The name of God, and writing God's name

[M.C. Steenberg]

MODERATOR'S NOTE: The following is an extract from a fuller post elsewhere (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69042&postcount=19). This segment has been copied to this new thread, as a separate topic of discussion.


Finally, just one other note that arises out of your post: simply to say that in Orthodoxy, we don't hesitate for a moment to write 'God' or 'Lord' (rather than 'G-d', 'L-rd', etc.). I'm not certain what tradition you yourself come from, but simply as a point of information, Orthodox theology confesses the titles and names of God to be sanctified and sanctifying in their utterance, not forbidden. This is different from some other traditions (notably, forms of Judaism), for which the saying of the Divine Name is forbidden (which is why it is replaced with Adonai in Hebrew, and in some English customs written as 'G-d' -- though this is an oddity in itself, since Orthodox Judaism has nothing against saying 'God', which is a title, but objects solely to saying aloud the divine name: Yhwh). In Orthodoxy, these names - and in particular, the name of the Son, Jesus Christ, who is Son of God and God himself - are understood to be sanctifying in their very nature, to be written and said with great devotion and love.

I mention that simply as a point of potential interest.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Tim Flanders]

MODERATOR'S NOTE: The following is an extract from a fuller post elsewhere (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69045&postcount=20). This segment has been copied to this new thread, as a separate topic of discussion.


A quick note on the spelling of the name of G-d. This, as you know, comes from Jewish practice. The reason I do not write our G-d is because the word that denotes His fullness is Holy and thus when applied to perishable or mutable things must consecrate the thing on which it rests. Thus, it must not be destroyed nor altered but hallowed, because the name of the Holy One makes it Holy. This is something I learned from my Messianic Jewish brothers. I found it a simple way to say "Let your name be Hallowed" as our L-rd taught us. However, I understand this is not the practice of most Gentile Christians and do not want to cause division or confusion, so it might be wise to restrict this practice to whom it may concern (although on the other, I believe in it, so I try to use it where it may be discussed and admonished within the Church of G-d).

[Jonathan Michael]

I don't want to take this thread off topic, but I just wanted to add some comments related to the writing of G-d as opposed to God. As Fr Dn Matthew said, 'God' and 'Lord' are titles, rather than the name of God, which is of course the Tetragammatron: YHWH (using the Roman alphabet). It is this word that was considered 'unutterable' by the Jews, and was often replaced by "adonai" when spoken out loud. 'Lord' is simply a translation of 'Adonai', which is why I personally see no reason in writing L-rd as opposed to Lord. God is another word that describes actions (its etymology is complicated, but basically means "outpouring" or "blessing") and is not a direct translation of YHWH either.

As for "hallowing" God's name, I respect this view very much, but suggest that capitalizing the words "God" and "Lord" does the same thing. Thus, we can write about pagan "gods" and use God to describe the Creator of all things visible and invisible (and of course capitalizing "creator" is another example of hallowing His name -- as is capitalizing "his" and so on).

But I would like to ask a question, Timothy. You hallow God's name by writing "G-d", just as others hallow His name by capializing the same word. How would you hallow His name when speaking? Or is it that you don't say the word God out loud?

I can't speak for others, but I have no problem with you writing G-d and hope you don't have any problem with me writing "God".

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Timothy and Jonathan,

My thanks for interesting follow-up comments on this topic.

Following off of what Jonathan has written, noting the history of Jewish practice in this regard is probably useful. Saying aloud the titles of God (e.g. 'God', 'Lord', 'Master', etc.) was never forbidden; as Jonathan notes, it was only the divine name, Yhwh, that was not to be spoken - except by the High Priest, and then only at ordained times. This was to keep the name from being profaned: to recognise its holiness and its 'otherness'.

It might be worth stressing again that what was forbidden was only the proper revealed name of God, and more particularly, only the saying of the name - not its writing. Jewish texts make no hesitation in writing Yhwh in their manuscripts, scrolls, books, etc. There is no real equivalent to the practice in English of ommitting some letters so as not to write the name (i.e. there is no 'Y-wh' in even the most pious Jewish Hebrew writing; there would clearly be no 'G-d' or 'L-rd', as these titles, rather than names, never fell under the prohibition against speaking).

What Jewish texts do sometimes do, is provide a visual 'reminder' to the reader, when encountering the divine name, not to say it but to say instead the title 'Lord' (Adonai). This visual reminder came when vowel-pointings (the little dots and dashes above and below Hebrew letters) were introduced into the language, which was quite late in its development - long after the Hebrew bibilical texts had been written and in circulation and use for centuries. This practice, which became widespread, involved putting the vowel pointings for 'Adonai' over and under the consonants of the divine name: 'Yhwh'. This combination of consonants and letters, which looked notably odd and 'wrong' to Hebrew speakers, was the visual reminder to say the title rather than the name.

In some sense, the practice of ommitting letters in English might be paralelled to this; though the idea of not writing something remains different from the idea of not saying a specific name, and saying something else instead (which is not really conveyed by the practice of dropping a letter for a dash). But one thing that does ring somewhat amusing is seeing 'L-ord' used as a modern follow-on from this older Jewish tradition -- since in in that Jewish practice, 'Lord' (Adonai) is precisely what one did write.

(As an aside, the Jewish custom of using the vowels for 'Adonai' over the consonants 'Yhwh', seems to be where the errant pronunctiation of the divine name as 'Jehovah' comes from. 'Jehovah'/'Yehovah' is roughly the sound you get if you merge them: Y-a-H-o-W/V-ai-H. While it's not been mentioned in this thread, and I bring it up as a tangent, hearing 'Jehovah' insisted upon as the proper form of God's name is another source of amusement, as these vowels were put around the consonants 'Yhwh', precisely to remind pious Jews that this was not the way the name was pronounced!)

I would suggest that the practice in some circles today, of writing 'G-d', 'L-rd', etc., is actually quite a distinct and different practice from the old Jewish custom of pointing 'Yhwh' with the vowels for 'Adonai' - and cannot really claim that old practice as a proper forebear, except inasmuch as they both involve changing texts. This isn't to say one is bad and the other good: simply to suggest that they are really doing quite different things. The one (the Jewish) is meant to stress the inaccessibility of the divine name, its radical 'otherness' to daily life in the world - encouraging adherents to describe God by using his titles ('God', 'Lord', 'Master') but never claiming authority or might so as to speak on that personal level of name-to-name. The other (the modern practice, which I've seen originate primarily in Protestant circles with strong sentiments of Jewish heritage), is, as Mr Flanders has described it, a form of reverence and 'hallowing', acknowledging the sanctifying power of divine titles, and thus removing them from ordinary use (to quote you, Timothy: 'the word that denotes His fullness is Holy and thus when applied to perishable or mutable things must consecrate the thing on which it rests').

That's my little 'historical survey' for the morning. Here are a few thoughts I would offer for consideration:

As a Christian practice, this is clearly a very modern innovation - it has no testimony from the patristic era, or from any other aspect of Christian heritage, so far as I am aware (I am always grateful for pointers, however, if others might know differently). This means it cannot be taken as a traditional practice, or as representing a traditional belief of, Christianity over its heritage; rather, it is a modern custom of piety. I say this much without any judgement on its content or character, simply as a fact of history.

But when new forms of piety come about (and new forms of piety are not inherently negative: the prayer rope didn't always exist; there was a time when the Prayer of St Ephrem was done without prostrations, etc.), they must be assessed from the position of the Church's living heritage, faith and practice. It can never be that I like something, and therefore it is useful; rather, we must always follow the example of the earliest Jerusalem community of apostles: 'It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...'. What is benificial is that which stands in the testimony of the Church as led by the Spirit, through the community of her living testimony: her fathers and mothers, her teachers and pastors, whose witness forms an unbroken heritage from Christ's earthly incarnation to the present day.

And it is in the assessment of this practice through this heritage that I do feel there are deep questions that need to be asked. In Orthodox Christianity, the sanctity of the divine name (which, in its fullest revelation, is Jesus, not Yhwh) cannot be separated from the one who is named - and that One, that divine Son, has made himself accessible to man through his incarnation. The name which 'is above all names', has been given to his creature, just as he has come to his creature. Moses was given a revelation of God's name - told what it was, but not to say it; the Mother of God was told 'you shall call his name Jesus'. The Word of the Father is spoken into the world. The inaccessible becomes accessible. The 'otherness' of God is made immediate, personal, tangible.

So it forms a consistent part of Orthodox tradition, that the name of God be spoken precisely so that its sanctifying power can be realised at every utterance. The Jesus Prayer is the ultimate testimony to this: it is the power of the name that gives the prayer its power (bearing in mind that in some forms, the prayer is just the name: 'Jesus'). This I say in reference to the old practice of not saying God's name: it had a value when this name was bound up in God's inaccessibility, his transcendence - but not in his incarnation.

The same is true, I would argue, for any practices of writing. The Christian scriptures write God's name without hesitation or alteration. Similarly, in our icons we write the name as well as the titles (we see 'Yhwh' written in its Greek form, 'Ho On'; as well as titles like 'Lord') - and really, the theology of the icon is critical to understanding this. God is made accessible in and through the things of this world, wood and paint, and also word and pen. What is sanctifying is not the otherness of God's name and titles, but their very immediacy. And the Christian is the priest and mediator of God in the cosmos: thus he is to sanctify the world, not reserve the sanctity of God from it.

I would invite reflection on whether the custom of writing 'G-d', 'L-rd', etc., is really consonant with this heritage, given its novelty and discordance with ancient practice.

If one wishes to pay reverence to the sanctity of God's name and titles, to 'hallow' as Christ exemplifies in his prayer, Jonathan has noted that the English practice of captialising such titles ('God' rather than 'god'; 'Lord' rather than 'lord') in fact does so, and in a manner more in keeping with the heritage of the Church (though even this is fairly late in its advent). In any case, it provides the act of hallowing and reverencing, without raising what are - in my mind at least - some significant theological problems which do lie nascent in the practice of writing 'G-d', etc.

This is a rather longer post than I'd originally intended to write! I hope it won't be taken as an unfriendly attack on your practice, Mr Flanders, as it certainly isn't meant that way; but rather, as an indication that behind seemingly interesting / reverential / 'good' practices of piety, there can actually be quite critical theological issues at stake and play. In Orthodoxy, this is why the context of ascesis and obedience really form the whole framework for assessing and adopting customs. There is often more to them than meets the eye -- and even if many aspects of those issues are quite nuanced and seem to go beyond what would be in a person's mind day-to-day when engaging in a practice, another venerable testimony of Orthodoxy is that what one does effects who one is and becomes - unawares or otherwise.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[RichardWorthington]

MODERATOR'S NOTE: The following is an extract from a fuller post elsewhere (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69045&postcount=20). This segment has been copied to this new thread, as a separate topic of discussion.


A quick note on the spelling of the name of G-d. This, as you know, comes from Jewish practice. The reason I do not write our G-d is because the word that denotes His fullness is Holy and thus when applied to perishable or mutable things must consecrate the thing on which it rests. Thus, it must not be destroyed nor altered but hallowed, because the name of the Holy One makes it Holy. This is something I learned from my Messianic Jewish brothers. I found it a simple way to say "Let your name be Hallowed" as our L-rd taught us. However, I understand this is not the practice of most Gentile Christians and do not want to cause division or confusion, so it might be wise to restrict this practice to whom it may concern (although on the other, I believe in it, so I try to use it where it may be discussed and admonished within the Church of G-d).

Dear Mr Flanders,

I think it would be wise to consider this practice for the Name of God:


Rev 3:12 "He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.

To truly hallow God's name we should watch our thoughts and feelings, taking every thought captive to Christ, and crucifying our passions and desires. This need not be negative at all: consider taking a splinter out of your finger: it does hurt when pushing it out - but feels good when it is out, and better than leaving it in.

If we then overcome our fallen existence by God's grace, and become angels on earth - which is very possible, as the saints have shown - then we shall have the NAME which some cannot write or pronounce written on us. In other words, we shall become deified, Gods in Christ the God-man. The Son of God became man so that men might become sons of God, as it has been said.

The actual pronunciation of a created name is irrelevant. God is uncreated and calls us to unite with Him. The split between Judaism and Christianity fundamentally happened hundreds of years before Christ, with different forms of Judaism then arising ...

I do not write to dismiss someone's customs, but, as Fr Dcn Matthew has pointed out, there could be critical issues of theology at play.

We are priests in Christ: we are the inheritors of the ancient High Priests: it is we who have the Vision of the "Angel of the Lord", Christ our God.

Richard

[Tim Flanders]

Dearest Fathers and brothers in the Faith,

I am very grateful at your thoughtful responses to my practice of writing the Name. Unfortunately, I am currently not in a position to reply at length, but wanted to thank you for your responses.

To Fr. Matthew, I affirm your statement of "But when new forms of piety come about (and new forms of piety are not inherently negative: the prayer rope didn't always exist; there was a time when the Prayer of St Ephrem was done without prostrations, etc.), they must be assessed from the position of the Church's living heritage, faith and practice. It can never be that I like something, and therefore it is useful; rather, we must always follow the example of the earliest Jerusalem community of apostles: 'It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...'. What is benificial is that which stands in the testimony of the Church as led by the Spirit, through the community of her living testimony: her fathers and mothers, her teachers and pastors, whose witness forms an unbroken heritage from Christ's earthly incarnation to the present day."

This is of course the reason we join together in community, so that the "I" may become "we" and that we will not be led astray but may admonish each other in all holiness. Part of the reason I have come to adopt this practice is the influence of Messianic Judaism, which essentially recognizes a different history than that of the Church, Jewish history and its own conclusions on G-d, and yet designates itself part of the Church and Jewry.

To respond to Richard, a way of hallowing the english word "god" when speaking of the One true god of Isreal, I was actually brought up to never utter the phrase "oh my god," as many are common to use. Now I do not do this, except in an instance where I would actually address G-d Himself in such a phrase.

Your point is interesting to note on the capitalization. And along with Fr. Matthew, perhaps the iminance of G-d is shown in the full spelling of Jesus, who is Immanuel, and the spelling of "G-d" when refering to the transcendence of the Divine, who is "Holy Holy Holy" and is and ever shall be beyond us in an incomprehensible and unattainable way. This is to quote my priest, Fr. Winfrey who states that G-d is ultimately still G-d, and we are thus still created. In this way, the sanctification of the world is in the presence of King-Messiah, the Annointed One, fully G-d and fully Human, reconciling all by the name above all other names: Yeshua, Yesua, Jesu, Jesus.

Finally, I want to ask a some what particular question to RichardWorthington on your post. "The split between Judaism and Christianity fundamentally happened hundreds of years before Christ, with different forms of Judaism then arising ..." --to what are you referring to? I'm not familiar with this. Please clarify.

Lastly, let me express my exuding joy at the presence of all of you in this wonderful discussion. Please banish from your minds any thought or fear you might have of my offense of insult, for I am your son and brother, committed to you and to Christ our God, ever pursuing the Truth Himself for the sake of His Kingdom.

Grace and Peace be with you


tim