Preamble: The Name of God
We begin by focusing our thoughts on the first section of Deuteronomy, namely the preamble. In the ancient world, this is where the great king (the suzerain) establishes his covenantal relationship with a vassal by revealing his name. In Deuteronomy 1:1-4, this is done when the Lord reveals to Israel His covenantal name YHWH through the mediatorial work of Moses. The name of God is not actually mentioned here as clearly as it is in Ex 20, where the Ten Commandments begins with a clear preamble: “I am the LORD.” In the case of Deuteronomy, it is Moses who is identified as the mediatorial representative of the LORD. With that in mind, we will focus on the divine name of the covenant God.
The precise pronunciation of the name YHWH is not known, although the general academic consensus is “Yahweh” (YaHWeH). Modern English translations use the designation “The LORD” in replacement of this name in small capitalized letters. During the post-exilic era, the practice developed to replace this divine name in the public reading of the Scriptures with the Hebrew word “adonay,” meaning “The Lord.” This is the reason why “the LORD” frequently appears in modern English translations for the divine name. This is also the reason for the title of “kyrios” (“lord”) for Jesus in the New Testament. Whenever He embraced that designation, He was identifying Himself with the “Yahweh” God of the Old Testament.
The study of the divine covenantal name “Yahweh” has been the subject of much study in the academic community. Regardless of the specific details of the name, we should not lose sight of the fact that it is, in fact, a personal name. According to Exodus 6:3, the Lord did not reveal Himself to the patriarchal fathers of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by this name. Instead, they knew him by the divine epithet of “El Shadday” (Almighty God? Better God the Mountain-Dweller). Similar titles were used during that era of the patriarchs: El Elyon (God Most High, Gen 14:19), God Ro’i (God who sees, Gen 16:13), El Olam (Eternal God, Gen 21:33). The common denominator among these designations is that they are titles; none of them are the actual name “Yahweh.” The actual name is not directly associated with the Israelites until the Exodus generation (Ex 6:3; cf. Ex 3:13-15; 20:1-2; Deut 5:1). In other words, Israel does not need to refer to their God by a title any longer; they can now call Him by his name.
To appreciate the significance of this, consider a formal institutional setting, such as a seminary. In my professional context, students call me by a title: “Professor Lee” or even “Dr. Lee.” Rarely do students call me by my first name “Peter” since we do not have a personal relationship. However, once intimacy has been established where there is mutual trust, openness of personal thoughts, vulnerability so that personal areas of our lives are shared, it would be awkward for such a student to continue calling me with a title; they should call me by my name. Similarly, my wife does not call me “Dr. Lee.” After all, she is my wife. We are far too intimate for such formalism.
The same applies in Deuteronomy. The Israelites were assured that their God has not abandoned them to a foreign power, but rather He has heard their cry for help. Moses was commissioned for that very reason—to liberate them from oppression so that they could engage in the most meaningful of activities, worship of their Creator-King. They witnessed first-hand the wondrous acts of God that secured their freedom, even the powerful demonstration over nature in the parting of the Red Sea, miraculous provision of manna, quail, and water amid a barren wasteland. In light of the enormity of such revelation, it is no wonder the Lord revealed his Name to them. The transcendent “I Am” God who proved His authority over Pharaoh and the Egyptian pantheon—this is the God who is immediately near them. Thus, He revealed His name so that they can call on Him personally. The personal intimacy of such an act is a shadowy reflection of a time in the horizon of redemptive history when Yahweh would show the fullest extent of His willingness to covenant with His people when He took upon Himself human flesh.
The Asian community is able to embrace this dual aspect of our doctrine of God (i.e., divine transcendence and imminence) because we were raised in a culture where human leaders are highly respected, yet still near to us. This can be seen in all areas of life: definitely the family and even in the church. When applied in the area of theology, the Creator-creature distinction is alive and well. In western non-Asian settings, too often hierarchical structures are rejected and an overzealous democratization is embraced. Even in prayers, God is seen more like a buddy, almost a coequal, rather than the Creator-Redeemer-King whose awe-inspired authority and power leads us to worship in humility and gratitude. When I consider the majesty on high is the God who embodied Himself in the Person of Christ to give His life for my iniquities, such a concept is overwhelming. An Asian-American can understand this; our cultural values allows us to rejoice in this.
At the same time, we need to continue refining these views, especially in the area of human leadership. This goes for both those called to follow and those called to lead. Within the Asian church, titles are frequently used when addressing persons in leadership. For example, church officers are never called by their name only; it is always preceded with their title or office. The Korean language has an honorary suffix (“–neem”) that is frequently found with titles, to reinforce the deference that is expected to be shown to leaders. I recall in my home church growing up that children were even required to address their Sunday School teachers with the title “Teacher” (in Korean). So, my Sunday School teacher was “Teacher John” or “Teacher Mary.” I guess you can call this a preamble on steroids.
For church members, there is a sense in which this is appropriate as it shows proper esteem to those whom the Lord set as ecclesiastical leaders over us. It reminds us that the Lord has provided people who are willing to sacrifice time and effort for our spiritual well-being. Volunteer Sunday School teachers, for example, do not get paid by the church to serve us. Nor do worship leaders who take painstaking efforts to plan a worship service for us. We currently live in an era of suspicion of pastoral leadership, and, tragically, this is well deserved. It is unfortunate that this abuse of authority is a real (and common) thing. This needs to be cleaned up and disciplined in the house of God. However, because some church leaders have abused their God-endowed authorities does not mean that all have. For the faithful leaders, we are called to love, respect, and follow the direction of those called to keep watch over our souls so that they can do their work “with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you” (Heb 13:17). Perhaps one small way in which we can do this is by calling them by their God-given titles.
For church leaders, we should remember, however, that the Lord removed such designations in His covenantal dealings with His people, brought Himself near them, and related with them personally. The use of official titles is helpful to maintain a proper atmosphere of respect, but calling a person by name here and there does add a sense of intimacy in community life. Our omnipotent, omniscient Sovereign has given to us the privilege to call him by a personal name—Jesus. Lest we forget the blessing of such a gift, we should not lose sight of the fact that this name is “the name which is above all names,” before whom “every knee shall bow….and every tongue confess” the majesty and preeminence of He who bears that name (Phil 2:9-11). The transcendent has become imminent, and we can worship Him as both Creator-King as well as Redeemer-Friend. Perhaps we can model that same servant-leadership, not as a position to be glorified and proclaimed, but rather one that gives us the opportunity to demonstrate the extraordinary grace and love of our God to those whom He calls us to serve.
I recently have become close friends with a very well-respected and well-known Bible scholar. I’ve known of him through his writings and reputation. In my personal conversations, we talk about our lives, church ministry, family as well as academic matters. Our relationship has grown to such a point where we can now joke around with each other. For that reason, he insists I call him by his first name. I simply cannot do so. I have by far too much admiration and respect for him, but I definitely appreciate the gesture. That is the nature and dynamic of our friendship. I will call him “Professor,” and he will insist I call him by his name. Perhaps, that is the way church leaders and church members should also engage in everyday life.
Redeeming Chillingworth 