John Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: April 9

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

John Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: April 9


Today is: Wednesday, April 24th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)

Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of April: (Show All Months)

Jehovah

Exo_6:3

In the Lord’s encouraging words to Moses, we find this remarkable declaration, “I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of God Almighty (El Shaddai), but by my name Jehovah was I not known unto them.” This declaration is calculated to surprise the reader, who, by a slight exertion of memory, will recollect occasions in which that name is so used in the history of the very patriarchs named, as to imply that it was known to them. Nevertheless these words are true, and the only difficulty is in apprehending the sense in which they are to be understood. There are two explanations, each of which has so much probability in its favor, that by regarding both, or rather either, as tenable, we find ourselves rather embarrassed between the choice of two sufficient explanations, than at a loss to find any explanation. This proves to be often the case when the come to examine closely the alleged difficulties of Scripture. It will be so found in more of the cases of this nature to which we may have to call attention; and the relief afforded in these instances by the most earnest consideration of the subject, will be extended to other cases which may not come under our notice; for if explanations are found in some few remarkable examples, it will justly be deemed that other cases of the like nature are equally free from insuperable difficulty.

It is held by some that the words in question are to be taken in their most strict and literal sense, and that it is consequently affirmed that the ineffable name of Jehovah was altogether unknown to the ancient patriarchs, and was first revealed to Moses at the burning bush, where, when he asked the name which he should announce to Israel, God declared himself by the sacred designation, “I am that I am”—which is precisely of the same origin and import with “Jehovah;” and who then said, moreover, of the name Jehovah, “This is my name forever, and this is my memorial through all generations.” The advocates of this opinion are not unaware of the objection to their view, derivable from the presence of the name in the book of Genesis; but they urge, that there is no evidence that the book of Genesis was written until after the divine appearance to Moses at Horeb, where this great name was first revealed; and the mere fact of making use of the name in that book, is no sufficient proof that the name was known to those of whom he writes, any more than the mention of a place called “Dan,” in the time of Abraham, Gen_14:4, proves that the place, which we know was at that time called “Laish,” was then known by that name. It is further urged, that since Moses wrote both for his own age, and for the ages to come, it was highly proper that in writing the history of the Hebrew nation, from the earliest period, he should use, by anticipation, that peculiar name by which the Most High was known to them as their God—the very same God who brought them out of Egypt, and who, just before that event, had made the name known to them as that by which he would especially be called, in memory of that great event.

But still, there are passages in which the patriarchs are represented as expressly addressing the Lord by this very title of Jehovah. We have an instance of this in Gen_15:2, where Abraham says, “Lord God Note: Here the word Jehovah, usually translated by Lord, is rendered God—because Adonai, which is also usually rendered by “Lord,” is joined to it. It would have been much better to have put it as “Lord Jehovah.” (Adonai-Jehovah), what wilt thou give me?” Such passages are, under this view, supposed to be corrupted in the original text, and that later transcribers have substituted “Jehovah” for “Elohim,” or “Adonai,” which Moses probably wrote. In further support of this view, it is urged that had the name been already known before it was disclosed to Moses, at Horeb, and had been the common appellation of the God of the patriarchs, the question of Moses, “Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say unto me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?” (Exo_3:15) would have been needless, for God had before told him that he was the God of his fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. It is hence clear that Moses knew not that he had any particular name; and that particular name, Jehovah, is now, for the first time, imparted to him, as that by which he would be known as the covenant God of the Israelites.

But there are those who rather understand the words of this declaration as implying, not that the literal name Jehovah was unknown to the patriarchs, but that its true, full, and complete import had not been disclosed to them; whereas, henceforward, the chosen people would come to understand it practically, experimentally, heartfully, in all its deep meaning and significance. Now, it is to be understood that the name Jehovah denotes not only God’s eternal existence, but his unchangeable truth and almighty power, which give life to his promises by the active performance of them. The fathers believed in the things that were promised. “They were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims upon the earth;” but they did not experimentally know them in their actual accomplishment. But now the time was come for the doing, the actual fulfillment, of that which had been decreed and promised, and the name Jehovah should no longer be known to them, as to the fathers, in its dead letter, but in its living and realized truth. Accordingly, in the words which immediately follow, and which may be regarded as explanatory of this declaration, the Lord proceeds to pledge himself to the immediate and complete fulfillment of his ancient promises. In corroboration of this view we are referred to divers passages in which God is said to make himself “known” under this august designation of Jehovah, by bringing to pass the grand predicted events of his providence. Note: These are examples: “And the Egyptians shall know that I am Jehovah, when I stretch forth my hand upon Egypt.”—Exo_7:5. “Then shalt know that I am Jehovah, for I will strike with the rod that is in mine hand, upon the rivers, and they shall be turned to blood”—Exo_7:17. “And they shall know that I am the Lord (Jehovah), when I shall have executed judgments in her, and have been sanctified in her.”—Eze_28:22.

It is hence contended, that the words in the place before us, are not to be understood as an absolute but as a comparative negative, for that the literal name, “Jehovah,” was known to the ancient fathers is undeniable, from the various passages in which the name occurs, and especially from Gen_22:14, “And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-Jireh”—a text which it is absolutely impossible to reconcile with the hypothesis of corruption or of anticipatory use, which the other interpretation alleges. It must be admitted that such comparative modes of speech are not infrequent in Scripture. A remarkable instance, stronger than the one here contended for, may be found in Jer_7:22-23, “I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people.” Now, it is certain that such commandments, regarding ritual service, were given at the time of Israel’s deliverance; but what the prophet means to say, by this strong mode of statement, is, that in the commandments which were given, far more importance was given to moral than to ritual obligations.

The reader has now the principal explanations of this important, and certainly difficult text, before him; and will be enabled to judge for himself which of the two is the most probable. Our own view is that the interpretation in this, as in other cases, is the most correct, which takes the text of Genesis as it stands, and requires no suppositions of alterations by transcribers, or of an anticipatory, but not strictly correct use of the sacred name, in that portion of Scripture. We know no better rule, in judging of various interpretations, than that the one is the most probably right which agrees best with the sacred text as we now have it in our hands. The alterations of transcribers, especially in regard to proper names, are possible, and have, in some cases, been proven; but we must not assume their existence while any other explanation, which dispenses with this necessity, is possible.