About
the Book
Table of Contents
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
Part VII
Part VIII
|
Part IV: What's in a Name?
Chapter 2
Names as Scripture Views Them
WE COME, then
to the relevance of all this to Christian experience and to the
study of Scripture. It appears to me that there is here a class
of concepts about the relation between the spoken word and the
things spoken which, until the emergence of our materialistic
philosophy, were probably shared by almost all of mankind. Biblical
commentators have almost entirely overlooked this question. These
concepts about the nature of reality all involve in one way or
another, whether we are speaking about persons or things, the
relationships between names or words and the persons or things
for which they stand.
That there could be so close a tie between
a word and a thing is strange in a way. Nevertheless, the language of
Scripture reveals that the concept is indeed ancient, for in Hebrew we
find but one term for both "word" and "thing". This
is the Hebrew dabar (). To the Hebrew mind, the creative power of God is
such that He has only to speak and the thing is done (Psalm 33:9): for
the word spoken is the thing created. (17) Indeed, I believe that even vocalization
is unnecessary, the actual speaking being merely an accommodation to our
limited capacity. It is much more likely that God has only to think and
it is done. In a small way, we acknowledge this principle when we say
in all seriousness that anything which is conceivable to man, he can probably
do in time; and there
17. Psalm 33:9: the original Hebrew of this verse is
even more striking. It reads, "He spake and it was done." In
the Authorized Version the word done is printed in italics since
it is not found in the original. As a matter of fact, the verb (here rendered "was")
would probably be more correctly rendered "and it came into being"
for certain grammatical reasons.
pg
1 of 12
are occasions upon which
the very will that something should happen is sufficient to influence
matter so as to change it. Most people with a scientific background
would say this is nonsense, that this is the kind of claim parapsychologists
make. Yet in medicine we know for a fact that recovery (which
involves fundamental changes in things, whether physiological
processes or organs of the body) is often significantly dependent
upon the will of the patient. We slyly concede here what we are
reluctant to admit in any other area of experience, by cloaking
it in scientific terminology and calling it a psychosomatic effect.
One of the great philosophical
and theological subjects of debate is the meaning of the Greek
term Logos, most popularly thought to have originated
with John's Gospel but in fact appearing in pre-New Testament
Jewish literature. Hebrew scholars, in thinking about the relationship
between a God who is pure spirit and the material world which
He has created, were faced with the old problem still plaguing
philosophers as to how mind can act upon matter. The Jews concluded
that there was some intermediate link making this interaction
possible, and this step was the spoken word. By an extension
of this process of reasoning, they concluded that whenever God
appeared to man in a sufficiently material way that He could
be seen and heard, in some way He assumed a form which bore the
same relationship to that which is substantial as a word does
to that which it describes. They thus paraphrased certain passages
of Scripture in which God appears in "substantial form"
by substituting the word Word (in Hebrew Memra, from
the verbal form Amar, meaning "to speak or say")
for the word Lord. Thus, it was the Word who appeared
to Adam and Eve in the Garden, a passage (Genesis 3:8) which
they paraphrased "they heard the Word walking in the Garden".
It was really no new concept that John introduced to his readers
when he said, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word
was with God and the Word was God . . . and the Word became flesh"
(John 1:1,14). The mystery of the Incarnation is not lessened
by stating the case in this way, but it was an accommodation
to what measure of understanding his contemporaries did have
that John was inspired to write in this way about the fact that
what is pure spirit became real substance.
While we turn our thoughts into
substance through our hands by creative activity in a process
that occupies time, God can turn His thoughts into substance
by a much more direct process and without occupying time, namely,
by the spoken word which creates instantly. Made in the image
of God, it is not so surprising, after all, that man should be
able to "speak" with his hands as he does. They are
an adjunct to his tongue
pg.2
of 12
The
Bible begins with a chapter describing creation in which the
naming of things plays a pre-eminent part. The light and dark
are named as day and night, so the land and the sea, earth and
heaven, and even the stars in the sky are named. When we are
told in Psalm 147:4, "He calleth all the stars by their
names", we are really being told that in spite of their
apparently infinite number, each one was nevertheless brought
into being by the Word of God � by whom God the Father created
all things.
The process of naming is then turned
over to Adam himself. The simple story describing how Adam named
the animals - -a story which reads as though it were written
for children and has on that account by pseudo-intellectuals
been viewed with some condescension � is in fact a profound
statement. Part of the inspired character of Scripture is the
universality of its message in terms of the ages of its readers.
The simplest child may be reading this story in one room of the
house while in another room his father, a mature and deeply thoughtful
man, may also be studying the very same words � each being
stirred by the same record in appropriate yet quite different
ways. The words are for children, but the thoughts are for men.
And the man who reads it and smiles condescendingly at the childlikeness
of the story is merely confessing in fact that he himself is
still a child. Rightly understood, there is a truth here which
is abreast of the deepest probing into the workings of the mind
yet made by modern philosophers of language.
In Genesis 2:19-23 - -that is to
say, in five short verses � God has contrived to record for
us certain facts about the kind of being Adam was in his intellectual
stature, about his relationship to the living creatures around
him, and about his need for companionship and how that companionship
was supplied; requiring whole volumes of words on man's part
to elucidate. In a way, when God created the written word He
concentrated the substance of it in somewhat the same way as
the same Lord in the New Testament condensed the time when He
performed His creative acts. What God can do in a few words and
in a few minutes, man toils over for volumes and for years. Consider
then these five verses.
We are presented
here with a picture of animals being directed in some way to
Adam that he might name them. One might superficially say that,
since they were his companions in the Garden, he would want to
give them names as we want to give names to our pets and
indeed to all creatures and things which are brought particularly
into our circle of activities, whether flowers or wild animals
or birds.
pg.3
of 12
Scripture
makes it clear, I think, that Adam really was at that moment
the only man in the world and that this isolation was not appropriate
to his nature. He was, however, surrounded by various forms of
animal life, all of which were absolutely harmless and undoubtedly
tame. God desired that Adam should discover for himself that
none of these creatures could be a proper companion or helpmeet
for him. Many people, especially in the lonelier years of later
life, find that animals are good companions. Cats, dogs, birds,
horses, even goldfish and, in the case of some farmers I know,
cattle too make good company when a man is completely alone.
But these creatures are always totally inadequate for a normal,
healthy individual, especially one who, like Adam, was in the
prime of life. Thus God brought them to Adam that he might discover
for himself the true relationship he bore to them by exercising
his insight into their real nature as contrasted with his own.
Each one he named in turn, but when he had finished he found
himself as lonely as he was before. It is clear from what follows
in the story that the names he gave them were not simply indicative
of his reaction to their colour or their size or
some other physical aspect but rather of their nature in the
light of his own.
Bearing in mind what has been said
thus far about the way in which names of things are inseparably
bound up with the nature of the things so named, it will be seen
that we have upon this occasion a situation in which Adam, with
a newly awakened sense of loneliness and yet still in a state
of perfect mental health (the Fall was
yet future), looked attentively upon each of the creatures divinely
directed into his presence to determine whether by its very nature
it could in some way be a counterpart of himself. On the face
of it, it would seem rather obvious that God would have brought
to him, among the creatures which came, at least some representatives
of man-like apes. Yet, clearly Adam recognized in none of them
any relationship to his own self. In the usual English renderings
of this passage, we are told merely that "whatsoever Adam
called it, that was the name thereof" (Genesis 2:19). The
significance of this statement is much deeper than appears on
the surface. The precise way that it is set forth in the original
Hebrew contributes to this deeper significance.
This is not the place for an excursion
into the intricacies of Hebrew syntax and grammar, but it is
important to note that in the phrase "this was the name
thereof" the Hebrew does not employ any verb corresponding
to the English "was". This word is accordingly printed
in italics in the Authorized Version, but not in other versions
which have failed to observe the importance of this omission.
In the normal Hebrew sentence which involves some part of the
English verb "to be" where the implication is merely
copulative � i.e., "the wall [is] high" or
pg.4
of 12
"the man [was] good"
� the verb is omitted entirely. It is one of the great advantages
of the normal printing of the Authorized Version that the absence
of the verb in the original Hebrew, when its use is merely copulative,
is indicated by the use of italics in the English rendering.
In the two phrases above, we have indicated the absence of the
verb by putting it in brackets, which would have been an alternative
but much more cumbersome method of indicating the original. In
other words, whenever the text of the Authorized Version introduces
some part of the verb "to be" in italics in order to
complete the English sentence, the reader is informed that the
Hebrew has omitted the verb.
As an illustration taken at random,
the Scofield edition shows twenty-nine instances of the use of
italics occurring in Judges 6 and 7, in every case the verb being
purely copulative. By contrast, where some part of the verb "to
be" is introduced in the Hebrew, the Authorized Version
text will set the corresponding English verbal form in standard
type. As another illustration, throughout Genesis 1 the recurrent
phrase "and it was so" indicates by not using italics
that the Hebrew includes the verb. There are certain exceptions,
but it is a general rule that where any part of the verb "to
be" is actually used in the Hebrew original, it is intended
to show that something new has occurred: and in many instances
it will most simply and appropriately be rendered by the English
as "became". This particular phrase in Genesis 1 would
thus read quite correctly as "and it became so" rather
than "and it was so", just as it would be more appropriate
to render Genesis 3:20 as "Eve became the mother of all
living" or Genesis 4:2 as "Abel became a keeper of
sheep." In both these cases the verb "was" is
set in standard type by contrast with the verb in Genesis 2:19.
This printer's device is found only in the Authorized Version:
it is one of its lasting advantages to the English reader.
Now, the relevance of this to the
story of Adam and his naming of the animals is that in the original
Hebrew in the phrase "that was its name", the verb
"to be" is omitted. In other words, we are not being
here told that Adam named these animals as we name pets so that
this became their name thereafter: what Adam was doing was identifying
the character of these animals, not saying what they should thereafter
be called, but what they actually were by nature at that moment.
He did not name a dog as "Fido" or a horse as "Prince"
or a cat as "Tabby." He stated in a word his evaluation
of their nature and therefore of their relationship to himself.
The proof of this is surely to be found in Adam's treatment of
the woman, who, after he awoke from his deep
pg.5
of 12
sleep, was brought before
him and presented to him in the same way that the other animals
had been. But this time he at once recognized and acknowledged
in her the counterpart of himself by the name which he gave to
her, which was a femininized form of the name by which he had
come (perhaps by inspiration) to divine his own nature. He was
Ish, she should be Isha.
In other words, right at the very beginning
of human history, man was equipped with a power of discernment
which expressed itself in the ability to identify the nature
of things and sum up that nature in a word � its name. And
although civilization has either adulterated this power or robbed
us of it entirely, we have never quite lost the feeling that
in some way the name of a thing is uniquely to be identified
with its very being. Certainly Scripture has encouraged this
view, not as something that is a vestige of a more primitive
mentality, but as something which is deeply rooted in the nature
of things.
Upon many occasions the wording
of Scripture is precisely chosen to reflect the concept of identity
between name and person, and by person I really mean "soul".
When a wife takes her husband's name, it is not merely
for convenience. Though none of us would like to hold that a
man and his wife, if truly united, lose their
personal identities, yet we do know that those who live fully
and long together tend to converge in tastes, in manners and
habits, in mental set, in a host of subtle ways�even on occasion,
in physical appearance. In Scripture, it is said of the very
first union of man and wife that "He calleth their name
Adam" (Genesis 2:5).
Here in a name is plurality in unity. In the New Testament we
have a case of the opposite. When Jesus asked the Gadarene maniac
his name, the reply was "My name [singular] is Legion, for
we are many" (Mark 5:9).
We have a recent example which,
on the face of it, appears to be similar to this, though it may
be an appearance only. This is the case of the woman whose basic
personality seems to have been expressed when she responded to
the name of Eve but who, when assuming either of two other names,
became an entirely different personality. (18) The "experts" are satisfied that this woman
is only one person really, but to read the accounts of the numerous
interviews that she had with a number of psychiatrists and others
� who all agree upon the basic fact that the three "individuals"
who seem to be indwelling her were as different in character
as it is possible to conceive, with different voices, different
handwriting, different encephalograms, different tastes in clothing,
18. Thigpen, Corbett H., and Cleckley, Hervey,
The Three Faces of Eve, Regnery, 1954.
pg.6
of 12
different
mannerisms, and different facial expression - -one has a strong
feeling that we do really have three residents taking turns with
one another to have possession by some kind of mutual arrangement.
A popular but informative account appeared in the Canadian MacLean's
magazine under the title "Three Women: One Body."
(19) Some years
later this same individual became yet another person, and her
story was published by McGraw-Hill in 1958 in a book written
by Evelyn Lancaster and James Poling entitled The Final Face
of Eve. A useful popular review of this book appeared in
Life magazine under the caption "The Fourth Face
of Eve." (20)
It helps little in "explaining"
this modern illustration to use some high-sounding compound term
and label it merely as a case of multiple-personality or some
such thing. This is a description, not an explanation. We do
not know yet what is the full potential of a human soul under
stress to be able to say for certain whether in this particular
case we have "plurality in unity"; but we do know that
the woman herself behaved upon different occasions in a way entirely
commensurate with three distinctly separate personalities that
always involved the assumption of a different name for each.
The little girl from the psychiatric ward thought of herself
as nameless because she had no structured personality. The Gadarene
maniac when asked his name could not tell it either because he
was so many people with none predominating. This woman could
at least say which person she was at any given time. All these
are strange illustrations of the mystic union existing between
a person and his or her name.
One of the most distressing effects
of our complex civilization is that it destroys personality by
undermining its structure and leaving people with a sense of
nonentity. We are witnessing all around us divided people with
no inner integration. We are witnessing what Leslie Paul termed
"the annihilation of man" and what C. S. Lewis termed
"the abolition of man". Christian experience is effective
in dealing with this situation, because a single
new indestructible seed of a new personality is implanted in
the old.
19. MacLean's, 15 September, 1954, pp.12-15,
67-75.
20. Life, 19 May, 1958, pp.101-14.
pg.7
of 12
From
all that has been said thus far, it is clear that such a change
as is brought about in spiritual rebirth must be accompanied
by a change of name. This new name sums up the new personality,
this new name is written in heaven and is kept secret for the
present (Revelation 2:17), and this new name is appointed to
the
child of God by the divine Giver-of-Names who, foreseeing precisely
what kind of person the individual
Christian will grow into as a work of God, is able to make it
entirely appropriate even though that personality has not yet
come to fruition.
The biblical view of the experience
of the new birth which leads to the formation of a new personality
requires the appointing of a new name, because it involves (a)
a great spiritual experience, (b) adoption into a new family
(Galatians 4:5), (c) victory over a powerful enemy (Romans 6:14),
(d) new incarnation (Colossians 1:27), and (e) an old man who
becomes a new man (II Corinthians 5: 17). With all these wrapped
up in one single transforming experience, is it not indeed appropriate
to be renamed?
This new personality is wrought
in the believer by the indwelling presence of Christ, who enters
the heart
and begins to re-express Himself appropriately for the individual's
capacity, thus creating a character which is perfect (because
it is Himself) and which is now the real inner man which God
sees and which is entirely
pleasing to Him. To this extent, Christian experience is God's
way of re-introducing the person of Christ into the world. It
is Christ in us which is the hope of glory. Only by accepting
the fact of new incarnation in this sense can we properly account
for the fundamental change which takes place, a change all the
more properly associated therefore with a entirely new name.
Because this new person who emerges is indeed the Lord in us,
it is completely appropriate that it should be said of us in
Scripture that we are "called" by His name
(2 Chronicles 7:14). We are called by His name not so much because
we are Christlike necessarily or because we are labeled by others
as Christians, but because our new personality is part of His
personality and therefore our new name is His name in part.
Wrapped up in Jesus
Christ as the Second Adam is the sum total of all personality
that man can have, just as it was originally in the First Adam,
though undeveloped. Since it is the Lord who, being planted as
a seed in the believer's heart, begins to unfold Himself in some
small measure appropriate to the individual, so our new personality
is formed out of His and we are therefore properly given in some
way part of His name. It is as
pg.8
of 12
though all the new names
of all the children of God, when added together, will constitute
His name, and in this sense His name is above every name and
we are collectively called by it.
One of the comforts allowed to
the saints of the Old Testament was that they were assured that
God knew them by name. Thus the Lord said to Moses, "Thou
hast found grace in My sight and I know thee by name" (Exodus
33:17). This does not mean that God merely knew who Moses
was, but something much more important, namely, that He knew
what Moses was. I believe that when God calls us by name
He is really saying two things: the first, that we are His creation;
and the second, that He knows us perfectly, our hopes and our
fears, our strengths and our weaknesses, our past and our future.
We have not yet attained to the character which God has before
ordained that we should attain to, and therefore while our new
name is an exact description of what we shall be, it could not
yet be appropriately applied to us openly. It is thus kept secret
for the present (Revelation 2:17).
Nevertheless, so certain is the
ultimate attainment of that which God has appointed for us in
the matter of personality development that the new name which
sums it up perfectly has been engraved in stone, as this passage
in Revelation tells us.
There are some who believe that
when Jesus stooped down, as the woman taken in adultery stood
in the midst of her accusers (John 8:1-11), and wrote with His
finger on the ground, He was in fact writing down the names of
her accusers or at least the chief of them. Since it is a reasonable
assumption that, for Him to write
with His finger at all in this way, the ground must either have
been dust or sand, the writing of their names in such an ephemeral
medium would have impressed the onlookers very forcibly with
His judgment of them as individuals. At any rate, it is significant
that there is a passage in Jeremiah (17:13) with which these
learned
critics would surely be familiar and which reads: "They
that depart from Me shall be written in the earth because they
have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living waters."
The name of the child of God is engraved in stone, not in the
dust.
We have in Scripture not a few instances
of people who acquired a new name. The circumstances surrounding
the acquisition are instructive, as are the circumstances surrounding
the subsequent life history of the individuals in question. In
the case of Paul, we have an example of the absolute sovereignty
of God in
pg.9
of 12
effecting His will even
when the subject himself was utterly opposed to it. When Saul
was converted (Acts 9), however, he did not immediately receive
a new name, for he was still being referred to as Saul after
that (Acts 13:2). He continued to be called Saul until
there came the significant words, "then Saul who was also
called Paul, being filled with the Holy Spirit. . . " (Acts
13:9). Such was his character thereafter that he never looked
back, never returned to his old way of life, and never longed
to be anything but this new man: and thereafter he is never again
referred to as Saul.
With Jacob, however, the story
is otherwise. It is difficult to be absolutely sure of the significance
of Jacob's wrestling with the angel. Around this event the Jewish
commentators have built up a number of stories, and some say
that the slight limp or stoop which is detectable, they think,
in Jewish people as they grow older was inherited from the "wound"
Jacob received when the angel touched his thigh. Much later in
history, it was believed that when our Lord said, "When
ye see these things come to pass, lift up your heads" (Luke
21:28), He was really saying "straighten up," since
redemption was nigh. Whatever truth or fancy there may be in
these traditions, one thing is certain and that is that a profound
change took place in Jacob himself. To signify this change, he
was given a new name, "Israel".
But Jacob was not always called
Israel thereafter, and in like manner his descendants were not
always referred to as Israel either � but under certain circumstances
as Jacob. Although I have not followed through all the passages
of Scripture which might be used as proof texts, there is no
doubt that upon many occasions both Jacob himself as an individual
and his descendants as a nation were referred to as Jacob or
Israel depending upon whether they were behaving in the character
of the natural man, which was Jacob, or the supernatural man,
which was Israel. There are not a few passages in which the distinction
is brought out in a striking manner. Thus, in Isaiah 9:8 it is
written, "The Lord sent the word unto Jacob and it hath
lighted upon Israel." Clearly this looks forward to the
time when the Word was made flesh and came to His own and His
own received Him not (John 1:11). Yet some did. And to those
who did, He gave the power to become the sons of God (John 1:12),
for
these were the ones who received the light and these were such
therefore who, like Nathaniel, were Israel
indeed (John 1:49).
pg.10
of 12
Similarly,
as the prophets looked forward to the time when the nation would
be brought into terrible judgment, it was to be a time of Jacob's
trouble (Jeremiah 30:7). Nevertheless, as Paul was much later
to assure the household of faith, in the time of that great tribulation
all Israel would be saved (Romans 11:26). Indeed,
Paul virtually clinches the distinction which we are proposing
here by pointing out that this will come about because "God
shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob" (Romans 11:26).
There is no question that all men,
saved and unsaved alike, are at times servants of God (Psalm
119:91) and that in the total economy of God all men play their
little part knowingly or unknowingly. In this sense the Christian
also is a servant even as the Lord was a Servant. But the Lord
also told His disciples that because they had entered into a
new relationship with Him, they had not ceased to be servants
but had become something more than servants merely: they had
become personal friends (John 15:15). This transaction resulted
ultimately from the fact that they were elect. His very next
words to them were "Ye have not chosen Me but I have
chosen you" (John 15:16). It is not surprising, therefore,
to find this same principle applied in the Old Testament in a
way that bears out what we have said about Jacob's two names.
In Isaiah 45:4 it is written, "for Jacob my servant's sake
and Israel mine elect."
When we are invited to make our
requests "in His name," this may actually mean something
more than merely making our requests "for His sake."
By pronouncing His name there may be a sense in which we are
gaining a certain power provided that we do indeed "know"
the Lord and do indeed therefore "know" His name. In
some way this might look like presumption, yet we are told in
Scripture that we may "command Him" (Isaiah 45:11)
. I think that whether we really know the name we use in the
sense of knowing the person whose name it is, or are merely making
noises as it were, is quite clear to the Lord Himself. In a crowd
of people where several share the same name, the way in which
one particular individual addresses another by that name immediately
reveals that he does know that person as quite distinct
from any of the others who may happen to share the same name
� just as the Lord called Mary's name at the tomb when she
had failed to recognize His voice up to that moment and He was
immediately identified. I think the Lord knows when His name
is being appealed to rightly and when it is merely being used
ritually.
pg.11
of 12
. Here,
then, are some of the passages in Scripture which appear to be
predicated upon the mystical identity between word and thing,
and name and personality, a concept recognized in one way or
another by probably half the people of the world � that half
which does not share Western tradition � but repudiated for
the most part by us. And this repudiation has tended to blind
us to one side of our nature to which Scripture nevertheless
has addressed itself without our realizing it. There is no doubt
that once the fact itself is recognized, many more illuminating
things will be discovered in the Word of God which have hitherto
escaped our notice.
pg.12
of 12
Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights
reserved
Previous Chapter *
End of Part IV * Next Chapter (Part V)
|