Man and God, Chapter 3 the Name of God

THE NAME AND THE DEED
WHILE the Kabbalists are preoccupied with the mysteries of the divine name, it is no secret that the name of God in the Bible is represented by the tetragrammaton which we have been abbreviating with the letter Y. However, very often in the Bible we come across the expression, shem Y, Y’s name. As so often, the translation leads one to overlook the strangeness of the expression. When we read in the Bible that “then began men to call upon the name of the Lord” or when we are told of Abraham that he built an altar “and called upon the name of the Lord”; or when in the great song toward the end of Deuteronomy it is declared with solemnity: “for I will proclaim the name of the Lord; ascribe ye greatness unto our God”;¹Gen. 4:26; Ibid. 12:8, 26:25; Deut. 32:3. all this seems well stated. Yet, one ought to realize that the Hebrew makes no mention of “the name of the Lord,” but of “the name of Y.” Since, however, Y itself is the name of God, the name of Y is the name of the name of God. What does it mean to call upon the name of the name of God, or to proclaim it? A number of other phrases that involve the name of God are equally mysterious. When in the song of Moses it is said that “Y is a man of war, Y is His name,”²Exod. 15:3. one cannot help wondering what could be meant by such an apparent platitude. Of course, Y is His name. We have just called him so. Or shall we assume that the second line explains the first one, as if to say: Y is a man of war because Y is His name; and Y means man of war. This would be nonsensical. The entire teaching of the Bible about Y contradicts such a narrow interpretation of the concept expressed by the name, Y. When God declares through Isaiah: “I am Y, that is My name; and My glory will I not give to another,”³Isa. 42:8. what is gained by the emphasis that that is his name? As to giving his glory to another, what difference does it make what his name is? Shall we again say that the name, Y, in itself means one who does not give his glory to another? Perhaps, but why so?

In a number of places, “the name of Y” or “Thy name” means simply fame or reputation. When the men of Gibeon came to Joshua to conclude a covenant with the children of Israel, they told him that they came from a far-away country “because of the name of Y thy God; for we have heard the fame of Him, and all that He did in Egypt.” The name of Y is here identical with his fame. Similary, in Solomon’s prayer concerning the stranger, who will “come out of a far country for Thy name’s sake—for they shall hear of Thy great name, and of Thy mighty hand, and of Thine outstretched arm,”⁴I Kings 8:41–42. God’s name is his reputation. Obviously, “Thy great name,” of which the gentiles hear is not just the information that his name is Y. This in itself may not impress them very much. God’s name will be great in their eyes by hearing of his great deeds, which he performed with his mighty hand and his outstretched arm. In references to the nations, the prophets speak of the impact that the name of Y makes upon them. According to Isaiah “the isles shall gather … unto the name of Y” and, using the same terminology, Jeremiah says: “At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of Y; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of Y, to Jerusalem.”⁵Isa. 60:9; Jer. 3:17. In the light of the text in Jer. in which the same concepts occur as in the one quoted from Isa., we depart from the normally accepted translation of the passage from Isa. While Israel knows God from immediate experience also, the nations are attracted to him by the name of Y, the fame of his action in the universe. God’s deeds create God’s name. The idea is stated explicitly in a three-fold repetition within the compass of only a few verses in chapter 63 of Isaiah. When Israel remembers “the days of old,” it recalls Him

That caused His glorious arm to go

At the right hand of Moses,

That divided the water before them,

To make himself an everlasting name.

That led them through the deep,

As a horse in the wilderness, without stumbling.

As the cattle that go down into the valley,

The spirit of Y caused them to rest;

So didst Thou lead Thy people,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To make Thyself a glorious name.

Thou, O Y, art our Father,

Our Redeemer from everlasting is Thy name [italics added].⁶Vss. 12–19.

God made himself a name by dividing the waters of the Red Sea; he made himself a glorious name by leading the children of Israel through the depth of the divided waters. His name is the Redeemer because he redeems. God’s name is what God does. Thus, if we read in Exodus that “Y—His name is Jealous—is a jealous God,”⁷Chapter 34:14. the meaning is: his name is Jealous because he acts with jealousy. His name is the Redeemer and his name is also the Jealous One, because he redeems, when it is time for redemption, and he is jealous, when jealousy is required.

Since the name is the result of the deed, it often stands for divine might. In one of God’s messages to him, Pharaoh is informed that, in spite of his recalcitrance, he was made “to stand, to show thee My power, and that My name may be declared throughout all the earth.”⁸Exod. 9:16. The miracles and the plagues, performed by God in Egypt, were a showing of divine power. And the showing of divine power established the divine “name.” The revealing of a divine activity of might established a form of divine reputation, God the Almighty. Bearing this in mind, some of the familiar passages in the Bible come to new life in a new light. When David faces Goliath he says to him: “Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a javelin; but I come to thee in the name of Y of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast taunted.”⁹I Sam. 17:45. We shall yet have to clarify the exact meaning of what has become the cliché, “in the name of the Lord.” It is, however, obvious in this context that “the name of Y” on David’s side is the parallel to the sword, the spear, and the javelin in the hands of Goliath; it is David’s counter-weapon. The name of Y means here divine might, the power of Y of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel. David does not meet Goliath in the name of Y, but as the giant approaches with his weapons, so does David come with the “name” of Y, relying on God’s might. We find that God’s name stands for God’s might in a number of other passages, especially in the Psalms. When the Psalmist prays: “O God, save me by thy name and right me by Thy might,”¹⁰Ps. 54:3. what does he mean with the first part of his plea? Quite clearly, Thy name is the parallel to Thy might. “Thy name” is synonymous with “Thy might”; shem here is the equivalent of g’vurah. When God promises David divine protection against his enemies, it is said: “But My faithfulness and My mercy shall be with him; and through My name shall his horn be exalted.”¹¹Ibid. 89:25. The Revised Version’s “in My name” is a meaningless stereotype. We let the J.P.S. version stand because it may accommodate what we consider to be the right meaning. One should remember that in biblical Hebrew the word, qeren (horn), symbolizes strength. King David is promised increase in power, which will reach him through support by divine might. As man in prayer asks to be saved by God’s “name,” so God in promise assures man saving strength by His “name.”

An impressive example of the point we are making, which includes all the elements of the three passages just quoted, is a short prayer in Psalm 44.

Thou art my King, O God;

Command the salvation of Jacob.

Through Thee do we push down our adversaries;

Through Thy name do we tread them under that rise up against us.

For I trust not in my bow,

Neither can my sword save me.

But Thou hast saved us from our adversaries,

And hast put them to shame that hate us.

In God have we gloried all the day,

And we will give thanks unto Thy name for ever.¹²Vss. 5–9.

As in the case of David’s confrontation with Goliath, here too the “name” of God is opposed to man-made weapons, to bow and sword; as in the other psalms, here too, calling on the “name” of God, one really calls on divine power to help and to save. The gratitude expressed “unto Thy name” at the conclusion of the prayer is thanksgiving for God’s actual revelation of his saving might.¹³There are quite a few other passages which illustrate our point. Cf. Pss. 20:2 and the contents of the entire psalm; Ibid. 118:10–12; Zech. 10:12. In Proverbs the “name” of Y is called “a strong tower” in which the righteous find shelter and elevation.¹⁴Chapter 18:10; cf. also Mic. 5:3.

Since Y’s name is what he does, we normally find that the mentioning of the name is inseparable from some divine action. As Exodus in the case of Pharaoh, so does Isaiah, too, speak of God making his name known to his adversaries when He does “tremendous things which we looked not for.”¹⁵Chapter 64:1. Because the name represents action, it may even be personified. Announcing the punishment that is to overtake Assyria, Isaiah speaks of “the name of Y that cometh from far,” it is burning with anger; it is filled with indignation. Its breath is like an overflowing stream. It sifts the nations with the sieve of destruction.¹⁶30:27 Unlike the Revised Version or the J.P.S. translation, we refer the description in the text to the name of Y and not to Y himself, as they do. In our opinion the subject of the sentence is “the name of Y”; the text describes the manner of its coming. All this may be said about the name, because it stands for divine action in history. It is for this very reason that Isaiah may say in another place that the islands will fear the name of Y, “for distress will come in like a flood, which the wind of Y driveth.”¹⁷Chapter 59:19. For our rendering of ruah Y as, the wind of Y, cf. our discussion in the previous chapter. It is the coming of distress like a flood, which is God’s doing, that brings the name of Y to the islands, thus, Isaiah may also use the previous formula and say of the “name” of Y that it “cometh from far.”

While the “name” often means manifestation of divine might, it does not usually mean the mighty execution of divine judgment. We already noted that asking to be saved, the Psalmist pleads with God that it be done by the “name.” In fact, what is salvation to the poor may put fear into the haughty. As Isaiah, the Psalmist too speaks of the time when the nations will “fear the name of Y”; not because of the judgment executed over them, but because “Y hath built up Zion,” thus appearing in His glory, and because “He hath regarded the prayer of the destitute, and hath not despised their prayer.”¹⁸Pss. 102:17–18. That God regards the prayer of the destitute and builds Zion, it too is his “name.” When he does so, he makes his “name” known in the world. However, the “name” that brings salvation to the destitute, causes fear in the hearts of “the nations and their kings.” Thus, Isaiah may well call to the man who walks in darkness and has no light: “Let him trust in the name of Y, and stay upon his God.” Let him trust in what God will do for him. The “name” of Y is the enacting of His salvation. Zephamiah, in speaking of the “afflicted and poor people,” declares that “they shall take refuge in the name of Y.”¹⁹Isa. 50:10; Zeph. 3:12. One is reminded of the verse in Proverbs, in which—as we have heard—the “name” of Y is called a “strong tower.” One takes refuge in the “name” of Y by trusting in the coming of His name, in the coming manifestation of His saving providence. Micah says about the Messiah that he shall feed his flock through the strength of Y and by means of the majesty of the name of Y his God.²⁰Mic. 5:3. The prepositional bet in b’oz and in bi’g’on is instrumental and is, therefore, better rendered as “through,” or as “by means of.”

In innumerable passages the Bible speaks of praising and thanking the name of Y, but practically everywhere the context shows that it, in all these cases, is for the wondrous or saving acts of God that one is grateful or which one praises. We find these passages mainly in the Psalms, but they are found in some of the other books as well. Thus Isaiah declares that he will praise the name of Y. Why does he praise the name of Y and not simply Y? Because the emphasis is on what God did, for He has done “wonderful things.”

For Thou hast been a stronghold to the poor,

A stronghold to the needy in his distress,

A refuge from the storm, a shadow from the heat;

For the blast of the terrible ones was a storm against the wall. (25:4)

By what he did, God made his “name”; being praised for what he did, his “name” is praised. The same idea is expressed by Joel in his great prophecy concerning the future of Israel when he says:

Fear not, O land, be glad and rejoice;

For Y hath done great things.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

And ye shall eat in plenty and be satisfied,

And shall praise the name of Y your God,

That hath dealt wondrously with you;

And My people shall never be ashamed. (2:21–26)

Once again it is the same concept. What God does establishes his “name” for the occasion, thus the praise for God’s action is praising the “name” of Y. As already indicated, most of the passages of this category are contained in the Psalms, which—because of the very subject matter of that book of the Bible—was to be expected. We shall list here a number of them. There is, for instance, the beautiful Psalm 113:

Hallelujah.

Praise, O ye servants of Y,

Praise the name of Y.

Blessed be the name of Y

From this time forth and for ever.

From the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof

Y’s name is to be praised.

After this introduction follows the praising of Y’s name.

Y is high above all nations,

His glory is above the heavens.

Who is like unto Y our God,

That is enthroned on high,

That looketh down low

Upon heaven and upon the earth?

Who raises up the poor out of the dust,

And lifteth up the needy out of the dunghill;

That He may set him with princes,

Even with the princes of His people.

Who maketh the barren woman to dwell in her house

As a joyful mother of children.

Hallelujah.

Y is high above all nations and above the heavens. But it is not for that that Y is being praised. He is praised for no one is like unto Him—but not in what He is, being enthroned on high, but for what He does being so enthroned. He is praised, for although He is enthroned above all nations and above the heavens, yet “He looketh down low.” Even though He is so highly exalted in His being, yet in His action He joins the poor and the needy whom He raises up from the dust. Notwithstanding the transcendence of His being, He heals the barren womb that yearns for a child. This is what establishes God’s “name.” Praise ye the “name” of Y.²¹See also Psalms 135.

In the same spirit, the psalmist also says:

So shall all those that take refuge in Thee rejoice,

They shall ever shout for joy,

And Thou shalt shelter them;

Let them also that love Thy name exult in Thee.

For Thou dost bless the righteous,

O Y, Thou dost encompass him with favor as with a shield. (5:12–13)

At the close of chapter 54 we read:

I will give thanks unto Thy name, O Y, for it is good.

For He hath delivered me out of all trouble;

And mine eye hath gazed upon mine enemies.

Again in Psalm 52 we find:

I will give Thee thanks for ever, because Thou hast done it;

And I will wait for Thy name, for it is good. (vs. 11)

The waiting for God’s “name” is the trust in His redeeming action that creates His name among men. The same thought is expressed somewhat differently in Psalm 9.

Y also will be a high tower for the oppressed,

A high tower in times of trouble;

And they that know Thy name will put their trust in Thee.

For Thou, Y, hast not forsaken them that seek Thee. (vss. 10–11)

Those who “know Thy name” are, of course, not those who know that God’s name is Y. Even a man without faith may know that his name is Y. One may know this name and yet such knowledge alone may not induce one to put one’s trust in God. But if one knows of the manifestations of divine providence in history, which are the name by which God made himself known, then—even in time of trouble, when all hope seems far removed—one may be called upon to put his trust in God, for his name means that he is not one who forsakes them that seek him.

Whereas the Psalmist uses the term, yod’ei Sh’mo, those who know His name, the prophet Malachi has, hoshvei Sh’mo, those who think upon His name. Who are meant by this term? What does it mean, to think upon His name? The context in which the phrase occurs may enlighten us. This is what the prophet has to say to them:

Your words have been all too strong against Me,

Saith Y.

Yet ye say: Wherein have we spoken against Thee?

Ye have said: It was vain to serve God;

And what profit is it that we have kept His charge,

And that we have walked mournfully

Because of Y of hosts?

And now we call the proud happy;

Yea, they that work wickedness are built up;

Yea, they try God, and are delivered.

Then they that feared Y

Spoke one with another;

And Y hearkened, and heard,

And a book of remembrance was written before Him,

For them that feared Y, and that thought upon His name.

And they shall be Mine, saith Y of hosts.

In the day that I do make, even Mine own treasure;

And I will spare them, as a man spareth

His own son that serveth him.

Then shall ye again discern between the righteous and the wicked,

Between him that serveth God

And him that serveth Him not [italics added]. (3:13–18)

The text contrasts two different groups of people: the one speaks strongly against God; the other fears God. Those who speak against God do not see the difference between the righteous and the wicked. It does not seem to matter at all whether one serves God or not. On the contrary, the proud are happy and the wicked, “built up” and delivered. It is useless to keep God’s charge to man. God himself is indifferent toward the question whether a man walks in His ways or not. According to them, God is unconcerned. He does not act providentially toward man. It is, however, God’s providential action toward his creation that establishes God’s “name.” The people whose words are “all too strong” against God maintain that God is indifferent toward the human condition and does not act in one way or another toward man. According to them, God is but he has no “name.” In the language of the psalmist one may say of them that they do not know the name of Y, they do not believe that God does not forsake them that seek him.

The other group, the one designated as “they that feared Y” also speak, but not against God. They speak “one with another.” The prophet does not state explicitly what the subject matter of their discussion is. However, a careful reading of the text reveals it. The key word in the Hebrew is az at the beginning of the reference to those who fear God. Then do they speak to each other. What they have to say continues the discussion started by those who speak against God. Does it profit a person to serve God? Does it matter to God whether a person is righteous or not? Does God act in relation to man? Does he reveal his concern by such action? Does he have a “name”? The first group denies it all; the second group affirms. They put their trust in the “name” of Y. God listens to what they affirm: he hears and remembers them. They are declared God’s own treasure. They are spared, “as a man spareth his own son,” so that the difference between the righteous and the wicked becomes clear for all to see. When this happens, God reveals what those who speak against him denied, he makes known his name anew. What now is hoshvei Sh’mo? Those who think upon his name? Hardly. Apart from the fact that the expression would be vacuous, it has no place in the context. Both groups which are described think upon God’s name: the one negatively, the other positively. However, the Hebrew, hashav, does not only mean, to think, but also, to esteem, to value, to respect.²²Cf. Isa. 33:8; 53:3. See also the Hebrew commentary on Hag., Zech., and Mal., by Dr. M. Zer-Kavod, who interprets the expression hoshve sh’mo as we do. The hoshvei Sh’mo are not those who think upon His name, as the accepted translation would have it; but those who esteem or respect the name of Y. Those who speak strongly against God, denying that he considers man, really speak against his “name,” against the belief that God establishes his name by his providential acts toward man. Whereas those who fear him and, taking up the challenge, “speak to one another” in refutation of such denial, are the ones who esteem his “name”; they respect the manifestations of the divine care for man as they occurred in the past and are willing to put their trust in the continuation of such manifestation in the future. They are exactly what the first group is not, i.e., hoshvei Sh’mo.

We may now turn to the interpretation of a rather difficult verse in Proverbs. The author asks God that he give him neither poverty nor riches and says:

Feed me with my allotted bread;

Lest I be full, and deny, and say:

Who is Y?

Or lest I be poor, and steal,

And profane the name of my God. (30:8–9)

Such is the rendering of the J.P.S. translation and it seems to make good sense. In fact, the translation is based on some of the classical Jewish commentaries.²³See the commentaries of Yitshaki and of Kimhi on Prov. The only objection one has is that nowhere in the Bible does the verb, tafas, mean, to profane. The R.V. is somewhat nearer to the truth when it translates: lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain. Regrettably, while tafas may mean, to take, it never means to take in vain. “To take the name of God in vain” is, of course, biblical, but the Hebrew for it cannot—by the widest stretch of imagination—be connected with the verb used here in the Hebrew original. Tafas does mean, to take, but, to take by force, to capture, to conquer, to hold someone or something forcefully. But what can it mean: lest I be poor, and steal, and take by force (or capture) the name of my God? On the basis of the parallelism, the verb tafasti in the second part of the verse corresponds to kihashti (lest I deny) in the first part. As riches may lead a man astray into believing in his independence of God and may cause him to think that he was in no need of Him, poverty too, which might cause him to steal, may lead him to a similar denial. But how? We recall the profuse biblical tradition concerning the relationship between the poor and the name of God. We have heard Zephaniah’s call to “the afflicted and the poor” that they should “take refuge in the name of Y.” We have heard the same idea expressed by Isaiah and found it repeated in the Psalms. We have seen how, in the same vein, in Proverbs the name of Y is called “a strong tower,” a place of refuge. Now, a person who because of poverty steals does not “take refuge in the name of Y,” as Isaiah, Zephaniah, the psalmist would want him to do. He does not put his trust in the “name” of God, i.e., in the providential concern of God for the poor, by whose manifestation God’s “name” is established. There is a similarity between his action and the attitude of the rich. The man of possession imagines himself independent and in no need of God, thus he denies Him. But the poor who steals does not depend on God either. Instead of relying on the “name” of God that He made for himself as the one who does not forsake those who seek Him, the poor—when he steals—relies on himself. As the rich, he too denies; he denies that the “name” of God is a “strong tower.” In a sense, he takes over a divine function. In a situation in which he ought to rely on divine providence, he provides himself for himself, as if there were no God, whose name is Provider, Redeemer, Savior. As if by force, he takes possession of something that does not duly belong to him. He “captures” the “name” of God, the function of providential care, he does it violence. He is a usurper. We therefore translate:

Or lest I be poor, and steal,

And usurp the name of my God.

Since God establishes his “name” on every occasion, when he acts, creating, judging, guiding, saving, the psalmist may well exclaim:

As is Thy name, O God,

So is Thy praise unto the ends of the earth;

Thy right hand is full of sedeq. (48:11)

Only because God’s name is represented by the manifestations of the divine deed in the universe can one praise him according to his name. This is underlined by the conclusion of the verse. Praising God’s name, one praises him for what he performs with his “right hand.” We leave the word sedeq untranslated. For, as we yet plan to show, sedeq is much more than righteousness. Indeed, all divine action, directed toward God’s creation, may be subsumed under the term of enacting sedeq.

NAME AND MEMORIAL

In a goodly number of passages in the Bible we find the words shem and zekher, name and memorial, related to each other. They are not synonymous, yet there is some connection between them. When at the beginning of his mission, a rather hesitant Moses desires to know what he should say to the children of Israel should they inquire after God’s name, the answer is given to him in two versions. At first, God says to Moses: “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I Am hath sent me unto you.” But the Bible continues: “And God said moreover unto Moses: ‘Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: Y, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you; this is My name for ever; and this is My memorial unto all generations!”²⁴Exod. 3:13–15. The first form of the answer to Moses is comparatively easy to explain. The anticipated question of the children of Israel, what is His name? would not be a mere matter of curiosity about a name. What difference would it make to them what the name was! What they would want to know would be: How does this God make himself known? What are his actions like toward man, by which he may be called and referred to? And indeed, in the answer not a name is made known to Moses, but an activity. I Am hath sent me unto you. Let this knowledge be enough for them. I am the God who sends a messenger to redeem and to save. It is by this action that I desire to be known by them. I Am the One who sends thee; that is my “name” for them. But what is the significance of the more elaborate final answer which follows? And what is meant by the phrase: This is My name and this My memorial? What is the name and what the memorial? The syntax proves that the two are not synonymous. What is the difference between them? What is the one and what the other and in which way does the memorial relate to the name?²⁵For the talmudic interpretation see Talmud Babli, Pesahim, 50/a.

We note that shem and zekher, having once been associated with each other, often appear together in the Bible. Isaiah, for instance, says: “To Thy name and to Thy memorial is the desire of our soul.”²⁶Isa. 26:8. The intensity of the soul’s longing for the name, which comes through even stronger in the Hebrew text than in the translation, illustrates significantly our thesis that God establishes his name from occasion to occasion in acts of guiding or saving providence. One may associate little sense with a soul’s longing for the name of someone, be it even the name of God; but one may appreciate the strength of a deeply religious soul’s desire to witness the acts of divine self-revelation which establish God’s “name.” However, Isaiah’s words here, while obviously leaning on Exodus, do not help us in clarifying the distinction between name and memorial. We find an even fuller reflection of the text in Exodus in the words of the psalmist, who says: “O Y, Thy name endureth for ever; Thy memorial, O Y, throughout all generations.”²⁷Pss. 135:13. This, of course, is no more illuminating than the original phrase in Exodus. We believe that through the analysis of two psalms, which treat our subject, we may be able to cast a light on our present problem. In Psalm 102 we read:

But thou, O Y, sittest enthroned for ever;

And Thy memorial is unto all generations.²⁸The J.P.S. edition translates zikhr’kha in this line as “Thy name.” It assumes then that shem and zekher are synonyms, which is impossible to maintain. The liberty which it takes with the text is all the more serious, since the theme of the fear of the name of Y is introduced a few lines below in the text as a new element which is the result of God’s having compassion on Zion. The synonymy between shem and zekher, which this translation assumes, renders a meaningful interpretation of the psalm impossible. The R.V. is here to be preferred. It has: “and thy remembrance unto all generations.”

Thou wilt arise, and have compassion upon Zion;

For it is time to be gracious unto her, for the appointed time is come.

For Thy servants take pleasure in her stones,

And love her dust.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

So the nations will fear the name of Y,

And all the kings of the earth Thy glory;

When Y hath built up Zion.

When He hath appeared in His glory;

When He hath regarded the prayer of the destitute,

And hath not despised their prayer. (vss. 13–18)

What is noteworthy in this text? All the four elements of the text in Exodus, which presented us with our problem, occur here too. In verse 13 we have the word, l’olam, for ever, as the phrase, l’dor va’dor, from generation to generation, and also the concept of zekher, memorial; in verse 16 the name of Y is mentioned. However, in the association of the four terms with each other there is a deviation from Exodus. Zekher is connected with l’dor va’dor exactly as in Exodus, but l’olam is separated from shem, unlike in Exodus. L’olam is associated with the verb, tesheb; the connection between it and shem is missing. The concept of shem is—one is almost inclined to say—loudly absent in the opening part of our quotation, only to make its appearance in the further elaboration of the theme and, quite clearly, as the consequence of a divine act, that of God’s having compassion on Zion. We believe that the specific way in which the four elements of the text in Exodus are used here in deviation from Exodus contains the key to the understanding of the distinction between shem, name, and zekher, memorial. But before we go any further in the interpretation of the passage before us, it may be useful to introduce another text. In Psalm 74 we read:

They have set Thy sanctuary on fire;

They have profaned the dwelling place of Thy name even to the ground.²⁹About the meaning of the term, the dwelling place of Thy name, see below in this chapter.

They said in their heart: ‘Let us make havoc of them altogether’;

They have burned up all the meeting-places of God in the land.

We see not our signs;

There is no more any prophet;

Neither is there among us any that knoweth how long.

How long, O God, shall the adversary reproach?

Shall the enemy blaspheme Thy name for ever?

Why withdrawest Thou Thy hand, even Thy right hand?

Draw it out of Thy bosom and consume them.

Yet God is my King of old,

Working salvation in the midst of the earth.

Thou didst break the sea in pieces by Thy strength;

Thou didst shatter the heads of the sea-monsters in the waters.

Thou didst crush the heads of leviathan,

Thou gavest him to be food to the folk inhabiting the wilderness.

Thou didst cleave fountain and brook;

Thou driest up ever-flowing rivers.

Thine is the day, Thine also the night;

Thou hast established luminary and sun.

Thou hast set all the borders of the earth;

Thou hast made summer and winter.

Remember this, O enemy, that hath reproached Y.

A base people have blasphemed Thy name.

O deliver not the soul of Thy turtledove unto the wild beast;

Forget not the life of Thy poor for ever.

Look upon the covenant;

For the dark places of the land are full of the habitations of violence.

O let not the oppressed turn back in confusion;

Let the poor and needy praise Thy name.

Arise, O God, plead Thine own cause;

Remember Thy reproach all the day at the hand of base man [italics added]. (vss. 7–22)³⁰While, as usual, we follow in the main the J.P.S. translation, we depart here from it in some essentials. In the J.P.S. translation this psalm is set up in three separated paragraphs, as if it dealt with three different subjects; we believe that it represents a closely-knit entity. It has one theme which is carried through from the beginning to the end. We have set up the text accordingly. Our most important deviation is our interpretation of verse 18. The J.P.S. translation there reads: “Remember this, how the enemy hath reproached the Lord, and how a base people have blasphemed Thy name.” Similarly the R.V. has: “Remember this, that the enemy hath reproached, O Lord, and that the foolish people have blasphemed thy name.” We do not find this in the text. According to us, “remember this” is addressed to “the enemy that hath reproached God.” This is in keeping with the grammar and syntax of the sentence. The phrase has, of course, meaning only if one acknowledges the difference between name and memorial in the Bible.

There are four references to “the name” in these verses. It is repeatedly bemoaned how the enemy blasphemes the name of God. The plaint leads up to the concluding plea that God may bring it about that the poor and needy may praise his name. However, in this psalm we also learn why the adversary is able to blaspheme and on what it depends that the poor and oppressed may be able to praise.

The enemy may profane the name because God has withdrawn his hand, even his right hand. It is the same right hand, of which we have heard the psalmist say at the close of the previous section in this chapter, that it is full of sedeq. It is full of sedeq, when it acts, when it performs the deeds of divine sedeq; thus creating the name, so that the psalmist could exclaim: as is Thy name, so is Thy praise. But when the hand is withdrawn, when God is passive, when he does not act full of sedeq, when—as the psalmist also puts it in our text—“we see not our signs” and “there is no more any prophet,” when no message from God reaches man and God is silent, then the name fades. It is the hour of the adversary. Then he dare profane the name and blaspheme. Yet, even though the enemy does profane and God is passive and silent, God remains “my King,” because he is the “King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth.” Then follow the lines beginning with the words: Thou didst, Thou gavest, Thou hast, which describe the divine deeds of providential order by which God works his salvation in the midst of the earth. But are not these the deeds of divine self-revelation by which, as we have found, God establishes his name! The sequence of thought would then be as follows: because of God’s temporary passivity, God may be defied by the adversary and his name be profaned, because indeed God at such an hour has no contemporary “name.” God has withdrawn, he is silent; he does not make himself known to the contemporary generation. Yet, he is King, though King of old. For he did establish his name in the past. And with this the psalmist turns to the enemy: “Remember this!” Although at the moment “we see not our signs” and there are no name-creating present-day manifestations of divine providence, there is much to remember. God is still King, for of old he has established his name, which events—though not experienced in the present—ought to be remembered and the resulting name respected. However, a “base enemy” is not impressed by a name that was effective only in the past and exists only if it is recalled by the memory of faith. Thus the psalmist prays for a new revelation of the name, a new manifestation of God’s providential guidance and care for his people. Let God give up his passivity; let him draw his right hand “out of his bosom.” Let him not forget “the life of his poor for ever.” May he act on their behalf, that “the oppressed shall not have to turn back in confusion.” “Let the poor and needy praise Thy name,” not the name of old, which is to be remembered, but the name newly revealed to them in the act of their contemporary salvation.

The analysis of this psalm leads us to an interesting conclusion. There are two kinds of divine names: those revealed to past generations and that which is made known to a contemporary generation. Those revealed in the past become a tradition, they are remembered; the one of the present becomes known in contemporary experience. Are we not entitled to say that the “names” revealed to past generations, which are preserved by the memory of tradition, are God’s memorial, his zekher; but a name revealed in a contemporary experience, the name made known to me and not to my ancestors, is God’s shem?

Let us now turn back to the starting point of our analysis, to our quotation from Psalm 102. We shall bring it once again in a somewhat different and more literal version.

But Thou, O Y, sittest for ever;

And Thy memorial is from generation to generation.

Arise, Thou, and have compassion upon Zion;

So the nations will fear the name of Y,

And all the kings of the earth Thy glory;

When Y hath built up Zion,

When He hath appeared in His glory;

When He hath regarded the prayer of the destitute [italics added].

We believe that the theme of this psalm is the same as that of 74 and it expresses the same thought. We do not follow the accepted translations of either the first or the second or the third line in our quotation. The verb, tesheb, in the Hebrew original does not mean, “sittest enthroned,” but simply, “sittest.”³¹It certainly does not mean, “But thou, O Lord, shalt endure for ever,” as it is rendered in the R.V. It is a great pity that when translators encounter difficulties of meaning, they so often proceed to write their own text. We fully appreciate the difficulty that such a literal translation raises. That God sittest for ever is a meaningless statement. The difficulty is easily resolved. Undoubtedly, tesheb in the first line is the opposite to taqum (arise) in the third. One should, however, also realize that atta taqum in the third line is not to be translated as, “Thou wilt arise.” The phrase is not a prophecy, but a prayer; just as the phrase which follows immediately after it, t’rahem Zion, have compassion upon Zion. The meaning is better rendered as, “Arise, Thou, and have compassion upon Zion.” The sentence is the exact equivalent of what we have found in verse 22 of Psalm 74: “Arise, O God, plead Thine own cause.” But there, as we saw, the plea, arise, and the entire prayer complex connected with it, really meant: give up your passivity, “draw Thy hand out of Thy bosom,” and make Thy name known anew. Similarly, in our present text, atta taqum, “arise, Thou,” is a plea that God act on behalf of Zion. But such a prayer is necessary because, in the psalmist experience, God is passive toward the fate of Zion. It is in this sense that taqum and tesheb are related to each other as opposites. “But Thou, O Y, sittest for ever” means: Thou, O Y, art passive, showest Thyself unconcerned. In the language of Psalm 74 one might also say: Thou, O Y, hast withdrawn Thy hand, even Thy right hand. And as in Psalm 74, because of God’s passivity, there are no signs to be seen, no present-day manifestations of the divine name, so in our psalm too. God “sits,” he does not make his name known anew.³²Stylistically, the psalmist expresses his thought in a most ingenious manner. “But Thou, O Y, sittest for ever; and Thy memorial is from generation to generation” is a variation on the more authentic formula, “O Y, Thy name is for ever; and Thy memorial …,” which appropriately corresponds to the original formulation in Exodus. By such pointed deviation from the original phrasing the author underlines what is missing in the situation in which he pleads with God. He has replaced the expression of divine activity, “Thy name,” with an expression of divine passivity, “Thou sittest.” Missing is the name, the name-creating manifestation of divine action. What is left is the memory of the old manifestations of the name. “Thy memorial from generation to generation.” But, of course, the nations and their kings are not much impressed with the remembered manifestations of the name of old. They do not fear “the King of old.” Therefore the prayer: Arise, Thou; give up Thy silence and passivity, have compassion on Zion. In the divine act of Zion’s salvation, God appears in his glory. Thus he establishes his name anew in a contemporary situation. He will no longer be known only by his “memorial from generation to generation,” but also by the revelation of his very present glory. “So the nations will fear the name of Y and all the kings of the earth Thy glory” corresponds to the line in Psalm 74: “Let the poor and needy praise Thy name.” What is for the poor and needy cause for praise is cause enough for the haughty and overbearing for fear.

We may now revert to the text in Exodus, which was the starting point of this our discussion. The first answer to the question about the name of God was: “I Am hath sent me unto you.” By the sending of Moses to them to save them He who Is establishes His name with the children of Israel. The final answer to the question, however, was: “Y, the Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you; this is My name for ever, and this My memorial from generation to generation.” We have left the word, Elohim (God) untranslated, in order to recall what we have found in a previous chapter about Y being Elohim. We saw that Y becomes Elohim for a person or a people through the providential acts by which he relates himself to human beings. Through such acts Y became Elohim of each patriarch. But to become Elohim for someone in such a manner is the same as establishing Y’s name for him through deeds of divine concern. In the very act in which Y makes Himself Elohim for a person, He reveals himself to him in such a manner that He can be named; for instance, the Savior, the Redeemer, the Merciful, etc. The Elohim of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, each is a name of Y. But they are names of Y only for Abraham, for Isaac, for Jacob. They are not names for those who came after them. For them, they are names made known to the patriarchs; names remembered, not experienced in an act of divine concern directed to them. It is this name, “the Elohim of your fathers,” that the Bible says: “this is My memorial.” To what, however, does the phrase refer: “this is My name for ever”? In our opinion it does not relate to Y, with which the longer, second version of God’s answer begins. As we pointed out earlier, the question about the name is not to be understood in the literal sense. And indeed, as we also saw, the first, shorter answer to the question was given in terms of divine action. “I Am hath sent me unto you” is the name by which God makes himself known to the children of Israel. But this name is taken up again in the more explicit form of the divine answer. “Y, the Elohim of your fathers … hath sent me unto you.” By sending Moses to them Y makes himself known to them in such a manner they are able to name Him; for instance, He who is leading us out of Egypt. In this manner, Y who in the past was the Elohim of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, the Elohim “of old,” becomes their own Elohim. The name is not one that is remembered, but one learned in personal experience. We shall therefore say that “Elohim of your fathers,” the manifestation of his name-establishing providence, is Y’s memorial; He who “hath sent me unto you,” or “Your Elohim,” is Y’s name, the one by which He makes himself known to a contemporary generation.

Since the “memorial” is passed on by tradition from generation to generation it is proper that it should be said of it that it is l’dor dor. But we do not translate the phrase as “unto all generations.” Such rendering makes it synonymous with l’olam, that is said of the name. But as distinct as is shem from zekher, so is also l’olam from l’dor dor. The memorial is not one unto all generations. It is shem at least to the generation to which it is revealed, and its impact may be so powerful that it may remain a shem even for the immediately proceeding generation. It is for this reason that we translate: this is My memorial from generation to generation. However, what does it mean that the name is l’olam, for ever. That God sent Moses to the children of Israel was a single event that happened once in history. By this act God established one of his names with them. But shall we not say that what was name for the generation of the Exodus becomes memorial for future generations? The Exodus, by which God made his name at the time of Moses, has a unique place in the history of the Jewish people. This name is unlike any other name by which God makes himself known to individual Jews or to a specific generation of Jews. Innumerable passages testify to it in the Bible. We shall consider a most revealing passage in Jeremiah which may help us to clarify the point we wish to make. Addressing God in prayer, Jeremiah says, among other things:

Who didst set signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, even unto this day, and in Israel and among other men; and madest Thee a name, as at this day; and didst bring forth Thy people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs, and with wonders, and with a strong hand … ; and gavest them this land, which Thou didst swear to their fathers to give them … ; and they came in, and possessed it; but they hearkened not to Thy voice, neither walked in Thy law … ; therefore Thou hast caused all this evil to befall them; behold the mounds, they are come unto the city to take it; and the city is given into the hand of the Chaldeans that fight against it….³³Jer. 32:20–24.

Three interesting points emerge from this text. Of the signs and wonders which God wrought in Egypt centuries before Jeremiah, the prophet says: “even unto this day.” Of the name, which God made himself by bringing them out of the land of Egypt, it is said: “as at this day.” The generation that was led out of Egypt and the one that took possession of the promised land, as well as the one that was contemporary with Jeremiah, are all treated as one and the same generation. They were brought forth from Egypt, they were given the land, they came and possessed it, they sinned and were given over into the hands of the Chaldeans. The three points, which we have singled out, have one thing in common: they treat the past as if it were the present. The signs and the wonders, which God did “even unto this day,” obviously mean that their impact was lasting, as if they had happened in the days of Jeremiah. The same is affirmed about the name that God made himself by leading Israel out of Egypt through the signs and wonders: “as at this day.” This name, He who leads them out of Egypt, never faded. It remained with Israel as if it had been established in Israel as if “at this day.” Only because of this may Jeremiah identify the generation of Jews, besieged in Jerusalem in his own days, with the generation of the Exodus. Since the miracles were alive even unto his own days, since the impact of the name was still fresh as in the days on which it was first made known, all past history could be experienced as if it happened unto the contemporary generation, as if they themselves had left Egypt. All the more grievous was their failure.

We see then that the importance of the Exodus in the history of the Jewish people was so decisive that in the days of Jeremiah the name, which God made for himself by the Exodus, was still a name and had not become a memorial yet. And so it was in the days of Daniel and also in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. In the prayers of their times the events of the Exodus are referred to as the occasion on which God made himself a name “as at this day.”³⁴Cf. Dan. 9:15; Neh. 9:10. And so it remained through all the ages. In the Ten Commandments God calls himself, “Y, thy God, who hath brought thee out of the land of Egypt.” This, of course, is addressed to every Jew in every generation. For the Jew the name by which he knows God is: Y, my God, who hath led me out of Egypt. Correspondingly, the historic Jew identifies himself with all Jewish generations of the past. All past for him is one enduring present. This identification of the Jew with all previous generations by way of the name, which God made himself in Egypt “as at this day,” is found in numerous places of the Bible. It is most eloquently expressed in the words that were traditionally recited by the man who annually offered the first fruit of his land to God in the Temple of Jerusalem. After the reference to the “wandering Aramean,” whom he called, “my father” he continued:

And the Egyptians dealt with us, and afflicted us and laid upon us hard bondage. And we cried unto Y, the God of our fathers, and Y heard our voice, and saw our affliction, and our toil, and our oppression. And Y brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders. And He hath brought us into this place, and hath given us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. And now, behold, I have brought the first fruit of the land, which Thou, O Y, hast given me.³⁵Deut. 26:6–10.

As in the passage we have quoted from Jeremiah, here too the Jew—and this time not a prophet—experiences Jewish history since Egypt as his own life. All generations are one enduring generation. All past is transformed into one lasting present through the name of God, which remains for all generations of Jews, He who has led us out of Egypt.³⁶To this day every year at Passover the Jew recites at his festive table the words: “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt. And Y led us out of Egypt.” The rabbis gave expression to the ideas we are discussing in the words which have been incorporated into the Passover Seder service and are recited in the Jewish home at the Seder nights: “In every generation one should consider himself as if oneself had been redeemed from Egypt.”

In whatever manner God reveals himself to an individual or to an entire generation, that becomes His name for that individual or for that generation. As the people pass, what was name for them becomes memorial for those who follow. There is only one exception. The name: Y, thy God, who hath led thee out of the land of Egypt never became a memorial. It has remained His name for the Jew for all times. We are now in a position to understand the full significance of our text from Exodus. The name, Elohim of Abraham, Elohim of Isaac, Elohim of Jacob, was name for each of the patriarchs, but became a memorial for their children after them. But when God made himself known to Israel by sending Moses to them, he revealed a name to them that is everlasting: Y, your God, who leads you out of Egypt. Of it God says: This is my name for ever. “Elohim of the fathers” is the memorial from generation to generation; Elohim of Israel, the name for ever.

THE NAME CALLED OVER THING OR PERSON

In this section we shall be concerned with the interpretation of the phrase: the name of God is called upon someone or something. Of Israel it is said in the Bible: “the name of Y is called upon thee.” Jeremiah says to God: “Thy name was called on me, O Y God of Hosts.” Of the Temple of Jerusalem God says through the mouth of Jeremiah: “this house whereupon My name is called.”³⁷Cf. Deut. 28:10; Jer. 15:16; 7:11 and 12. Usually, these expressions are taken to mean that Israel is called Y’s people; Jeremiah, Y’s prophet; and the Temple, Y’s house. This, however, is much too superficial an interpretation. As the phrase is used in connection with Israel, we encounter the same difficulty which we raised at the opening of this chapter. While it is true that Israel is often called in the Bible the people of Y, the expression cannot mean that the name of Y is called upon it. Y itself is the name and the name of Y is the “name” of the name. “The name of Y is called upon thee” means that the “name” of the name is called upon Israel. This, obviously, is not identical with the phrase, the people of Y.

We shall first examine the case of the Temple, upon which God’s name is called. We shall do so because of a passage in Jeremiah, in which the expression is practically paralleled by another similar one. In chapter 7 we read:

Is this house, whereupon My name is called, become a den of robbers in your eyes. Behold, I, even I, have seen it, saith Y. For go ye now unto My place which was in Shiloh, where I caused My name to dwell at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of My people Israel. (vss. 11–12)

We learn from these words that “My place” is the places where God causes “his name to dwell.” And since it is said that God caused his name to dwell in Shiloh “at the first,” it is intimated that now he causes it to dwell in Jerusalem; now the Temple is “My place.” But the Temple is described as the house, “whereupon My name is called.” Since, however, what Shiloh was “at the first” Jerusalem is now, we may conclude that “whereupon My name is called” is the equivalent of, “where I cause My name to dwell.” Only that now we are confronted with a new difficulty. What does it mean that God causes his name to dwell in a certain place? There is a sufficient number of biblical texts available to help us clarify this point.

It is important to note that in the numerous passages in the books of Kings and Chronicles, where the story of the building of the Temple is told, it is consistently stated, and quite clearly for the sake of emphasis, that David and Solomon were planning to build to the name of Y.³⁸Cf., for instance, I Kings 3:2; 5:17, 19; 8:17, 20; I Chron. 22:6, 18; 29:16, etc. Most interesting is a passage in I Chronicles. At first we read:

And David said: Solomon my son is young and tender and the house that is to be builded for Y must be exceeding magnificent…. I will therefore make preparation for him…. Then he called for Solomon his son, and charged him to build a house for Y, the God of Israel.

Upon this follows David’s actual charge to Solomon. And now we read:

My son, as for me, it was in my heart to build a house unto the name of Y my God. But the word of Y came to me saying: Thou hast shed blood abundantly…. Thou shalt not build a house unto My name…. Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest … for his name shall be Solomon…. He shall build a house for My name…. Now, my son, Y be with thee … and build the house of Y thy God … arise therefore, and build ye the sanctuary of Y God, to bring the ark of the covenant of Y, and the holy vessels of God, unto the house that is to be built to the name of Y [italics added].³⁹I Chron. 22:5–19.

The opening phrase of our quotation, “And David said,” is, of course, not an introduction for actual words spoken by David. What follows are thoughts of David formulated by the biblical narrator. The narrator uses the expression, “a house for Y,” twice. But quite clearly, strongest emphasis is laid on the actual words of David to his son on the idea that “the house of Y” or “the sanctuary of Y,” terms used by David himself, are to build to the name of Y. This is brought out in the continuous repetition of the phrase, which is taken up even into the terminology of God’s answer to David. The very fact that the narrator uses the phrase, “a house for Y,” only to replace it, immediately afterward, with such dramatic emphasis by, a house unto the name of Y, serves the purpose of directing our attention to what is essential in this “house for Y.” It is not really a house for Y, but one for the name of Y.

A similar stylistic device is also used in the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the Temple which David charged him to build. At first we read:

Then spoke Solomon:

Y hath said that He would dwell in the thick darkness.

I have surely built Thee a house of habitation,

A place for Thy dwelling for ever.⁴⁰I Kings 8:13. We deviate here somewhat from the J.P.S. edition which has: “A place for Thee to dwell in for ever.” The Hebrew does not require as strong an anthropomorphism.

As in our quotation above from I Chronicles, the words “And David said,” so here the phrase, “Then spoke Solomon,” were not actual words spoken to anyone. They might have been thoughts in the mind of Solomon expressed in the language of the narrator, or, if spoken at all, they were addressed to God in the solitude of prayer. As there the narrator speaks of a “house for Y,” so here too, in these not really spoken words, a “house of habitation” is built unto God. But here too, as in I Chronicles, as the words are addressed to people, to whom the event is explained, as “the King turned his face about and blessed all the congregation of Israel” and spoke to them, we have the same emphatic repetition that the house was planned “unto the name Y” and was so built “unto the name of Y.” Of this house God, too, says that it was to be built that “My name might be there.” “A house for Y” or a “house of habitation” for Him was occasionally used as a mere colloquialism. Its meaning was: a house unto the name of Y.

However, what does it mean to build a house “unto the name of Y”? As we have already indicated, what for David and Solomon was built “unto the name of Y,” God referred to it as the house where “his name might be there.” And indeed, the equivalent of this expression we find in a number of places. In Deuteronomy we read:

Unto the place which Y your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there, even unto His habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shall come.⁴¹Deut. 12:5.

“His habitation” is the place where God “puts his name there.”⁴²The Hebrew, l’shikhno, is somewhat ambiguous here. It may refer to God and mean “His habitation,” but it may also refer to “His name,” in which case it ought to be translated as “its habitation.” Since God causes his name to dwell in it, the Temple might well be referred to as shikhno, the name’s habitation. But in the same context, the sanctuary is also called, as Jeremiah called it too, the place which God chooses “to cause His name to dwell there.”⁴³Deut. 12:11; cf. also ibid. 14:23; 16:2; 11; 26:2. It is the phrase which is most often used in Deuteronomy. We have found then that the house unto the name of Y is the one in which Y’s name “is there,” into which God “puts his name,” or in which “he causes his name to dwell.” And once again we are asking ourselves: what is the meaning of all this? We shall turn again to the well-known dedicatory prayer of King Solomon, in which we may find the answer to our quest. Having made reference to the intentions of his father David and to the promise of God, he continues:

Now therefore, O God of Israel, let Thy word, I pray Thee, be verified, which Thou didst speak unto Thy servant David my father.

But will God in very truth dwell on earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee; how much less this house that I have builded! Yet have Thou respect unto the prayer of Thy servant, and to this supplication, O Y my God, to hearken unto the cry and to the prayer which Thy servant prayeth before Thee this day; that Thine eyes may be open toward this house night and day, even toward the place whereof Thou hast said: My name shall be there, to hearken unto the prayer which Thy servant shall pray toward this place. And hearken Thou to the supplication of Thy servant, and of Thy people Israel, when they shall pray toward this place; yea, hear Thou in heaven Thy dwelling place; and when Thou hearest, forgive [italics added].⁴⁴I Kings 8:26–30.

We may now understand why it is emphasized with such intensity that the house of Y is the house built “unto His name.” It is to exclude the idea that the place was a dwelling place for God himself. In this prayer Solomon calls the heaven “Thy dwelling place,” but even that is only a figure of speech, and it is not to be taken literally. For in the same prayer he also says of God that neither the heaven nor the heaven of heavens can contain God. The emphasis on “the house unto His name” is to exclude the crude concept of an anthropomorphic dwelling of God in space. But Solomon’s prayer also reveals a great deal about the meaning of the idea that “My name shall be there.” Solomon’s plea is that since God promised that his name will be there, he ought to forgive the sins repented there. In the next part of the prayer there follows an elaboration of what he means, by a number of examples. When in a case of litigation a man takes an oath before God’s altar in His house, may God take note of it in a visible manner by condemning the wicked “to bring his way upon his own head” and by justifying the righteous “to give him according to his righteousness.” When Israel is beaten by an enemy because of their sins, if they then repent and turn in supplication “in this house,” may God answer their prayer by help against the enemy. In times of a drought or famine or pestilence, they turn from their sins and “pray toward this place,” may God forgive them and grant them rain, satisfy their need, and remove sickness or pestilence from them. And all this is asked for because God said of this house that his name shall be there. But is not such answer to prayer visible manifestation of divine providence? Is not the divine action, which constitutes the answer, the manner in which God makes himself known to people? We have found earlier that exactly by such providential self-manifestations God establishes his “name” among men. We shall, therefore, say that by the manifest efficacy of prayer and repentance submitted in the Temple, God makes himself known to the supplicant. “His name is there” or “He puts His name there” will then mean that through the convincing answer to prayer, God consistently reveals himself in the Temple, he forever makes himself a name there. “He causes his name to dwell there” expresses the constancy of divine self-revelation through acts of divine providence in answer to human plea and repentance. The Temple was built “unto the name of Y,” for through the Temple God made himself known, he made himself “a name” in Israel and among the nations. Since, however, Jeremiah, as we have seen, uses the two phrases— “the house where God causes his name to dwell” and “the house whereupon God’s name is called”—interchangeably, we may conclude that Jeremiah’s “this house whereupon My name is called” means the house through which God makes himself “a name” in the world. It is God’s house in the sense that it is the place where God’s concern for man is consistently made manifest.

This interpretation is supported by a further passage in Solomon’s prayer, which seems to summarize the various points which we have made thus far. It runs as follows:

Moreover concerning the stranger that is not of Thy people Israel, when he shall come out of a far country for Thy name’s sake—for they shall hear of Thy great name, and of Thy mighty hand, and of Thine outstretched arm—when he shall come and pray toward this house; hear Thou in heaven Thy dwellingplace, and do according to all that the stranger calleth to Thee for; that all the peoples of the earth may know Thy name, to fear Thee, as doth Thy people Israel, and that they may know that Thy name is called upon this house which I have built.⁴⁵Ibid. 8:41–43.

According to these words the stranger may know of God’s name in two different ways. At first, he is attracted to the Temple by God’s great name because he has learned of the mighty deeds of the God of Israel. Because of that, he will come and pray in the Temple. When this happens, let God answer his prayer so that “the peoples of all the earth” may know the name. This is a second knowledge. Whereas originally they were attracted by the name that God made for himself by what he did for Israel, let them learn of God’s name in a new sense, i.e., by what God does for them, so that they too may fear Thee as “doth Thy people Israel.” Let them have the same kind of experience of the divine name. It is, then, here clearly stated that by answering convincingly a prayer, God makes his name known. But since this happens at the Temple chosen by God, by learning of God’s name in this manner they will also know that “Thy name is called upon this house.” The Temple, in a sense, stands for a name of God; it makes God renowned. In this sense, the name of God is upon it.

As we saw, Jeremiah applies the expression to himself and says of himself that the name of God is called upon him. Now to prophesy, according to biblical terminology, is to speak “in the name of Y.”⁴⁶Cf. Deut. 18:18–19, 22; I Kings 22:16; I Chron. 21:19; II Chron. 18:15; 33:18; Jer. 11:21; 26:9, etc. To speak in the name of someone means, of course, to speak with his authority; one may do that if such authority has been communicated to one. But in all such communication something is being revealed to the one who is being authorized by the one who authorizes, a wish, a desire, an intention. The attorney learns to know about his client. But more than that, something of the client, a function, the ability to act in a certain manner, is being invested in the attorney. The prophet knows God because God makes himself known to him in an act of revelation. He can call God by a name appropriate to the divine revelation granted to him. This alone, however, would not enable him to speak in God’s name. God also makes Himself known to him by revealing an intention, a will, a desire, a divine word. The prophet knows God also by the meaning of the word that is communicated to him. He can “name” God by this word. But he can speak in the name of God, because the word is not communicated but also entrusted to him. “Thus shalt thou speak!” Authority is invested in him. Something of God is passed on to him. What shall we call it? It is something by which the prophet may call God—a name. Something very similar to what God says of the Temple is also said about the prophet. Of the Temple God said that he “puts his name there”; of the prophet he says: “My name is in him.” In another place God says of the prophet: “and I will put My words in his mouth.”⁴⁷Exod. 23:21; Deut. 18:18. The words too constitute a divine “name.” God is made known by them. God’s name is in the prophet because God puts His words in his mouth. Thus, the prophet may speak in the name of God.⁴⁸Of the priest in the sanctuary it is also said that he serves “in the name of Y.” (Cf., for instance, Deut. 18:5, 7; 21:5.) Of course to serve in the name of Y is not the same as to speak in His name. But that, too, means with His authority. One serves with divine authority only because there has been a manifestation of divine intention and will; as always, such manifestation reveals “a name.” To bless “in the name of Y” (I Chron. 16:2; Pss. 129:8) is always an appeal that God may make himself known by acts of providential care, that he may answer a prayer. In the prayer of Solomon we heard that to swear “by Thine altar in this house” meant that God was asked to judge according to the truth of the oath. This is explicitly so stated in the oath between David and Jonathan: “And Jonathan said to David: ‘Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of Y, saying: Y shall be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed, for ever’ ” (I Sam. 20:42). “So help me God” is an appeal that God may act in a certain way in a given situation. It is an appeal for a divine manifestation of judgment. The weak form of the prophetic speaking in the name of Y is to come in His name (Pss. 118:26). He who comes in the name of God comes on God’s business, represents something which is known to us to be the will or desire of God.

There is an interesting passage in Jeremiah which has important bearing on this matter. Of the false prophets it is said there:

That think to cause My people to forget My name

By their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbor,

As their fathers forgot My name for Baal.

The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream;

And he that hath My word, let him speak My word faithfully. (23:27–28)

Surely, the false prophets did not intend to cause the people to forget that God’s proper name was Y. On the contrary, they pretended to bring to them the word of Y. However, the word was not “put in their mouth.” What goes by the word of God is not His word. Thus, the name of God is forgotten. Which name? The one created by the word, by which the true prophet knows his God; the name, which—through the word—enters into the prophet and is in him.

The prophet, speaking “in the name of God,” represents the name of God in the world. Through his mission God is made known in the world. He stands for a divine act of self-revelation, for a divine name. What was said in this regard of the Temple may well apply to the prophet too, as indeed Jeremiah applied to himself when he said that God’s name was called upon him. God is made known through the prophets. The prophet establishes God’s reputation.

We turn now to Israel, on whom the name of God is called. Our analysis of some of the passages in psalms 102 and 74 has shown us how closely the dignity of God’s name is associated with the destiny of Israel. When the Temple burns and God withdraws himself from Israel, his name is being profaned and blasphemed. When he rebuilds Zion, he reveals his name anew, which is then respected and feared by the nations. Isaiah expresses the same thought, saying:

Now therefore, what do I here, saith Y,

Seeing that My people is taken away for nought?

They that rule over them do howl, saith Y,

And My name continually all the day is blasphemed.

Therefore My people shall know My name;

Therefore! On that day!—for I am the one who speaks;

Behold, here I am. (52:5–6)⁴⁹We deviate in our rendering from both the R.V. and J.P.S. edition. Our translation is justified by syntax and meaning.

The theme is the same as in the psalms we discussed in the previous section of this chapter. The humiliation of Israel causes that God’s name is being blasphemed. God made his name through the manifestation of his providential care for Israel, especially by their liberation from Egypt and by leading them to the promised land. But when God withdraws his providence and Israel is taken away into captivity “for nought,” God’s reputation, his name, is eclipsed. The very howling of the enemy over Israel is blasphemy to God’s name. A new act of redemption is needed that not only saves Israel but also re-establishes the divine reputation. “Therefore,” promises God, his name will be made known anew to his people.⁵⁰See what we said in the previous section about the distinction between name and memorial. “Therefore” and on the promised day it will happen, for God will say to them: “behold, here I am.” By new acts of redemption he reveals to them his presence which was not experienced by them in the days of their humiliation.

The association between Israel and God’s name was expressed most succinctly by Joshua. At a moment of crisis, when the men of Israel were beaten back by the men of Ai, he said in his prayer:

Oh, Y, what shall I say, after that Israel hath turned their backs before their enemies! For when the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land hear of it, they will compass us round, and cut off our name from the earth; and what wilt Thou do for Thy great name? (7:8–9)

God’s “great name,” his renown in history, is inseparable from the name of Israel. God’s name shares the destinies of God’s people.

There are two passages which throw a most surprising light on our subject. The one found in Deuteronomy. We shall first quote it in the R.V.⁵¹We quote the R.V. rather than the J.P.S. translation, though in the essential point of our discussion they are identical, because we prefer its rendering of am s’gulla as “a peculiar people” to the latter’s “a treasure.”

And Y hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and thou shouldest keep all his commandments; And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto Y thy God, as he hath spoken. (26:18–19)

We take it that “in praise, and in name, and in honour” refers to “to make thee high above all nations.” The meaning would then be that God elevated Israel in praise, in name, and in honor. The praise, name, and honor, would then be distinctions of Israel. Because of such an interpretation, l’tiferet was translated as, “in honour.” It was apparently felt that the usual meaning of tiferet as glory could not properly apply to a people in this context.⁵²The J.P.S. edition translates here correctly and has “glory.” A more exact rendering of the Hebrew original would be: “for praise, and for a name, and for glory.” The literal translation, however, seems to leave us with a somewhat obscure meaning. The difficulty of interpretation induced the translator, as often in such cases, to find a solution in free translation. Thus, the essential biblical meaning was lost.

The theme of these verses from Deuteronomy occurs also in Jeremiah. One must read both passages together in order to illuminate what appears to be obscure in Deuteronomy. The verse we have in mind reads in the R.V. translation⁵³Essentially the same as the J.P.S. version. as follows:

For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel, and the whole house of Judah, saith Y; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory; but they would not hear. (13:11)

Undoubtedly, in expressing what Israel might be unto God, Jeremiah uses the same language that we have found in our quotation from Deuteronomy. They are the very words here and there: l’am, for a people, there: l’am s’gullah, a peculiar people; ul’shem, and for a name; v’lit’hillah, and for a praise; ul’tiferet, and for a glory. Here and there, it is the same text and both passages must be translated alike. The meaning in Jeremiah is unequivocal. God planned to take Israel unto himself for a people, for a name, for praise and glory. Israel is to become God’s people. By what God does for Israel’s redemption and preservation, he makes himself a name. By hearing of the mighty deeds of God on behalf of Israel, for instance, in Egypt, the nations learn about God. For the sake of the providence so visibly manifested over Israel, God is praised and glorified. What he does for Israel establishes God’s renown in history. This is Jeremiah’s meaning; and this is also exactly the meaning in Deuteronomy, too. After having stated that God has destined Israel to become “his peculiar people” and that he made it “high above all nations,” the text in Deuteronomy states, as the one in Jeremiah, that God did this so that Israel may become “for a praise, and for a name, and for a glory,” all this for God. Through his specific relationship to Israel God makes himself a name in the world. Isaiah, combining shem and tiferet, says of God’s providence over Israel in the days of Moses:

So didst Thou lead Thy people,

To make Thyself a name of glory. (63:14)

By leading Israel, God made himself a name of glory; he took Israel unto himself “for a name and for a glory.” But whereas Jeremiah speaks of God’s disappointment with Israel, Isaiah also speaks of the promise of the future, in which God will renew his name through the ultimate redemption of Israel. Of this time Isaiah says;

For ye shall go out with joy,

And be led forth with peace;

The mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing,

And all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

And it shall be to Y for a name,⁵⁴Here, too, since the translator does not know what to begin with the Hebrew shem, name, he translates it as memorial. We have shown that shem is name and zekher is memorial and rather different from name. The phrase, “for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off” reminds one of the words in Ps. 74 which we discussed in the previous section, “we see not our signs.” But this was said of the time when God’s name is blasphemed, i.e., the name is not manifest. The “everlasting sign that shall not be cut off” explains the “name.” The name will be a sign to be seen. It will be “everlasting,” i.e., it will never again fade to a mere memorial. It will remain a name for ever. It is exactly for this reason that the attribute olam (ever) is connected with it, as a reminder of the words in Exod., “This is My name forever.”

For an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off. (55:12–13)

This act of redemption in the future will be a name for God, an act by which he will be known anew, but this time for ever. For this name will be an “everlasting sign” that will never again turn into a memorial preserved from generation to generation. After that redemption, there will be no more exile, no more hiding of the face, no more profanation of the name, of the praise, and of the glory.

Jeremiah, who—as we saw—spoke of God’s disappointment with Israel, who were intended to be for a name for God, speaks even more beautifully than Isaiah of the time when a restored Jerusalem will be “for a name” for God. We shall quote his words more fully.

Behold, I will bring it healing and cure, and I will cure them; and I will reveal unto them the abundance of peace and truth. And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at the first. And I will cleanse them from all their inquity, whereby they have sinned against Me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have transgressed against Me. And this city shall be to Me for a name of joy, for a praise and for a glory, before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear all the good that I do unto them, and shall fear and tremble for all the good and for all the peace that I procure unto it. (33:6–9)

Once again we hear of the name and the praise and the glory that Jerusalem, symbolizing her people, for which Israel will be to God “before all the nations of the earth.” The nations of the earth will learn to know God by the good that he does to the holy city and its inhabitants. The name God will thus gain, will be one of joy for “the good and the peace that he procures,” one of praise and glory.

We may sum up our discussion thus far by saying that in the history of the nations Israel represents the divine reputation. God has made Israel unto himself for a name; in a sense, Israel is “a name” of God. This is the deepest significance of the words of Joshua which we have quoted earlier: if they will cut off our name from the earth, what wilt Thou do for Thy great name? It is with reference to “the great name,” which God has made himself through Israel, that King David, using the verbalized form of gadol, great, prayed:

And let Thy name be magnified for ever, saying:

Y of hosts, God of Israel.⁵⁵II Sam. 7:26; I Chron. 17:24.

This is not a statement that “Y of hosts” is the God of Israel. The entire phrase is God’s name in its manifestation in the world. God’s name is: “Y of hosts, God of Israel.” It is magnified whenever “Y of hosts” reveals himself as the God of Israel. As if to explain this last term, the text in I Chronicles adds: Elohim to Israel. But we have already learned that Y becomes Elohim to someone when he exercises toward him His preserving providence. “Y of hosts” is that over his entire creation. His name, Elohim of Israel, is his reputation, which he makes himself by performing his providential acts for Israel in a manner visible to all. Of this historically manifest connection between the “name” of God in the world and the destinies of the Jewish people does the Bible say: “And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of Y is called upon thee.”⁵⁶Deut. 28:10.

TO CALL ON THE NAME

“To call upon the name of Y” is a phrase which occurs quite often in the Bible.⁵⁷See, for instance, Gen. 4:26; 12:8; 21:33; 26:25. Usually, it means turning to God in prayer. The exact meaning of the expression may be easily derived from a well-known passage in Exodus. In that mystery-charged confrontation between God and Moses which follows on the drama of the sin of the Golden Calf, Moses made two requests: that God may show him His ways and that He may show him His glory. The second request was denied to Moses. “Thou canst not see My face for man shall not see Me and live” was God’s reply. The first request, however, was granted in the words: “I will make all My goodness pass before thee, and will call upon the name of Y before thee.”⁵⁸Exod. 33:19. It is rather surprising to hear God say of himself that he would call upon the name of Y.⁵⁹There is nothing gained by rendering this strange sentence as is done in the R.V. as well as in the J.P.S. edition, as: “and I will proclaim the name of Y before thee.” If that meant that God would proclaim before Moses that his name was Y, the sentence would be void of all significance. There was no need at this stage to make any such proclamation to Moses. Nor could that be any answer to Moses’ request for being shown the ways of God. The truth, of course, is that God did show his ways to Moses by “calling upon the name of Y.” For so we read in the following chapter the evolvement of the divine answer.

And Y descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and called upon the name of Y:

Y, Y, God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth; keeping mercy unto the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and unto the fourth generation. (34:6–7)

This description represents divine attributes which have rightly been called “attributes of action,”⁶⁰Cf. Maimonides, Moreh Nebukhim, I, ch. 54. Rabbinical teaching bases on this text the “Thirteen Attributes.” they determine the ways of God, the principles by which he acts toward men. But acting in accordance with these attributes is what establishes God’s name in the world. His ways with men create his names among men. In a sense, these attributes, describing how God deals with his creatures, are his “name.” Concerning their proclamation before Moses, God says that He will “call upon the name of Y,” meaning that he will reveal to Moses His attributes of action toward men which are His ways and constitute His name. When God calls upon the name of Y, He proclaims them; when man calls upon His name, he appeals to God’s attributes of mercy; he prays. He calls that God may activate His “name” toward him. It is for this reason that the psalmist calls to God:

O God, help me by Thy name,

And save me by Thy might.

O God, hear my prayer. (54:3–4)

All prayer is a “call upon the name of Y.” It is reliance on His ways with men. He who in prayer calls upon the name of Y recalls God’s name-creating providential care in the past and puts his trust in it for the future.

However, it is possible for man to “call upon the name of Y” not only in prayerful intercession. Man may do it before God as God did it before Moses—proclaiming it. Of course, when one does it in this manner, the result is a hymn to God or a prayer of thanksgiving. Moses’ great song in Deuteronomy is introduced with the words: “For I will proclaim the name of Y; ascribe ye greatness unto our God.” What follows is a hymn in praise of God’s ways with men from human experience, the same ways which were at first revealed to Moses with divine authority.

The Rock, His work is perfect;

For all His ways are justice;

A God of faithfulness and without iniquity,

Just and right is He. (32:4)

This, too, is “calling upon the name of Y,” proclaiming in gratitude His providential concern by which Moses knew Him. It is true that this hymn of Moses is not introduced with the exact wording, “for I will call upon the name of Y.” The exact form of the introduction is: “for I will call the name of Y.” This, however, is due to the fact that Moses’ hymn is not addressed to God. In his farewell song to his people he describes the ways of God for them. He, indeed, proclaims the name of God. One calls “upon the name of Y,” when one confronts God. One may do this in a prayer of intercession, putting one’s trust in the “name”; but one may also do it in a prayer of thanksgiving, declaring his goodness and mercies, his “name” experienced, to all. One of the most impressive passages of this kind we find in Isaiah. It is the entire contents of chapter 12. Speaking of the day on which God’s anger will be turned from Israel and God will become the comforter, the salvation, the strength, and the song of Israel, the prophet says:

And in that day shall ye say:

Give thanks unto Y, call upon His name;

Declare His doings among the peoples,

Make mention that His name is exalted.

Sing unto Y; for He hath done gloriously;

This is made known in all the earth. (vss. 4–5)⁶¹Cf. also Pss. 105:1; I Chron. 16:8. For some mysterious reason, the J.P.S. translation renders the phrase qir’u bish’mo in the same kind of context in the Psalms as “call upon His name,” but Isa. as “proclaim His name.”

In a thanksgiving prayer one “calls upon the name of Y” by praising Him for His glorious doings, which is essentially a grateful proclaiming of the name which He made known to one by revealing Himself as Comforter and Savior.

At least in one psalm we find both forms of calling upon the name of Y exemplified. In the opening verses of that psalm we read:

The cords of death encompassed me,

And the straits of the nether-world got hold upon me;

I found trouble and sorrow.

But I called upon the name of Y:

“I beseech Thee, O Y, deliver my soul [italics added].”

The prayer was answered and deliverance came. The psalmist continues:

How can I repay unto Y

All His bountiful dealings toward me?

I will lift up the cup of salvation,

And call upon the name of Y.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I will offer to Thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving,

And will call upon the name of Y [italics added]. (116:3–4, 12–13, 17)

How different is the calling upon the name of Y, which is mentioned in the first part of the psalm, from those two in its latter part. The first is a call from the heart of trouble and sorrow; the last two are exultant expressions of happiness as part of joyous thanksgiving. Encompassed by “the cords of death” one calls upon the name of Y, turning to the Deliverer, asking for deliverance. After salvation, one calls again upon the name of Y, turning to the Deliverer, thanking for the deliverance he has granted.

However, it may happen that as a result of suffering or a sin a man may become so demoralized that he is no longer able to call upon the name of Y. The prophet Isaiah is describing such a situation when he says:

And we are all become as one that is unclean,

And all our righteousnesses are as a polluted garment;

And we all do fade as a leaf,

And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

And there is none that calleth upon Thy name,

That stirreth up himself to take hold of Thee;

For Thou hast hid Thy face from us,

And hast consumed us by means of our iniquities [italics added]. (64:5–6)

We learn from the prophet’s words that to call upon God’s name means to stir oneself to take hold of God. Yet, people cannot do it, when God hides his face from man and lets them be consumed in their sins. Why not? Because the hiding of the face is also the hiding of the name. When God removes himself from man, there are no manifestations of his ways toward man. He is silent; he is indifferent to man’s plight. He becomes “unknown.” No name is being revealed in the hour of the hiding of the face. It was about exactly such a situation that we heard the psalmist complain that the adversary is free to profane the divine name. Now we hear that at such times, because in the hour of the hiding of the face there is no contemporary manifestation of the name, even Jews may fail to rely on the name of Y and may not call on it. There are times when the name made known in the past, the memorial, is not enough to induce man to call upon the name in the present. The thought may help us to understand a strange expression in a prayer of Nehemiah, at the conclusion of which he said:

O Y, I beseech Thee, let now Thine ear be attentive to the prayer of Thy servant, and to the prayer of Thy servants, who desire to fear Thy name. (1:11)⁶²The translation is from the R.V. The J.P.S. version, instead of “who desire to fear thy name,” has “who delight to fear thy name.” Undoubtedly, “who desire to fear thy name” is difficult to understand. Nevertheless, hafes does not mean to delight, but to desire. The fact that we do not understand a biblical expression does not entitle us to rewrite the Bible.

“To desire to fear Thy name” is a most surprising concept. If they so desire, let them! But if they only desire to fear God’s name but do not fear it in reality, how can such desire be mentioned in support of a request that God answer the prayer of his servants, who desire so ineffectively? Apparently, they desire to fear God’s name, but there is something beyond themselves which prevents fulfillment of their desire. What could it be? In the light of the word of Isaiah, the answer to the question seems to be simple: the hiding of the face. Together with Nehemiah the majority of the Jews lived in captivity. The remnant in Judah was heavily afflicted. The walls of Jerusalem were broken down and her gates “burned with fire.” The servants of God prayed in a dark hour of the hiding of the face. The name of God, his renown established through his guidance of Israel, had become a mere memory. In their prayers they are asking a new manifestation of divine providence for God’s people, for a new revelation of God’s “name.” They desire to fear God’s name; they desire to respect, to treat with awe, the contemporary name, for whose revelation they are praying. They cannot satisfy their desire because “the name” is being withheld in that hour of the hiding of the face. Theirs is the desire but it is of a kind that can only be satisfied with the help of God. As if to say: show us “the name” that we may fear it.

At times, the desire to respect the name may be present, yet man may still plead for divine help in order to be able to call upon the name of God. The psalmist says of such a situation in which a man may find himself:

So shall we not turn back from Thee;

Quicken Thou us, and we will call upon Thy name.

There is the determination not to turn from God. But there is also a sensing of some vital weakness, which—notwithstanding the determination not to turn from God—does not let one call upon his name trustingly. One prays for divine help. “Quicken Thou us,” enable us to “call upon Thy name.” It is a prayer for divine help to enable one to pray. Only after such preliminary prayer does the psalmist continue and prays:

O Y of hosts, restore us;

Cause Thy face to shine, and we shall be saved. (80:19–20)

This is the calling upon the name, for which the psalmist hoped that Israel might be able to undertake with the help of God. The phrase, “cause Thy face to shine,” is the indication why it was for them necessary to plead first: “quicken Thou us.” There are moments of the hiding of the face, when even those “who desire to fear Thy name” do not have the strength to call upon it without being first “quickened” by God. It is of such travails of the soul that these words of the psalmist, and the verses quoted from Isaiah and Nehemiah, bring us tidings.

Y IS HIS NAME

There is one more phrase incorporating shem (name) in relationship to God which we should like to discuss. We came across it at the beginning of this chapter in the quotation from Exodus: “Y is a man of war, Y is His name.” We were not sure that we understood the significance of such a statement. What is really conveyed by saying that the name of Y, who is “a man of war,” is Y? Jeremiah, too, as well as Amos, use the expression, Y is His name. An interpretation suggests itself in their case which deserves some consideration. Calling upon the house of Israel to seek God and live, Amos says:

Him that maketh the Pleiades and Orion,

And turneth the shadow of death into the morning,⁶³The quotation is from the J.P.S. edition except for this line, for which we accept the rendering of the R.V.

And darkeneth the day into night;

That calleth forth the waters of the sea,

And poureth them out upon the face of the earth;

Y is His name. (5:8)

God is here described as the omnipotent creator and ruler of the universe. Now, in Chapter 1 we have established that whenever reference is made to the manifestation of God’s power and authority, we find the statement: “that they may know that I am Y” or the shorter one: “I am Y.” We may, then, perhaps say that here, too, since God is represented in his creative and ruling power, the concluding phrase, “Y is His name,” is appropriate. It is a reminder that the divine name Y stands for omnipotence and divine transcendence.⁶⁴Cf. also Amos 9:6 where the same phrase occurs in a very similar context. The phrase may have the same meaning as it is used by Jeremiah too.⁶⁵Cf. Jer. 33:2. This interpretation seems to derive further support from another passage in Jeremiah, where the affirmation about Y and His name is varied by the fact that it is made by God, speaking about himself. The words there are:

Therefore, behold, I will cause them to know,

This once I will cause them to know

My hand and My might;

And they shall know that My name is Y. (16:21)

Here the reference to God’s supreme might and power is explicit. Such manifestation of sovereign power will bring the nations the knowledge that His name is Y. This is fully in keeping with our findings in Chapter 1. Of such manifestation we heard the Bible say again and again: “and they will know that I am Y.” In this case, “And they shall know that My name is Y,” would be the equivalent of the knowledge that He is Y. Neither would such an interpretation of the term, which we are discussing here, contradict our previous conclusions about the name of God. Y is of course the divine name in the proper sense of the word. Our deductions in this chapter thus far dealt only with expressions like “the name of Y,” which—as we have repeatedly pointed out—could not be Y, and with passages, where the context proved that the name meant a divine manifestation or self-revelation through divine action, essentially of a providential character, revealing God’s ways with men. Nevertheless, it is difficult to be satisfied with this interpretation. Following it, we would have to say that Moses wished to affirm that Y, being “a man of war,” well knew how to wage war successfully since “Y is His name,” i.e., since He is Y, He has the power to do it. It does not ring true. Unlike the rest of Moses’ song, it would be a formulation singularly lacking any poetic dignity.

There is also the additional difficulty that not all passages in which the phrase occurs tolerate this interpretation. When God, speaking through the mouth of Isaiah, says:

I am Y, that is My name;

And My glory I will not give to another,

Neither My praise to graven images. (42:8)

Surely he does not mean to say that, since his name is Y, he is all-powerful and will not recognize the claims of the idols. But, perhaps, an analysis of the entire context, and of the place that our quotation has in it may lead us to the solution of our problem. After the opening verses in which God describes the historic function of his servant, whom he “upholds” and upon whom he has “put his spirit,” we read:

Thus saith God, Y,

He that created the heavens, and stretched them forth,

He that spread forth the earth and that which cometh out of it,

He that giveth breath unto the people upon it,

And spirit to them that walk therein:

I am Y!⁶⁶For our reason for this form of the translation we refer to what we have said in Chapter 1. I have called thee in Sedeq

And have taken hold of thy hand,

And kept thee, and set thee for a covenant of the people,

For a light of the nations;

To open the blind eyes,

To bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,

And them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house.

I am Y, that is My name;

And My glory will I not give to another,

Neither My praise to graven images. (vss. 5–8)

One wonders what the connection may be between the declaration that God does not intend to give his praise and glory to the idols and the task which he assigned to his servant. Would not the passage be more complete if it had concluded with the line, “I am Y, that is My name”? We are utterly unprepared for a conclusion which seems to introduce a new idea utterly indifferent to the theme of the passage.

The text before us reminds us of the distinction that we were able to make in the first chapter between the phrases: “that they may know that I am Y” and “that they may know that I am Y their Elohim,” or simply between the two declarations: “I am Y” and “I am Y their Elohim.” In our text there are two references to God. In the first one he is described as Y, the Creator of heaven and earth and the source of all life. In the second reference it is maintained that Y, who has just been described as the Lord and Creator, is also the one who has called His servant and taken him by the hand and appointed him for a light of the nations to bring about salvation and liberation for man. This function, however, by which God reveals himself as being close to an individual human being and concerned about the plight of man, makes Him known as Elohim. We have found it to be fundamental biblical teaching that Y is Elohim, that His manifestations in nature or history must not be personified and recognized as deities under Him, to whom He delegated some of His powers and who thus represent Him. In keeping with our findings in the first chapter, the first reference in our text to the omnipotent Creator could very well have concluded with the proclamation: “I am Y!” Whereas the statement that Y is the one who takes His servant by the hand asks for the concluding formula: “I am Y your Elohim!”, instead of it we have: “I am Y, that is My name.”

There is also something else unusual in our text. Instead of the familiar, “Thus saith Y,” the opening phrase here is: “Thus saith ha-El, God, Y, He that created the heavens.” In other words, Elohim is being identified here as Y. This is repeated in the opening words, spoken by ha-El to his servant: “I am Y, who hath called thee.” One, who is known as ha-El identified himself as Y. I, Elohim, who calls thee, am Y, the very same, who created heaven and earth. Whereas previously we were discussing the affirmation that Y is Elohim, we have here the rather unusual one that Elohim is Y. It would seem that both affirmations are necessary. When people have formed the idea of a supreme omnipotent Creator, they are inclined to think that, because of His infinite greatness, He could not be concerned with man and his condition. Therefore, they seek for themselves minor deities, to whom they might turn in their need. To counteract such tendencies in the human psyche comes the biblical proclamation: Y, notwithstanding His infinitude and transcendence, is your Elohim, the one who is near and concerned about you. But there is also another tendency in human nature which has to be controlled. A man may become too familiar with God, the one whose providence he has actually experienced, the one who has “taken hold of his hand”; he may reduce Him to finite dimensions. The children of Israel were at times subject to such tendencies. The repeated experience of God’s mercies toward them, the numerous revelations, the significance of the divine presence in their midst as symbolized by the Holy Temple, brought God rather close to them. He was at hand, as it were. We hear God raise this issue with them through the mouth of his prophet Jeremiah, when He says:

Am I a God near at hand, saith Y,

And not a God far off?

Can any hide himself in secret places

That I shall not see him? saith Y.

Do not I fill heaven and earth?

Saith Y. (23:23–24)

What is the meaning of this seemingly mysterious complaint? They became familiar with God, all too familiar. God had come near and they lost the perspective of His infinitude. His very closeness caused them to reduce the dimensions of the divine. They forgot that their Elohim, so near, was yet, Y, the one who transcends the All. Originally, they had to be taught not to look for an Elohim beside Y; now that Y had shown himself to be their Elohim, they lost sight of Y, the Infinite, and saw only Elohim, the one who was near. Having been forbidden to look for an Elohim beside Y, they transformed Y into a mere Elohim who was near and not also far off. They turned Y into an idol. In such a situation, instead of demonstrating that Y is Elohim, one must proclaim that Elohim is Y. It is this kind of affirmation that we find in the words from Isaiah which we have been examining. It is ha-El who speaks; God, who is known and near to his servant, whom He called; perhaps, all too near. This known God identifies himself as Y. Do not mistake me for a mere Elohim. I, who have called you and taken you by the hand, am Y, the very same, who has created heaven and earth. I, who have been so near to you, am also the one who surpasses, and is beyond, all the dimensions of the creation. In essence this means that Y and Elohim are one and the same. Yet, what is being said here could not be expressed by the familiar formula, “Y, He is Elohim!” one would have to say: the God, with whom you are familiar, He is Y. And indeed, it is exactly what is proclaimed in our text. It is ha-El, the God, one known in a definite manner, who speaks and affirms about himself that He is none other than Y. He cannot say about himself: I am Y your Elohim. “Your Elohim” is the speaker. What he says is: I, your Elohim, am Y.

We are now in a position to interpret the phrase: “I am Y, that is My name.” It does not mean that Y’s name is Y. This would be an empty tautology. “My” refers to the speaker, who is ha-El. “My name” means the name of the God. What ha-El says is: I am Y and, therefore, know me as Y. The emphasis is necessary. For the acts in which Y reveals himself to men, and by which He becomes ha-El to men, may be hypostasized. The danger is that the manifestations of Y in the universe may become personified deities to whom Y has delegated some of His authority. To counter this, the God, who is known to the servant, proclaims that He is Y and He is Y in His “name” too, in all His acts of self-revelation that establish His name. Y is Y and all His manifestations are Y. It is, therefore, proper that the text should read:

I am Y, that is My name;

And My glory will I not give to another,

Neither My praise to graven images.

The last two lines elaborate the theme of the first one. The “name,” the manifestations of the divine in the world is self-revelation of Y. Such acts of self-revelation must not be hypostasized as separate deities under Y or with Him. For He does not give His glory to another; He does not delegate either His authority or His love for His creation to anyone. All glory and all praise belong to Him alone.

If our interpretation is correct, the phrase, “Y is His name”—and its appropriate variations—means to warn against the error of mistaking what is a manifestation of Y in the world for a separate deity under Y or beside Him. It would seem to us that most of the relevant passages bear this out. The passage in Jeremiah, to which we had occasion to refer earlier in our present discussion, reads in full:

O Y, my strength, and my stronghold,

And my refuge, in the day of affliction,

Unto Thee shall the nations come

From the ends of the earth, and shall say:

“Our fathers have inherited nought but lies,

Vanity and things wherein there is no profit.”

Shall a man make unto himself gods,

And they are no gods?

Therefore, behold, I will cause them to know

My hand and My might;

And they shall know that My name is Y. (16:19–21)

The prophet’s words that Y is his stronghold and refuge in times of trouble means that Y is his Elohim. It is, however, different with the nations. They have Elohim, who is apart from Y; gods who are near and at hand. They will yet discover their mistakes and come to Y and find in Him their strength and refuge; they too will learn that Y, He is Elohim. In the second paragraph in our quotation, God refers to these nations who have Elohim without Y. The words, which we find most revealing in the exclamatory question of God, are: “And they are no gods.” What man makes himself unto gods are referred to as “they”; they may be pointed to. They are. They are not nothing. But they are not gods. What then are they? They are the shem of Y, manifestations of the power and the presence of Y made into gods by men. Therefore, when He causes men to know Y, they will also learn that His manifestations, His “name,” is Y. The manifestation of the divine in the world is Y’s self-revelation.

Various difficult passages may be explained along similar lines. Asking for the punishment of God’s enemies, the psalmist says:

Fill their faces with shame;

That they may seek Thy name, O Y.

Let them be ashamed and affrighted for ever;

Yea, let them be ashamed and perish;

That they may know that it is Thou alone whose name is Y.

The Most High over all the earth. (Pss. 83:17–19)

We have quoted the J.P.S. translation, in essence not differing here from the R.V., in order to illustrate the difficulty of interpretation. To our mind the idea that they—whoever they may be—have to be shown that Y alone is called Y makes no sense. No one ever rebelled against God because he believed that there was yet another God who too was called Y. Clearly, whatever they should learn about the name of Y continues the subject which was introduced by the psalmist’s suggestion that they may seek the name of Y. What does it mean that their faces be filled with shame, so that they may seek the name of Y? In biblical language shame is associated with the worship of idols. When people realize that the gods they worshipped are all foolishness and vanity, they are overcome with a sense of shame. The psalmist asks that the enemies of God may be put to shame by God’s act, showing them the futility of their belief in their gods. But how would such an experience lead to their seeking the name of Y? If the gods are indeed not nothing but something, if they are—for instance—the sun and the moon and the stars which have been personified as deities apart from their Creator, then—when one realizes one’s mistake concerning them and wishes to understand their nature anew—one is “seeking the name of Y,” for the luminaries are indeed manifestation of Y’s might and wisdom and goodness which reveal Him to men. The error of the people to whom the psalmist refers, was that they mistook what was a name of Y for a deity beside Him. When, disabused of their illusions, they will ask themselves the question: what then do these forces of nature represent, what do they stand for? they will be seeking Y’s name. When they are reduced to utter helplessness⁶⁷It is thus that we understand the meaning of “and perish.” Surely, should they really perish, the psalmist could not have continued, “That they may know….” If they perish, they cannot know anymore. Neither do we accept the R.V. rendering, which—basing itself on Kimhi’s commentary—changes the subject and translates: that men may know, i.e., learning from the example of those who perished, men will know. We do not accept it, because—quite clearly—the point is being made that they, who at first will be made to seek, will ultimately find, and thus, know. and their gods have been proved to be of no avail, they will know. And now let us see what the psalmist really says about the object of their newly gained knowledge. We have pointed out why we disagree with the usual translations. Actually, the Hebrew text does offer some difficulty for the translator. It does not say: that they may know that Thy name alone is Y. The complication arises through the personal pronoun, atta, Thou, which is placed before shimkhah, thy name. So that we would have to translate: that they may know that Thou, Thy name alone is Y, which of course does not seem to make much sense. The renderings of the J.P.S. and the R.V. translations aim at resolving this difficulty in the syntax. Unfortunately, as we have indicated above, the meaning was lost in the translation. We believe that the unusually placed personal pronoun, atta, is the key to the understanding of the passage. We connect, Thou, with l’badekhah, alone, and translate:

That they may know that

Thou, whose name is Y, art alone,

The Most High over all the earth.

Now, the continuity of the thought in this concluding sentence becomes clear. Having experienced the futility of their gods and thus compelled to seek the name of Y, they will learn that His name is Y, that He makes Himself manifest in Nature and in History and that His manifestations too are Y, they reveal only Him. All this means that Thou, just because Thy name is Y, art alone, the Most High over all the earth. What was, at first, thought to be god beside Y becomes recognized in its true nature to be but one of the “names” of God.

One of the difficult passages in Isaiah is the verse:

O Y our God, other lords beside Thee have had dominion over us; But by Thee only do we make mention of Thy name. (26:13)

What is the connection between the first and the second line of this verse? In our opinion, “the other lords” are not kings or princes who at various times subjugated Israel. Speaking of human beings, the prophet could not have called them, “lords beside Thee.” The very verb for holding dominion in the Hebrew text is, ba’al, which—by association—conjures up the service of Baal. The prophet recalls the fact that in the past Israel often followed idolatrous practices. Nevertheless, as to the present, he affirms that by Thee alone shall we make mention of Thy name. The affirmation is very much to the point. Idol worship in Israel meant the deification of what was, in truth, manifestation of Y. They made mention of Y’s name by other gods. The prophet’s promise is that, although in the past they transformed the “name” into separate deities beside God, from now on they will relate the name of Y to Y alone. “By Thee only do we make mention of Thy name.”

The theme of our present discussion culminates in the famous words of Zechariah:

And Y shall be King over all the earth;

In that day shall Y be One, and His name One. (14:9)

Normally, this is understood to mean that God will be recognized by all as the one God and, therefore, he will be called by all one and the same name.⁶⁸It would seem that for this reason the J.P.S. edition renders the first ehad, referring to God, as “One”; whereas the second ehad, referring to the name, as “one.” We spell both with a capital O.
CHAPTER 4 This, however, would be a rather insignificant statement. Once all the people of the earth recognize Y as the One God, what difference does it make whether they call Him all by one name or not. In the language of different peoples He may very well be called by different names. In our opinion, the verse requires an entirely different interpretation. Of course, Y is always One. That is His essential being. He will not be One just on “that day.” The difference between now and “that day” is that, while in historic time though God is One, His name is not One, in the fullness of time God will be One and His name, too, will be One. What does it mean? That in the course of history people worship different gods is due to the fact that they are unable to identify Y with His name. They misunderstand the name, Y’s manifestations, and self-revelations. They separate it from its source and give it an existence of its own. The innumerable self-manifestations of Y are really all one for they all represent Him. But when they are mistaken to be separate entities, the one name breaks down into a multiplicity of gods. Such is the case in history. But on that day when God becomes known as King over all the earth, the manifestations of Y will be recognized for what they truly are; then not only will God be One but His name, too, will be One. In the numberless acts of His self-revelation which make up His name, all will know Him, who is One. In essence, this is the same thought that we heard God address to his servant through the mouth of Isaiah, when he said: “I am Y, that is My name.” This means: I am One, that is My name.

Concluding Notes

Bible scholars do not seem to have noted the distinction between the name of God, which is Y, and the name of Y, which cannot be Y. This has caused a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding in their writings. Thus, for instance, von Rad writes that to call by the name of Y “is originally a cultic term and means to invoke Y by using his name” (op. cit., p. 183). We have found that the name of Y is a manifestation of Y. To call by the name of Y is to appeal to God, trusting in a manifestation of His, in which He revealed His providence. But without grasping the significance of the expression “the name of Y,” it is difficult to understand the phrase that God “puts” His name in a place. Again we quote von Rad, who says:

And it is in Deuteronomy that we meet with the most striking statements about the name of Y. Y “puts” his name at the one place of Israel’s worship, that he might “dwell” there (Deut. 12, 5, 12, 21; 14, 24). Y himself is in heaven (Deut. 26, 15), but his name “lives” at the place of worship in a well-nigh material way, almost like a being existent in its own right. (op. cit., p. 184)

He senses correctly that “the name” has an almost separate existence from God. But only because it is the divine deed by which he reveals his presence and concern, making himself “known” to man. As we have shown, this name is “put” in the Temple in the sense that the Temple is a place where God’s nearness, His self-revelation by the name-creating deed, becomes manifest. Far from existing in “a well-nigh material way,” we have found that the continuous emphasis on the house built to the name of God has the purpose of eliminating all anthropomorphisms, which would also exclude any such anthropomorphic ideas from the meaning of the name. As usual, H. W. Robinson (The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament [New York, 1956], p. 106) is the furthest removed from a true understanding of the Hebrew Bible. When God says of His messenger that His “name is in him,” according to Robinson, that means that “Y is present in His messenger.” As we have seen, the very opposite is the case. “My name is in him” means that God’s mission, His word and message, by which He intends to make Himself known to Israel, is entrusted to the messenger.

Small surprise that one encounters such lack of clarity when attempting to describe the significance of the knowledge of the name of Y. Thus, again, von Rad (op. cit., p. 182) writes: “Thus the name of Y, in which one might almost say, Y had given himself away, was committed in trust to Israel alone. The heathen do not know it (Pss. 79:6).” The truth is that in the Bible God does not “give Himself away” by the mystery of His name. He gives Himself away by the public revelation of His involvement in the history of Israel and the nations. The heathens, of whom the psalmist says that they do not know God and do not call by His name, are not ignorant of “the name.” They may well know that His name is Y. They do not acknowledge Y and do not call by His name, i.e., they do not trust the manifestations of His providence by which He makes His name. They have no faith in Him to turn to Him in trusting prayer. Von Rad is much closer to the truth, when in another place—and contradicting himself—he has to declare (op. cit., pp. 184–85):

One of the most important things, however, is that for Israel this name never became a “mystery,” to which only the initiated could have access. On the contrary, each and every Israelite was at liberty to avail himself of it, and once she had become fully aware of the distinctiveness of her worship, Israel did not hide this name of God from the Gentiles in fear, but rather felt herself in duty bound to make it known to them.

The full truth is that Israel never hid the name; nor could they have hidden it, even if they had wanted to, because God was revealing it all the time for all to see.

Davidson (op. cit., p. 37) is among the few who show a deeper insight into the meaning of “the name.” While the thorough analysis and discussion of the subject is missing, he is putting it aptly as he writes:

So when the Psalmist in Ps. VIII exclaims, “How excellent is Thy name in all the earth!,” he means how glorious is God’s revelation of Himself…. His grace to men is His name here, His revelation of Himself. So when Israel is warned to give heed to the Angel of the Lord that leads them, for His name is in him (Ex. XIII, 21), the sense is that the significance of God is present there. What God is, His majesty and authority, is there embodied. So His name is holy and reverend; He, as being what He is known to be, is reverendus.

See, however, in Chapter 4 our interpretation of the term “the holy name.”