter of some dispute (cf. the occurrences in the traditions, Gen 24:12, 27, 42, 48; 28:13; 32:9).

In any event, beginning with verse 14, the “God of the fathers”, previously known primarily by the name °E~l, is now identified definitively for the people of Israel by the name Yahweh. This is clear from the words that follow in verse 15:

And (the) Mightiest [°E_lœhîm, i.e. God] said yet again to Moshe: “You shall say this to (the) sons of Yisrael: ‘YHWH, the Mighty (One) [°E_lœhîm] of your fathers—(the) Mighty (One) of Abraham, (the) Mighty (One) of Yiƒµaq, and (the) Mighty (One) of Ya’aqob—sent me to you’. This (is) my name for (the) distant (future); this (is) my memorial [i.e. how I am to be remembered] for circle (to) circle [i.e age to age]”.

God thus declares here that the tetragrammaton name (YHWH/Yahweh) is to be his name from this point on, into the distant future (<l*u)l=). Whenever the Israelite people—God’s people—think or call on him (vb rk^z`), it is to be with the name hwhy. And, indeed, we can note that the earlier °E~l names and titles recorded in the early Genesis traditions have generally fallen out of use by the 1st millennium, mainly being preserved in the older/archaic poetry of the Old Testament.

This leads to the interesting point of how the name would have been vocalized or pronounced. The Masoretic text offers no real indication of this. As is well known, the vocalization ho`hy+, reflects the customary reverential substitution of yn`d)a& (“my Lord”) for the divine name. This restriction against pronunciation of the name itself is of later origin, developing and becoming widespread during the Second Temple period. For Israelites in the late-2nd millennium, and into the kingdom period, we can only make an educated guess as to how the name would have been pronounced. The simple English transliteration Yahweh (Yahw£ > Yahwê) would seem to give an adequate approximation. Since a literal translation of the name remains difficult (and a bit awkward), and in regard for the pious convention of avoiding its pronunciation, I typically render it as “YHWH” in my own translations (cf. above).

The establishment of God’s name is preliminary to the act of delivering his people from their bondage (in Egypt). With the declaration in vv. 14-15, the message shifts to a commission of Moses in his role as God’s representative, who will lead Israel out from Egypt. It is noteworthy that the same identification of YHWH with the “God of the fathers” is repeated at the start of this commission in verse 16. It also is foundational for the message that Moses (with the elders of Israel) is to deliver to the Pharaoh (v. 18). Thus, the Exodus itself is rooted in Israel’s newly realized identity as God’s people, with their protecting God known forever more by the name YHWH.

Before concluding, let us return once more to the question of the precise meaning of the divine name (discussed in the previous note). On the generally accepted premise that it is a verbal name, derived from the root ywh / hwh (verb of being/becoming), there remain two possibilities:

    • It is a 3rd person (stative?) imperfect of the G/Qal stem, in which case it would essentially mean “He (who) is” or “He (who) will be”; this meaning is supported by the explanatory expression in v. 14 (according to the Masoretic pointing).
    • It is a 3rd person active (yaqtil pattern) imperfect of the causative (= Hiphil) stem, meaning “He (who) causes to be”, i.e. “He (who) creates”, or (possibly) “He (who) makes happen”. The external Semitic evidence, in my view, tends to support this meaning.

What significance would either of these have for the name in the context of our passage? First, it is clear that YHWH is the all-powerful Creator (= °E~l), and, as the Exodus narratives will detail, He holds power over all of creation, and will use it to protect and preserve His people. The causative stem more properly relates to this aspect of God as Creator. Second, the Exodus begins a process that will lead to YHWH re-establishing His binding agreement (covenant) with Israel; two aspects of this covenantal relationship are worth noting: (1) God’s role as protector of his people, and (2) the blessing/favor he provides, primarily in terms of the life-giving fertility and bounty of the promised land. Third, there is here also a newfound emphasis on YHWH’s presence with his people. This begins with Moses, and ultimately extends to the people as a whole as they emerge from their time in Egypt. Note the wording in 3:12; 4:12, 15, and how this relates to the revelation in 3:14:

;yP! <u! hy#h=a# (yk!n)a*) [3:12; 4:12, 15]
“I will be with your face [i.e. with you]”
hy#h=a# rv#a& hy#h=a# [3:14]
“I will be that which I will be“

It seems likely that there is an intentional wordplay involved here, and that this wordplay may have influenced the particular form (and/or vocalization) of the expression in 3:14. Following the Masoretic pointing, the sense in this regard may be that God (YHWH) is the one who “will be” with his people, i.e. ,”I am the (One) who will be (with you)”. The same phrase “I will be with your face [i.e. with you]” is found also at other key points in the early history of Israel—cf. Deut 31:23; Josh 1:5; 3:7; Judg 6:16—all of which seem to relate to the same basic line of tradition.

August 5: Exodus 3:13-15 (continued)

Exodus 3:13-15, continued

Verse 14

In Exodus 3:14, God gives his answer to Moses’ question (in v. 13), regarding His name: “…if (they) say to me, ‘What (is) His name?’, what (then) do I say to them?”. The significance of this question was discussed in the previous note. It implies an unfamiliarity with the name given in v. 14—Yahweh (hwhy). The identification of the divine voice with “the Mighty One [i.e. God] of the fathers [viz. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob]” leads to the important point that, in the ancient traditions in the book of Genesis, the Creator God is worshiped (and referred to) as °E~l rather than Yahweh (cf. also the explicit notice in Exod 6:3). All of this means that the revelation of the divine name here in vv. 14-15 is something truly unique and revolutionary, which will provide a new religious definition for the people of Israel. From this point on, God’s people will worship him by the name corresponding to the tetragrammaton hwhy.

But what of this name Yahweh/YHWH? To begin with, here is how it is introduced in the divine declaration of verse 14 (working with the Masoretic text and its pointing):

And (the) Mightiest [°E_lœhîm, i.e. God] said to Moshe, “I am that which I am [°ehyeh °¦šer °ehyeh]”, and (then) He said, “You shall say this to (the) sons of Yisrael: ‘I am [°ehyeh] sent me to you'”.

I have rendered the MT syntax quite literally; however, many commentators would maintain, quite plausibly, that true sense of the expression hy#h=a# rv#a& hy#h=a# (°ehyeh °¦šer °ehyeh) in context is “I am (the One who) is”. I tend to agree with this assessment. A more difficult critical issue surrounds the relationship of the expression to the name hwhy (YHWH) itself.

It is all but certain that hwhy has its origins as a verbal name or title, most likely derived from the root ywh > hwh (later hyh), a principal verb of being/becoming (i.e. “to [come to] be”); the explanation here in v. 14 confirms that derivation. If so, then it would have to be parsed as an imperfect form—hwhy being the third person singular, and hwha (= hyha) being the first person singular form, respectively. The real question (and one much disputed) then becomes whether it should be read as the simple G/Qal stem or a (Hiphil) causative stem. A strong argument can be made for the latter, even though there are no (other) clear occurrences of the hiphil for hwh / hyh in the Old Testament. However, if Exodus 3 contains genuinely ancient traditions from the time of Moses, then it is possible that the text here preserves older Semitic usage that disappeared from later Hebrew. The 2nd millennium evidence, such as the Mari personal names with a yahweh verbal element, tend to support this view (cf. below).
For a more detailed exposition and defense of the causative-stem view, see the now-classic studies by D. N. Freedman, “The Name of the God of Moses”, Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 79 (1960), pp. 151-6, and F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Harvard: 1973), pp. 60-71. Their essays build upon the earlier ground-breaking studies of Paul Haupt and W. F. Albright.

If the causative stem in verse 14 is correct, then the vocalization would need to be altered slightly from the MT—viz., hy#h=a^ rv#a& hy#h=a^ (°ayheh °¦šer °ayheh), “I cause to be that which I cause to be”, or “I create that which I create”, i.e. “I am (the One who) creates”. In other words, the declaration identifies the God speaking to Moses, the “God the the Fathers”, as the Creator (= °E~l), through the specific verbal name/title “the (One who) causes to be”. Cross (pp. 68-9) would reconstruct the expression in the older language as °ahw£ ¼¥ °ahw£—or, using the third person singular, yahw£ ¼¥ yahw£.

Note: ¼¥ (> z¥) is the older relative particle (corr. to Aramaic yD!), which came to be replaced in Hebrew by °¦šer (rv#a&).

There is some reasonably good evidence to support the view that Yahw£ (= Yahweh) was a name or title applied to the Creator °E~l in parts of the Semitic-speaking world (i.e. Canaanites and Amorites) during the 2nd millennium B.C. For example, there are attested a number of personal names in the Mari texts which contain a yahw£ -verbal component, following the pattern yahw£-{name of deity}, including yahw£-°Il (cf. Cross, pp. 62-3). The meaning in such instances, presumably, is “the deity caused to be”, i.e. caused this child to be, brought it into existence, gave it life, etc; the imperfect as jussive (or precative) would indicate a wish or prayer, i.e. “God, give life”, etc.

Regarding the existence of Yawheh as an independent divine name , there is no certain extra-biblical evidence prior to 9th century, where it occurs in the famous Meša± stele. More questionable is the apparent (or possible) occurrence in syllabic lists of South Palestinian place names in the 14th and 13th centuries, roughly contemporary with the time of Moses (cf. W. F. Albright, JBL 67 [1948], p. 380; Cross, pp. 61-2). This may not seem so significant, except for the fact that there are clear connections in the Moses/Exodus traditions between the Israelites of the period and the Semitic-speaking peoples of south Palestine (Edom), the Negev, and Sinai. Moses is associated in the tradition with the Midianites and Kenites, for example, and this may not coincidental, but rather may involve relationships that had existed among the Semitic peoples of the region. The 15th century Sinaitic inscriptions from Serabit el-Hadem provide evidence of cultural contacts among regional south Canaanite speakers, outside the immediate confines of Egypt; such contacts likely evolved over a number of centuries, providing the cultural and historical background for the traditions in the book of Exodus.

Along these same lines, we should note that Moses’ own mother has a Yah(weh)-name—db#k#oy (Yôke»e¼, “Yah[weh] is worthy [?]”)—the oldest such name recorded in Scripture (Num 26:59; cf. Exod 6:20). Beyond this, we must also take seriously the occurrences of the tetragrammaton within several of the Patriarchal traditions in the book of Genesis (24:12, 27, 42, 48; 28:13; 32:9). Taken together, and viewed objectively, this evidence suggests that, even if the Creator God was not worshiped by the ancestors of Israel primarily with the name Yahweh, it was a name or title that would have been familiar to the Israelites by the time they were dwelling in Egypt in the mid-2nd millennium. It may also have been the principal name used by the Midianites and other south Semitic peoples of Palestine and Sinai.

These points discussed above will be considered further, along with the overall significance of the divine revelation of vv. 14-15, in the next daily note.

August 4: Exodus 3:13-15

These daily notes during the month of August are supplemental to the current Study Series The People of God. Before proceeding with these notes on Exodus 3:13-15, I would recommend reading the current article (Part 1 of the topic “Israel as the People of God”).

Exodus 3:13-15

Following the initial revelation of God to Moses (vv. 1-6), the revelatory message comes in vv. 7-15. This message provides the basis for the commission of Moses to serve as God’s representative in leading Israel out of Egypt (3:16-4:17). The revelatory message climaxes with the declaration of God’s name (vv. 13-15). This is one of the most famous passages of the Old Testament, and yet one that is fraught with considerable difficulties for interpretation. In particular, the historical-critical issues surrounding these verses are significant.

Verse 13

The first point to note comes from a careful reading of verse 13:

And Moshe said to the Mightiest [°E_lœhîm]: “See, I am coming to (the) sons of Yisrael, and (if) I say to them ‘(The) Mighty (One) [°E_lœhîm] of your fathers has sent me to you’, and they say to me ‘What (is) His name?’, what do I (then) say to them?”

As noted on numerous occasions, I take the plural form <yh!ýa$ (°§lœhîm) in such instances to be an intensive (or comprehensive) plural, meaning something like “(the) Mightiest (One)”, more or less equivalent to the more common (and older) word la@ (°¢l < °il[u]), “Mighty (One)”, i.e. “God”. By the mid-1st millennium B.C., <yh!ýa$ was the established word for “God” in Hebrew, and is used regularly throughout all the writings of the period. In works which contain much older traditions (such as Genesis and the Pentateuch), these typically have been ‘modernized’ in certain respects, including the regular use of <yh!ýa$. Earlier Hebrew/Canaanite speech would have used °il[u] (= la@) instead—i.e., “the Mighty (One) [°E~l] of your father(s)” (e.g., Gen 49:25, preserved in poetry). Cf. further on the names El and Elohim.

The force of Moses’ question is curious, especially when one considers it from the historical standpoint. Does Moses already know God’s name (Yahweh/ hwhy)? or does the question imply that the name is unfamiliar to him? Indeed, what name would the Israelites, and other south Canaanite-speaking peoples, in the 14th-13th centuries, have used to worship their Creator God? Can a distinction be made between the Israelites in Egypt and their earlier ancestors (in Canaan)?

To begin with, it is important to note that the evidence from the book of Genesis strongly indicates that the ancestors of Israel worshiped (and referred to) the high Creator God as °Il / °El (la@), rather than Yahweh (hwhy). The early traditions themselves clearly support this (14:18-22; 16:13; 17:1; 21:33; 28:3; 31:13; 33:20; 35:1, 3, 7, 11; 43:14; 46:3; 48:3; 49:25). Moreover, there are no Yah(weh)-names recorded in the book of Genesis, whereas many El-names (personal and place-names) are attested, including a number of key religious/cultic sites (35:7, etc).

To this must be added the direct statement in Exodus 6:3, that God made himself known to the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), not by the name YHWH, but as °E~l (spec. °E~l Šadday, something like “Mighty [One] of the mountain”). Some commentators have sought to gloss over this, and thereby harmonize the passage with occurrences of hwhy in the book of Genesis. However, it is important to distinguish the use of hwhy in the Genesis narrative, written in the kingdom period (and certainly no earlier than Moses’ time), from the older traditions (where la@ is used). A devout Yahwist surely would make use of the tetragrammaton in writing a history based on those traditions. There are, however, several references where the tetragrammaton appears to be prominent within the early tradition itself (cf. 24:12, 27, 42, 48; 28:13; 32:9), and these are a bit harder to explain in light of the statement in Exod 6:3.

Even so, it is all but certain that the divine name Yahweh was not entirely unknown to the Israelites of Moses’ time. This can be affirmed, with some confidence, based on objective evidence from the Semitic-speaking world of the mid-2nd millennium B.C. It is also worth noting that, by all accounts, the earliest Yah(weh)-name recorded in the Old Testament is that of Moses’ own mother—Yôke»e¼ (db#k#oy), meaning something like “YHWH is worthy”. This will be discussed further in the next daily note (on verse 14).

April 23: John 17:26

John 17:26

“…and I made known to them your name, and will make (it) known, (so) that the love by which you loved me would be in them, and I in them.”

In the previous note (on v. 25), we discussed the important Johannine theme of Jesus as the Son who makes the Father known to believers. This idea of knowledge (vb ginw/skw) is central to the Gospel—we come to know the Father through the Son. With the Son’s departure (return) back to the Father, this process of revelation—of making known (vb gnwri/zw) the Father—occurs through the presence of the Holy Spirit, operating in Jesus’ place. It is the related verb gnwri/zw (“make known”) that is used here, and the Father is made known by way of His name (o&noma). Both of these are key points of emphasis in the Gospel, and especially here in the Prayer-Discourse.

Jesus speaks in the name of His Father (5:43)—that is, as His chosen representative, and more, as His beloved Son. Similarly, he works in that name (10:25), referring to the entirety of his mission (e)ntolh/) on earth—the signs and miracles, etc—culminating in his sacrificial death. In so doing, he makes the Father’s name known to his disciples. In verse 6 of the Prayer-Discourse, this is expressed through the verb fanero/w—literally, “make (to) shine (forth)”. This blends together the motifs of knowing (ginw/skw), and seeing (ei&dw, and other verbs), expressing knowledge (and revelation) in visual terms. The verb fanero/w occurs 8 other times in the Gospel (1:31; 2:11; 3:21; 7:4; 9:3; 21:1 [twice], 14), and 9 more in 1 John (1:2 [twice]; 2:19, 28; 3:2 [twice], 5, 8; 4:9). Here is how Jesus’ statement reads in 17:6a:

“I made your name shine forth to the men that you gave to me out of the world.”

The emphasis on the name of the Father continues in vv. 11-12:

“And I am no longer in the world, but they are (still) in the world, and I come toward you. Father (most) holy, may you keep watch (over) them in your name which you have given to me, (so) that they would be one, just as we (are). When I was with them, I kept watch (over) them in your name which you have given to me, and I guarded (them), and not one out of them went to ruin, if not [i.e. except] the ‘son of ruin’, (so) that the Writing might be fulfilled.”

Two points are clear: (1) the Father has given His name to Jesus (the Son), and (2) believers are protected and kept united in this name. As previously noted, in the ancient world, a person’s name was thought to embody and represent the essential nature and character of the person, often in a quasi-magical manner (cf. my earlier notes and articles on this point in the series “You shall call his name…”). Thus, in giving and making known the Father’s name, the Son is revealing the Father Himself (14:6-11, etc). Ultimately this is realized for believers through the presence of the Spirit, by which we are united with Father and Son, and in the bond of love that the two share.

Indeed, here in 17:26, the name of the Father and the divine love are closely connected, and both are fulfilled through the presence of the Spirit. It is through the Spirit that Jesus can continue to make known the Father (His name)—note the use of the future tense, “and will make (it) known [gnwri/sw]”. Moreover, it is only through the uniting bond of the Spirit that both God’s love, and the presence of His Son (Jesus), can be in us. God is Spirit, and union with Him can only occur in the Spirit (4:24). The abiding presence of this love—the Father’s love, given to us, as His children, through (and as part of) His love for His own Son—has been emphasized at a number of points throughout the Last Discourse, and again here in verse 23 (cf. the prior note). The same structural idiom is used: the Father gives to the Son, who, in turn, gives the same to those who trust in him.

This indeed makes for a powerful and fitting end to the Last Discourse, and to the Johannine Discourses as a whole. All of the key themes and theological points are distilled, in these few verses, into a poetic description of our union with God. It follows the chain of relationship—Father-Son-Believers—but is ultimately resolved into a triadic unity, which I like to represent (however inadequately) through the following simple diagram: