Who is our God? Chapter 5

THE GREAT NAME JEHOVAH

In order to help us arrive at the true import of the Name Jehovah, it will be useful to examine first of all a verse which has caused a great amount of discussion for centuries. Many commentators have pronounced Exodus 6:3 as very difficult of explanation. Others have been very ready to seize on this verse as manifesting a distinct contradiction in Scripture. "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by (the name of) God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."

It is submitted that the Hebrew text, with its beautiful simplicity, is well able to elucidate itself, and that there is no real difficulty.

In his Hebrew Bible (Pontefract, 1810), Boothroyd quotes the opinions of various scholars that the latter part of the, verse should be read as a question,—"and by my name Jehovah, was I not known unto them?" We have found it wiser, how ever, never to take a statement in the Scriptures in the form of a question unless there is some indication in the original text to support this exegesis. Moreover, such an interpretation makes the statement appear somewhat fatuous and undignified.

Quite recently, another suggestion, involving a radical alteration in the Hebrew text, was set forth in the November, 1945, issue of "Unsearchable Riches." It was suggested that in place of nudothi (I am known; I was known) we ought to substitute nurothi, to which is given the meaning "I was evil." It is quite true that in the current Hebrew script the letter, R is fairly similar to the letter D. But unfortunately for the theory, there is no manuscript authority for the proposed change. And even if it was the case that the superficially sanctimonious Jew altered the word out of a false reverence for Jehovah, why should this be the only case, where Jehovah is said to bring, or not bring, evil on anyone out of fifty examples cited, in which he made such an alteration? Besides, can it be true that the patriarchs did not know Jehovah as the dispenser of evil? Abraham must have been tremendously impressed and affected all his life by the terrible doom of Sodom and her neighbouring cities. Their awful fate was an evil which must have left its mark on his spirit and soul all his days. It was Jehovah who rained down brimstone and fire out of the sky upon the cities.

Jacob, too, looked upon life as an evil experience. "Few and evil come to be the days of the years of my life" (Gen. 47:9), he tells Pharoah.

To the novel suggestion put forward that we should read, "yet by My name Jehovah I was not evil to them," there are, however, much stronger objections. Such a theme is quite out of harmony with the whole context and proceedings, more especially so, when we observe that to read nurothi would mean, "I was (not) made evil." This word belongs to the Niphal conjugation, which is generally understood as a passive. Besides, the verb (roo, to be evil) nowhere else appears in Niphal form. The proper form representing "I was evil" or "I caused evil" would be erothi, as in Num. 16:15 (neither have I hurt) and 1. Chron. 21:17 (I have done evil). These are Hiphil or Causative conjugation forms. In fact, at Ex. 6:3 in place of "I was known" (nudothi) the Septuagint and some of the other ancient versions read the equivalent of "I made known" (eudothi).

The Old Testament in English published in 1917 by The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, although it cannot be credited with much originality or exactitude, reads, "but by My name Jehovah I made Me not known to them." Here the Middle Voice sense is beautifully expressed in fine English, after the manner of the A.V. at Eccles. 2:4-8.

At this point we present a literal translation of the verse, putting it into the past tense. "And I Was appearing unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob in God All-sufficient, and My name Jehovah I was not known to them." It will at once be noticed that although the word "in" (usually rendered "as" or "by") occurs before "God" the Hebrew does not shew it before "My name." Almost every English version is obliged to add a word here. Various commentators suggest that the Hebrew has lost a letter B (i.e. "in") before "My name," but there does not appear to be any MS. authority for this.

Let us observe how some of the well-known versions tender. Young: And I appear unto Abraham. . . . as God Almighty; as to My name Jehovah, I have not been known to them. Darby: And I appeared unto Abraham. . . . as the Almighty God; but by My name Jehovah I was not made known to them (or, I did not make Myself known to them). Rotherham: I appeared therefore unto Abraham. . .as God Almighty-although by my name Yahweh was I not made known to them. R.V. (margin): and I appeared unto Abraham. . . . as God Almighty, but as to my name JEHOVAH I was not made known to them.

It is significant that the Greek Septuagint does not use the common word for "make known," but reads, "I did not make evident" (edEIOsa). What the Hebrew text appears to intimate is, And My name Jehovah I made Me not known (or, evident) to them.

Beyond all doubt the patriarchs used the great name Jehovah, but did they understand all that it signified? As this name is a rather peculiar one for anyone to bear, it is very likely that its meaning was not at first clearly understood. How many even today understand what it signifies? The common explanations, such as "The Existing One," are ridiculous and very unsatisfactory. Even the Jews do not understand what the name of their Deity means. In fact, they have long shunned the Name, which is not surprising, as a manifested Deity they have never yet desired.
The first human being recorded as having uttered the name was Eve. The question arises in our minds, whether she knew something about its meaning, when she exclaimed, "I have acquired a man—Jehovah." Or might it be that she said, "I have acquired a man—him coming into being (or, coming into manifestation)," to give the name its probable meaning.

Or was the name born and coined when her first-born was brought forth? We cannot answer these questions. The fact that the first three chapters of Genesis speak of Jehovah Elohim is no evidence whatever as to the name by which Adam addressed God. It is not even evidence that Adam and Eve knew these names at all.

When we call a friend by his name George, we do not think of him necessarily as a Farmer or a Landsman: when we say Andrew, we do not have in mind a grown Man; Walter does not immediately bring to mind a Powerful Warrior; nor is every Adolf a Noble Wolf.

Let us bear in mind that Hebrew names compounded with Jehovah, such as Jonathan and Joshua (or Jehoshua), are to be understood as containing the personal name Jehovah. Jonathan means "Jehovah gives," not "A Giver is coming into being."

We may then ask, did the patriarchs take the divine name literally, and understand its import literally? When men began, in very early times, to call on the name of Jehovah(Gen. 4:26; cf. 26:25), this does not necessarily imply that they knew exactly what the name meant, and what reference it had to the distant future.

For it is very evident that the name Jehovah, so long as it may be used, is a name of futurity—"He Who is coming, or coming into being." It speaks of God's appearance, His parousia with men. It speaks of His activities for men, the great events which He will bring to pass. It speaks of His covenants, what things He promises will come to pass. Pre-eminently does the great name tell of ever increasing manifestation of God in Christ Jesus.

No one can tell definitely what is the origin or primitive meaning of the English word "God" or the German "Gott." We know the current meaning, but cannot explain it. Probably at one time the word Jehovah was similarly used, until God unveiled the real import of the name to Moses.
The Rev. A. H. Finn, in his magnificent book on "The Unity of the Pentateuch," which tears into shreds the ridiculous inventions and imaginations of the self-styled "Higher Critics," regarding the documents of the Pentateuch, points out that in the four passages in Genesis where the title El Shaddai (God Almighty) is used (17:1; 28:3; 35:11; and 48:3), it is intimately connected with the Covenant blessing. "Is it not then, at least possible that this connection of the Name with the Covenant indicates the true import of Exodus 6:3?" He adds, "The meaning would then be, It was as El Shaddai, God Almighty able to bless and multiply, and not as Jehovah, the Self Existent, that I made My Covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Now that the blessing of fruitfulness and multiplying has already been fulfilled, I make My Covenant with Israel as Jehovah, the unchanging I AM." After referring to Exodus 3:13, 14, and the likelihood of the people enquiring after the name of the God of the fathers, he says that a fuller meaning now became attached to the name Jehovah, a more complete unveiling of its significance in answer to the query, "What is His name?" "Why may not the statement 'By My name Jehovah I was not known to them' mean simply, 'I was not fully known to them'?" He shews that this limited sense of "know" is not unheard of in English, as in the prayer from the Cross, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." Here the obvious meaning is "they understand not. . ."

The patriarchs used the name Jehovah, but did not and could not perceive what was bound up in it, and what its real signification was.

The same thoughts are well expressed by other writers. Thus, Dr. Geddes, in the eighteenth century, renders as follows: "I am the LORD; who manifested myself to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God the OMNIPOTENT (Shadi); but my name IEUE (He that will be), to them I did not manifest." Hengstenberg (Pentateuch) says "by my name JEHOVAH" is equivalent to "in my character as JEHOVAH." He says the enquiry by the Israelites after the name of God would have had no meaning if the name were regarded as a mere name, and not as a designation of the nature of God, as He stood in relation to His people. Because at first the reality is designated by another form—"I am that I am" (ehyeh asher ehyeh, Exodus 3:14. Literally, I shall become what I shall become). "This passage treats not of the promulgation of the name JEHOVAH, but of the revelation of God as JEHOVAH." In Exodus 3:16 it is explicitly stated that Jehovah was the God of the patriarchs. He was now to show Himself to be "JEHOVAH in all His glory in the full manifestation of His nature." "From being EL SHADDAI or ELOHIM, He became JEHOVAH. EL SHADDAI is the undeveloped JEHOVAH; JEHOVAH is the potentiated EL SHADDAI."

When seeking to discover the true import of the name Jehovah, it is important to bear in mind that the title El Shaddai, which occurs about forty times, is used in pre-Israelite times, or by non-Israelites. Fully thirty of the occurrences of Shaddai are found in the book of Job, who lived outside of the Land, and probably prior to the time of Exodus 6:3.

The meaning of the word Shaddai is not very clear. There is not enough clear evidence to prove that it means "All Sufficient." In Job the usual Greek equivalent is simply Kurios (Lord), while El Shaddai is Kurios PantocratOr (Lord All-Wielder). Sometimes the Septuagint only has Theos (God). Occasionally it has hikanos (sufficient or competent). This is the regular expression found in the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.

Regarding the meaning of the name JEHOVAH, there is profound ignorance, which is quite inexcusable. In the first place, we may state categorically, that this name cannot mean. "He who was and is and will be." Those who aver that Hebrew possesses no time tenses ought not to put forward such a meaning. There is in Hebrew no word which means "He is," or "He will be" or "He was." A further reason is that in Hebrew there are no compound words of this nature, made up of two or three parts of a verb. Besides, the verb from which the name is generally derived does not express being or existence, as nearly everywhere stated, but coming to be, or becoming, which includes the thought of coming or appearing, and manifestation.

The Human Being who in ancient times appeared on earth as God seems on occasion to have had a body of flesh like ordinary men. Yet according to John 1:14, this Word or Logos now "becomes flesh." What was in ancient times the fleshly form occasionally assumed, now becomes the permanent form. Not only so, but He "tabernacles among us." If God could assume a form of human flesh in Old Testament times, in a moment, or at will, why should He not be able to become flesh permanently through incarnation?

If according to Gen. 1:2, "the earth becomes waste and sterile," the inference must be that it was not so previously. It became what it was not before. It turned into something different.
Rev. 1:8 may be a paraphrase of the name Jehovah, but it is no exact translation, for had it been, the Greek word ginomai (become) would have been used. The name Jehovah represents the third person singular of the verb Hayah (old form Havah) in its "present" or pictorial tense. This would signify "He is becoming," or "He will come to be." It must be related to the form found at Exodus 3:14, Ehyeh, which can only mean "I am coming to be." If the statement here means "I am that I am," then it is utterly meaningless and we are none the wiser. Doubtless God is the "Great I AM," but we may be sure His objective is not mere existence, but His continuous self-manifestation in Christ Jesus in the ages to come. It may be true, as one writes, that "when God's doings cease to surprise us and contradict all our notions, we may be sure that God has got nothing to do with them."

In this life, all our spiritual wealth comes alone by faith, and God gives only to faith. God has made ready marvels which eye does not perceive, or ear hear, and which cannot even come up into the human heart (1. Cor. 2:9). That is God as the God of manifestation. That is God as JEHOVAH. Let us believe His word.


Rotherham has a very fine note on the name Jehovah in the Introduction to his translation of the Old Testament (1897). He shews how the present spelling was unknown before the year 1520. He thinks the Name was meant to be understood, and asks, "Does not 'name' in the Bible very widely imply revelation? Jehovah's Name is continually adduced by Himself as His reason for what He does and what He commands: 'For I am Jehovah.'" Israel and the Nations are placed under discipline "that they may know that I am Jehovah." He thinks the expression found in Ex. 3:14 means "I will become whatsoever I may become." Similar verses are found at 2. Sam. 15:20 and 1. Sam. 23:13, where he would render the second verbal form as a subjunctive. The whole seven pages of this note ought to be carefully studied. His view is that the Name "becomes a most gracious promise; the Divine capacity of adaptation to any circumstances, any difficulties, any necessities that may arise, becomes a veritable bank of faith to such as love God and keep His commandments. The formula is a promise, the promise is concentrated in a Name. The Name is at once a revelation, a memorial, a pledge."

Others think the two verbs in Ex. 3:14 should be rendered alike, thus, either "I am what I am," or "I shall become what I shall become." But neither of these tells us anything. If God be what mankind understands Deity to be, He should not require to prove His unchangeable existence. Moses here was instructed by God to tell the children of Israel, "EHYEH sends me unto you," that is, "I-shall-come-to-be sends me unto you." Or, if the word is a Causative, the name would signify, "I-shall-bring-to-pass,—I, the-bringer-to-pass, sends me unto you." Herein was the guarantee that God was about to rise and accomplish great things for His People. God was about to reveal the incipient magnificence and power which is bound up in His Name Jehovah. God was fully able to do exceedingly abundant above all that the Israelites might ask or expect of Him, if they would only trust Him.

It is often stated that the answer occasionally given by the Lord to His questioners, "I am," is a reference to Exodus 3:14. This is certainly not the case. The idiomatic meaning in John 18:5, 6, 8 is undoubtedly "I am He," as Goodspeed and others have well demonstrated. The words BE and BECOME ought to be kept apart. The Lord did not say (John 8:58), "Before I came into being, Abraham was," as some would have us believe. He said, "Before Abraham is coming into being, I am (He)."

The Jews had argued that God was their Father. The Lord replies, "You have not got to know Him (egnOkate; that is, by learning and study), yet I am perceiving Him (oida; that is, know Him by perception)." This was something no human being could ever say. According to John 17:3, eonian life means "that they may get to know Thee, the only true God, and Him whom Thou dost commission, Jesus Christ." Getting to know God will take a long time, but perceiving Him can be instantaneous.

Alford has a fine note here (John 17:3), "The knowledge of God and a creature could not be eternal life, and the juxtaposition of the two would be inconceivable."

The Lord continues (John 8:56), "Abraham your father exults that he may perceive My-own-personal (emEn) Day, and he perceives it and rejoiced."

Can this refer to anyone but Messiah? "I am He" says the Lord. The reaction of the Jews to this startling statement shews just how they took His words. They had no doubt about His meaning.
If this can mean that the Anointed One was before the days of Abraham only "pre-existent to the Father's mind," we might well ask, whose Face was it that Abraham recognized and apparently knew quite well at the Oaks of Mamre (Gen. 18:1-2)? Right away does he single out one of the three "men," who he addresses as Yehweh. Here is eloquent proof that he who was called "Friend of God" (James 2:23) possessed that holy boldness which is begotten of a lowly and humble spirit, which alone can become intimate with God.

In an article in 'Unsearchable Riches' of date March, 1934, pages 111 to 122, entitled "The Incommicable Name, Jehovah," there is brought forth what is called a "triple-timed interpretation" of the name. It is explained as containing the three time ideas of He was, Being, and He will be. The Hebrew verb Hayah (otherwise eue) is said to mean BE or BECOME. We must protest, however, that its meaning never is BE merely. The Name Jehovah has nothing to do with mere existence. By {artificially putting together three parts of three Hebrew verbal forms of this word, the writer produces the form IEUE or Yehweh, which is no past form at all, but the future or present tense form. By doing this he claims, "we automatically obtain the name Jehovah."

While it is stated that Hebrew verbs contain no real time tenses, in effect this is reversed by a new rule, that "the context of the indefinite may show it to be in the past, but never in the future. The context of the incomplete may be in the future, but never in the past." It is stated that this has been tested in thousands of cases, and seems to be quite satisfactory.

Emphatically we protest that these rules are entirely erroneous, and are the result of wishful thinking. An easy method of putting the theory to the test is to use Dr. Young's Old Testament, as in every case he renders an aorist or indefinite verb in Hebrew by an English past or perfect. This has the drawback that the English often reads badly. Or the Newberry Bible may be used with advantage. In it the aorist verbs of the Hebrew are marked by a preceding dot, although the text is that of the Authorized Version.

Thus, in Zech. 13, the scene is entirely in the future. The chapter concludes with God's Eonian Nation acknowledging One as "Jehovah my God." Four times within nine verses does the A. V. say "And it shall come to pass." Each time in the Hebrew this is we-hayah, "and it comes to pass," which Dr. Young renders by "And it hath come to pass," or "And it hath been." This is the indefinite or aorist form, marking the fact of a future action. The action is not being painted or described, but merely stated as a fact.

In the next chapter, the predominance of indefinite verbs, to describe future events, is very pronounced. Right up to verse 16 there is hardly any other form of verb used. Dr. Young renders in v. 4 "And stood have His feet, in that day, on the mount of Olives," and in v. 9, "And Jehovah hath become king over all the land."

Similarly, in Isa. 2:2, 4, 11, 17, in a scene referring to the "latter end of the days," the verbs are in the aorist; although the mind is dwelling on the future. Many examples can be found in Genesis, as at 2:14; 3:22; 4:14; 6:3; 6:14, 21; 9:13-16; 18:19.

As for the incomplete or present verb form used in a context dealing with the past, Newberry points out that in the first chapter of Genesis, there are only nine aorist forms, but no less than forty-five of the incomplete forms, none of which refers to the future.

It might be added that the above "triple-timed" explanation of the name Jehovah is copied bodily and boldly from Newberry's note.

The facts which we seek to bring to light regarding the true meaning of the name Jehovah are denied by some who claim that only the Father is Jehovah. It is claimed that the Lord Jesus had no right to the name Jehovah. Such people are either very shallow thinkers or they have simply not examined the Scriptures. Thus, for nineteen hundred years scholars have known that the Greek LXX equivalent of the name Jehovah, namely KURIOS ("Lord"), when used in the New Testament as a personal noun, without the definite article, as at Heb. 1:10, means JEHOVAH. Other examples are found at Rev. 1:8 (How can the Father, if He is ubiquitous invisible Spirit, be said to be "coming" and be seen?); Rev. 4:8 (where the same applies, and the Lord Jesus is again called the All-Wielder).

We would refer readers to a fine article in the March, 1928 issue of "Unsearchable Riches," entitled "Who is Jehovah?" for further information. Apparently this has never been read by the Editor of an English monthly named "Fellowship," which is stated to be "For the Truth Seeker." In a special issue of this monthly for September, 1949, it is stated that "Nothing justifies us in applying the name Jehovah to our Lord and Master, Jesus." It is also claimed that the Father and the Son are not one in person, because both persons are recognized, and the Father is always given the first place in praise and honour. Now it is quite true that the Scriptures speak of both Father and Son, but never once as distinct persons. Fatherhood is one aspect of Deity. So is Sonship. When the Lord said, "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30), He proved their unity by not giving the Father first place.

Let us take another look at 1. Cor. 8:6. Here the Lord Jesus Christ is conjoined with the "One God, the Father," as He through whom the "all things" proceed from the Father. What is the subject of the passage? Paul is dealing with false—or idolatrous worship and sacrifices, and with the gods and lords many who were the objects of men's devotion. Christ therefore here is a legitimate object of such worship and devotion, and if He was not thus worshipped believers would have been involved in the very idolatry which Paul was condemning.

"Fellowship" maintains that the "philosophy of the Atonement" can only be properly understood, as we see the distinction between "Jehovah the Father" and the Lord Jesus. This is exactly the opposite of the truth. We can only grasp the marvel and the depth of the "Atonement" when we see that God is One Person. But we hope to demonstrate this later.

We were very much pained to read Brother Edgell's words, which lower the majesty of our Lord and virtually nullify His glory.

If the name Jehovah refers to God's self-manifestation surely it is pre-eminently applicable to the Lord Jesus.

In Isa. 64:1 the agonized and vehement prayer, "Oh that Thou wouldest rend the heavens, that Thou wouldest come down. . ." is addressed to Jehovah, and it is the feet of Jehovah which will stand on the Mount of Olives in a coming day (Zech. 14:3-4).

God's Executive, His Son, "He who brings to pass," must be Jehovah, because He it is through whom "all things come into being" (John 1:3), and He it is who manifests or unfolds God (v. 18).
In his famous book, "Varronianus" or "The Philological Study of the Latin Language" (Cambridge, 1860), Dr. John W. Donaldson says "The name Jehovah has reference to the fact, that the God of Revelation is the God Who manifests Himself historically, so that while Elohim is the Beginning and the End, Jehovah is the Middle, that is, God manifested in the world, and therefore always in process of being or becoming by his acts of redemption and creative power."

In his very scholarly and devout "Essays on Sacred Subjects" (Edinburgh, 1889), the Rev. William Russell comes to the same conclusions regarding the name Jehovah. "The ground notion is that of manifestation—of God's becoming all that His purposes intend, and His promises indicate, in accomplishing the great victory over evil which He had announced to our fallen progenitors." It was only in connection with their recovery from the Fall that the Creator made Himself known as Jehovah—"He that is to be manifested."

He also asks, "Why may not this earth, which, alone of all worlds, has been honoured to bear the footsteps of Incarnate Deity, become also the region where He shall exhibit the richest manifestations of His glorious presence, and from which He may possibly send forth, by the ministry of His redeemed, communications of His love and regard to the farthest bounds of creation?"

One of the most original and thought-provoking books we have ever read is called "Questions Awakened by the Bible," by Rev. John Miller of Princeton (1877, Philadelphia). There are three chapters, each full of extraordinary interest, "Are Souls Immortal?" "Was Christ in Adam?" and "Is God a Trinity?" Just as Dr. Dale has told of his great delight when he discovered that the Christ was really ALIVE, so Miller tells of his joyful amazement to discover the meaning of futurity indwelling the Name Jehovah. He renders Isa. 42:8, "I am HE SHALL BE; that is My name; and My glory will I not give to another." Ch. 44:11, "I, even I, am HE SHALL BE; and besides Me there is no Saviour." "This is the Whole Jehovah, and yet Jehovah confessing that it must needs be that He come in the flesh." In other words, we might render this as "I am He that will manifest Himself." Elsewhere he describes Jehovah as "One God, apart from any distraction till He becomes Emmanuel—and then, One God, tabernacling in the fiesh One God, Father, Son, or Spirit as we may choose our rhetoric—One God, complete in the divine decree from all eternity—but One God completed in Emmanuel, fitted by assuming flesh for the salvation of the world; building upon that enfleshed Jehovah all creation; and not talking as though God were the Angered, and Christ were the Merciful."

As Koelle writes in "The Goal of the Universe;" Jehovah, as the Immanent, the God of Revelation, the God of history, descends to the ways of men. Sometimes He hides His face, sometimes He makes it shine. God is One even when He looks like Two, the transcendent and the immanent, the Distant and the Near.

Why is it that Jehovah has ever longed to manifest Himself more and more to our guilty and unworthy race of men? Because the divine ideal has always been sonship to God, for the race made in His image. God desires a vast family, imaged after Himself. In order to effect this, He evolves from Himself His own Ideal of perfect Sonship. "I came out from-beside the Father," says the Lord (John 16:28). This Ideal was something within God (not something evolved by sinful mankind), proceeding forth to become the life of the world; the expression and realization in human form of that which was ever in God. That is why sonship towards the Father was the distinct and unique feature in the Lord's consciousness. Only as Man could God be manifested in a world wherein man is His chief creation. In the "mode" of Son He becomes Creator so that this glorious Sonship may be attained by the race. This is the satisfying thought which can justify the creation, with all the groaning and travail of the creature. The Holy One reaches generation and incarnates (Luke 1:35) as the Divine Ideal and pledge of every man's sonship to God. His appearance is the pledge of something far grander than even reconciliation of the universe (Col. 1:20). That is why He spoke of Himself as "The Son of Mankind." He identifies Himself with the race as its representative, as the expression of what the race will yet be. At one and the same time He is the Logos or true expression of Man and of creation, towards God, and the Logos or true expression of God Himself towards mankind.

We submit that such a grand view of God's self-manifestation in His Son will satisfy every craving of the heart and every problem of the reason. Jehovah Elohim, God in human form, made some whit inferior to messengers, shorn of His glory and majesty, appearing as a humble slave, living the ideal divine life, dying for you and me and everyone, so that an Ideal Mankind might yet be the crown and glory of all God's Creation.

End of Chapter 5 (Alexander Thomson)