God's Name

In G. Campbell Morgan's book, The Ten Commandments, in addressing the first commandment lays the foundation of who the God is we are to worship -- Jehovah. Readers of this blog know this is something I've studied for a long time. I find it interesting that there is a rise in the number of books and authors who no longer use the name Jehovah. Morgan gives a defense of His Bible and the name Jehovah.

"There is deep significance in the name by which God here declares Himself, JEHOVAH. It is a combination of three Hebrew word, which may be translated into an English form thus: Yehi, "He will be," Hove, "being," and Hahyah, "he was." A combination is made from the tree workds by taking the fist syllable of the firs YeHi, the middle syllable of the second, hOVe, and the last syllable of the third, hahyAH, so that we have the name YEHOVAH. The whole name means, "He that will be, He that is, He that was."

In a footnote, Morgan went on to explain:

"This interpretation of the meaning of the word Jehovah has been severely criticized, and among other things has been designed "elaborated absurdity." The interpretation is that of the late Mr. Thomas Newberry, the author of the Englishman's Bible, a Hebraist of conspicuous ability. Of course it is a personal conclusion by one who interprets the Old Testament in the light of the New. The original Hebrew form YHVH left open the question of hte vowels. The generally accepted idea that the word Jehovah is a hybrid of the combination of the vowels ADONAI and YHVH is also a conclusion arrived at, and cannot be fairly stated to be a certainty. In correspondence with Mr. Newberry on the point, after the criticisms referred to, he said in a letter to me, 'The explanation of the Divine title Jehovah is given as a simple statement of facts on the authority of the Sacred Scriptures. In Revelation 1:4, the Holy Ghost has so interpreted its meaning." this may appear to some to be "elaborated absurdity," There are others of us who look upon it as sound and spiritual exposition."

LORD? A Defense of our English Bible

In preparation for preaching Wednesday, I was studying In Matthew 22:43-46, Jesus said, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?' And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions."

"The LORD said unto my Lord..."

I think it's common knowledge for most Bible readers that the word LORD in all caps in our English Bible, refers to the covenant name of God. Some modern translations have taken to replace *some* of those instances with Yahweh or Jehovah (that's a separate issue, and I won't address that here). For years, I've read scholars talk about the crime of the translators following the superstitions of the Jews by not translating God's name, but following the tradition of saying LORD. This is a subject that has fascinated me for well over a decade. I recently preached on the burning bush and dealt with God's name. LORD, I AM that I AM, YHWH  was fresh on my mind as I read this passage.

Jesus quotes Psalm 110:1, “The LORD said unto my Lord…” In both the Old and New Testament, LORD is in all caps in my Bible. In the Psalms, LORD in Hebrew is the Tetragrammaton, the covenant name of God. Hebrew doesn’t have vowels, and until much later in history, they didn’t have vowel markers. The Tetragrammton, God’s name, is spelled in English letters, YHWH. Anytime in our English Bible you see LORD in all caps, it refers to the Divine name. It's not a hidden mystery and I think important to make sure we are aware of the reason for the small caps.

The question: should we or must we substitute LORD with YHWH in our reading or even work toward a translation of the Bible that makes the change? One evangelical author is adamant about getting a translation that changes all instances of LORD to the point of saying it's wrong and superstitious to continue such a foolish tradition. Have God's people been duped for millennia? Does my Bible have literally thousands of mistakes?

Not so fast. Let's think about the passage in Matthew. The Greek Word for LORD is κύριος (kyrios) and that’s the word translated Lord in all three places in Matthew 22:43-46.  But if the King James is mistranslated and it should have been translated YHWH, why didn't the Lord correct it here or why didn't Matthew correct it?

Εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου

See for yourself, the kyrios said to my kyrios. Not YHWH said to my kyrios. 

Did Matthew misquote Jesus? Did Jesus say LORD? Was Matthew wrong in writing LORD?

Or, perhaps, Matthew, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote exactly what God wanted us to read. If we "go to the original", to what original will we go? The Greek which says kyrios or the Hebrew that says YHWH? If "LORD" is wrong, it also means Matthew is wrong. But, since Matthew was under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and the Word of God is innerant and infallible and Matthew wrote LORD quoting the Old Testament, it is not wrong for us to do likewise in the Old or the New Testaments.

It’s easy to point to Jewish superstitions in the Septuagint as the cause for the practice of writing LORD. But if that’s the reason its in the Bible now, why did Matthew commit the same "error"? Why didn't the New Testament authors, who were hardly afraid of ruffling the feathers of the Jews, not set the churches straight? Or, maybe, in God's providence, the people of God have not been wrongly reading God's Word for 2100+ years. You won't find Jesus or the apostles ever correcting Scripture when they quote the Old Testament even when they quoted their translations. We would be much better off following their practice and stop correcting our Bibles and let our Bibles correct us.

Incontinent

I'm going through II Timothy in my morning reading and did a word study on incontinent found in chapter 3 verse 3. No comment, just the notes I took studying the word. Very appropriate word for our times, I think.

Webster's definition is as follows:

INCONTINENT, a. [L. incontinens.] Not restraining the passions or appetites, particularly the sexual appetite; indulging lust without restraint or in violation of law; unchaste; lewd.

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. (2Ti 3:1-5)"

Vine's Expository Dictionary says of the Greek work from which it is translated, that it "denotes "powerless, impotent;" in a moral sense, unrestrained, "without self-control." 

This is the only time this word is used in the New Testament. It is used in the Septuagint once in Proverbs 27:20.


Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted. (Psalm 12:7-8)

DPN