Discussion in 'Messianic Jews / Hebrew Roots Gentiles' started by IshChayil, Sep 23, 2017.
So the shortened "Yah" would be the same? Better? Worse?
Could you elaborate your question more? What are you comparing it to, to see if it is better/worse/same?
Exodus 3:13-15 And Moses said unto God, 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 to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD 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.
Here's my interpretation of this...
I expect God is using the correct vowels here when He pronounces His own name, and appears to be telling Moses to use His name when speaking to the children of Israel, and that His name is forever, and to be a memorial to all generations. I wonder if the destruction of His name from our knowledge is related to the defacto destruction of the Hebrew scriptures prior to the Masoretes circa 1000 AD. I wonder what other priceless gems were "destroyed" also.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
It is hard for me to determine with confidence at what point in time this takes place. Notwithstanding, they shall teach no more saying "Know the LORD" (viz, they were speaking His name?), because everyone already knows Him (His name also?)?
1 Kings 8:22-23 And Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven: And he said, LORD God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart:
Solomon said "LORD God of Israel". It seems like it would be worse to use the wrong name than no name at all.
Psalm 90(91):14 For he has hoped in me, and I will deliver him: I will protect him, because he has known my name.
The tetragrammaton, lacking vowels, is not what one could reasonably use to say you know His name, thus the vowels must have been known, and lacking a writing system to record the vowels, it must have been spoken frequently enough to be passed down verbally. Perhaps this is prophetic for a time in the future; in which case, then maybe they're using His correct name in the future.
There is also the Aaronic blessing. If blessing someone in God's name, ought not God's name be used, but if not God's name who's or what instead?? On that note, I will close by saying, let it be unto thee as though Moses himself had thus blessed thee (speaking God's true name). Amen.
Well done @eye4them like it a lot
This may have been the original intent of not saying since there is a death penalty in the bible for saying it. The sanctity of His name causes interesting euphemisms in the Hebrew language. One notable example is Job's wife telling him to "curse G-d and die" only in the Hebrew it says "bless G-d and die"
That is a very good reason which I can't believe I didn't list on my list.
I may add it; it is indeed a good reason.
I can't tell you how many times when I was in highschool and I would help on construction sites and I would hear someone yell out "Jesus CHrist!" or "G.d.!"
if they hurt themself. I was thankful that those gentlemen did not know the L-rd's most sacred name and were not accustomed to using it in normal speech.
The care for making the Name holy is so sacred that one opinion in Talmud claims someone who "pronounces the Name the way it is written (k'tiv form in Hebrew) has no share in the world to come!".
I don't hold that view neither do most Jews it's just interesting to show how taboo it is that one rabbi of old had such an opinion.
This segways in to why we respect the sages/rabbis of old. Most of these guys had huge swaths of scripture memorized by heart.
Men dedicated to constant study. In Jewish culture today there are many who sponser scholars or students who are aspiring to become scholars.
When a scholar (even a young scholar) enters a synagogue we must all stand, we don't have to stand for a 60 year old non-scholar however.
It is for the Torah within the scholar that we stand.
The main issue with the name boils down to making it holy; sanctification. IT's just been such a norm in Jewish culture since before Yeshua's days and Yeshua never reformed that part but instead affirmed it so Messianics see no reason to adopt the Gentile view that it's now OK to say it.
yes the Ruth text is a standard go to in the sacred namers movement.
If only the sages had known about that book... just kidding
There are several answers to this. I'll select one of them and let's see how that goes.
My purpose is not to take the Name away from you if you feel in your heart you should say it in times of worship / prayer.
My hope for this thread is that our overall usage of the name can be in a way to make it holy and maybe some will like the Messianic Jewish approach.
So the issue with thinking that they are saying the name here is that the Hebrew text informs us differently.
In biblical hebrew we have information about the text which usually does not get translated into English (as it's hard to represent such info).
One issue we call "k'tiv" (how it's written) and "qere" (how it's read).
The earlier scribes of the Hebrew bible were relaxed about editing the text and would often "update" the language to more modern colloquialisms for the times. These seems unimaginable to us today but there are several instances known to Hebrew scholars where the text was obviously altered at one point. This should not detract from inspiration to anyone; surely the G-d of the universe can include "inspired" scribes so the message is understandable to the generations. In a way, this is like reading a translation today. It is still the word of G-d, it's just not as accurate as the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek but in many cases this does not matter.
So what's k'tiv and qere all about?
Later scribal traditions treated the biblical text in such a way that it was forbidden by the sages of old to change a single letter. So whenever we come across odd words or words with impossible endings/etc (feminine ending on masculine nouns, etc) or just garbled consonants, we look to the scroll or Hebrew bible and we see the "qere" form as preserved down from the ages. This is how the scribes corrected scribal errors.
Out of reverence the later scribes would not "update" the text any more.
In the case with Ruth, if you look at the qere form it says exactly as major English bibles (Greek,German, Russian, and others) translate correctly "L-rd".
The scribes are telling us that the text is to be read "L-rd" here, not "the Name". In other places the Name is listed in the qere as "Elohiym" literally "gods" though we render "G-d" for the L-rd. So if you keep in mind that Jews of old would memorize scripture as not everyone had a bible at home; only rich guys. Someone who has memorized the ancient tradition, later becomes a scribe, and he comes across places were the text was updated to say "the Name" where he knows from the way his father taught him that it says "Elohiym" there. So he marks the 'qere' (how it is read) as "Elohiym" (G-d) in that place.
In other places he will mark "Adonai" where his tradition had it memorized this way. There were 3 great houses of scribes who were in sync on this.
This is useful because it also explains why in the bible we see some biblical characters refer to G-d seemingly as Hashem (the Name). When you look at the masorah this is not the case and as Paul comments the Jews are trusted with maintaining the oracles of G-d and so we have.
This phenomenon happens with many many words throughout the bible.
What happens often in the Hebrew roots movement (not picking on you guys, we have much in common) out of zeal and love for the Hebrew language someone will self instruct himself in Hebrew, or learn from another who hasn't learned the Biblical Language and it's oddities fully.
They learn the basics of how to read but not the ktiv qere or worse they have a stripped down software program which obscures the qere or doesn't show it at all. Reading Hebrew is more than sounding out letters. So they come on some instance of "the Name" and they sound it out and viola!
They think they know how to say G-d's name. I've met a guy quite popular here, a foreignor who visits Philippines, who teaches the Name and his pronounciation is so different. I thought to myself how did he get that? He reads Hebrew, many call him a "Hebrew teacher" but it's all relative.
He got this pronounciation by not understanding k'tiv qere system of maintaining the ancient textual tradition.
The other issue with saying the name today verses in days of old is that the shekhinah glory is not upon us today as it was in days of old.
In the old days, Uziah grabbed the ark of the covenant likely out of righteous intent but the shekhinah glory was so intense, not tolerating sin, that he was struck dead! I understand him to be righteous because the text says "vayichar David al Hashem.." "and David was angry with Hashem..." why be angry if David knew Uziah was an evil twerp? He must have been a fairly righteous dude. SO much so that David was scared to have the ark in his own residence even and he sent it away. In the days of the shekhinah glory, if someone spoke lashon hara (evil speech) against someone, they would get a skin disease.
The punishments were harsh and often fast. It is my belief that if one were to come to Hashem in those days and pronounce with pure intent His name in the midst of His glory, it was permitted. Today profanity is everywhere. The very person saying His name likely has a cell phone in their pocket with some sort of evil news about a politician or a celebrity or just Face Book app which promotes evil speech millions of times a day.
With my friends who feel they must say the Name, I usually ask if we can come to an agreement.
How about making it holy by only saying it in praise and in prayer? True Jews won't do this and it's still jarring to us, but in my book it's a win if I can convince someone to stop using it in normal conversation like any other name and exalt the power of His name in praise/prayer. Better yet if just personal prayer because if it's public praise we kind of force all the participants to sing along and who knows what is in someone's heart at that moment so that it's dangerous for them to say his name while they have hate in their heart. At least in personal prayer the person knows their heart, knows their state, and it is a better situation I believe for Keddushah "holiness".
For me, I can't escape how I understand Yeshua's teaching how to pray was "Abba, Father..." not "The Name".
Blessings to you brother and may you have an easy fast this shabbat since it's Yom Kippur.
Ok I'm being playful now.
So are we worried the pantheon will all turn around when we say "Abba"?
That being said I think it is fair to say that you and Andrew are generally the exception to the rule about cultures finding it "normal" to call a parent by their first name right? I think you both realized you are part of the handful of exceptions.
Hey I realize you went another direction with this but I want to address this idea for the thread ok?
Using G-d's name in a curse is cursing with the name, or some interpret cursing the Name not making it common.
a curse is further down than common. Common is like "Hi Bob how are you?"
Holy is any kind of distancing or limiting to usage of something be it time, place, speech, or thing.
So the name Bob is common, as is Methushelach if we say "Hi Methushelach". This is different than cursing those guys or using their name next to a curse word. That's a whole new level of low.
So if we think of 3 basic levels: cursed - common (i.e profane) - holy
The holy has various levels to it which is where we see the Jewish practices of not throwing away a piece of paper with G-d's name on it, and not uttering it ever, etc... trying to make it the max level of holiness.
I know you know most this stuff Veritas I just wanted to piggy back to that statement because I think many people have that similar thought process of profane being similar or the same to cursed.
Oh, it was and still is culturally inappropriate, but I still did it.
Everyone knew it wasn't out of disrespect, so it wasn't a big deal after a while.
I with MJAA and have to keep my identity hidden...lol!
Easy fast also...sun is setting.
Yes, saying Yah is much better. Just so people know Jews will often say "Kah" if not in prayer but not when it's part of a compound word like: Hallelu-Yah.
Shalom my friend,
I am on my lunch break but I was able to speed read this, I will read in in depth after everything is taken care of and respond more in depth.
Adonai was the first name I learned of His, then it was his sacred name.. I would love to have a in depth convo on why I say his sacred name,
and maybe one will understand my point of view, I do not disagree with what you said, but I do have some counters to some of those points I think you will be interested in.
I also read your pm, I will respond to later, but I am finding myself closer and closer to your view points..
I gotta run, and talk to you soon!
Well now, I must say.. well written.. I will refrain from public use.. but you know I won't from my house lol..
You know why though!
that is very interesting!
very well said..
Separate names with a comma.