Philip Johnson on obfucating the name of God

Pyromaniac blog ^ | Sept. 2005 | Philip Johnson

[Lee N. Field]

To: K___ B_____ From: "Phillip R. Johnson" Subject: Cr--t-r?!

Dear K_____,

You wrote:

> I serve M-ss--h in a Jewish
> context. Hence the omission
> of the vowels in the names
> of G-d. You have my per-
> mission to publish any part
> of my messages you choose,
> but I have one request: Please
> do not edit my words so as to
> add the letters I have omitted.
>
> Were my post to come into the
> hands of a Jew, my credibility
> with the community would be
> suspect for writing out the
> name of the Cr--t-r. See what
> Rav' Shaul (the apostle Paul)
> wrote in 1 Cor. 9:20-21.

Perhaps you could explain this practice further. It seems to me that this is an accommodation to a superstition that is grounded in an unbiblical notion of what it means to take the Lord's name in vain.

[Lee N. Field]

I'm seeing some of this kind of thing lately on Freerepublic. Time to hash it out, if Mr. Moderator (sir!) doesn't yank it for producing more heat than light.

The rest of the blog posting:

And as far as I can tell, it is not even the whole Jewish community who follow this superstition, but a fairly narrow segment of Hasidim.

Since the whole idea behind this practice goes against what Christ taught, I've always felt it is inappropriate for Christians to cater to it. We don't cross ourselves or bow to the communion elements in order to accommodate the superstitions of Roman Catholics. Why omit vowels in order to accommodate selected Pharisaic-style superstitions? (And even in the word Cr--t-r?!! That's the first time I've seen that.)

This isn't a case of obeying any law or tradition that reflects the true intent of the Old Testament commandments. In fact, it tacitly seems to sanction a perversion of God's law. It's precisely the kind of thing Y'shua refused to accommodate for the sake of pleasing overscrupulous Pharisees (cf. Mark 7:2-9). In fact, He attacked the myth that lies behind the superstition against pronouncing or spelling out the name of God (cf. Matthew 23:16-24).

I also think it's a huge and totally unwarranted logical leap to portray this practice as a legitimate application of the 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 principle: "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law . . . that I might gain them that are without law."

Since you've appealed to that text, I have four questions for you:

1. Have you carefully considered the possibility that your observing this practice is perpetuating a myth about the appropriate way to express one's reverence for God's name? Again, I refer you to Mark 7:2-9 for our Lord's own example of how to deal with Jewish traditions that subvert the true meaning of the law.

2. If the no-vowels-in-God's-name rule is a perversion of the law rather than a legitimate application of the third commandment, do you really imagine Rav' Shaul would have sanctioned it?

3. Do you follow both sides of Rav' Shaul's maxim? When you write to me, you're writing to a Goy. So why do you insist on retaining (and to a large degree, it seems, flaunting) the ceremonial and religious accoutrements of Jewish culture? What about becoming as one who is without law to them who are without law? Do you ever do that? Or are you treating certain Old Testament ceremonial requirements as inviolable, even among the Goyim?

4. Are you really Jewish? Because in my experience, a high percentage of Christians who imitate Hasidic practices are not really from orthodox Jewish backgrounds at all, but Goyim-born Hebrew-wannabes (or secular Jews who have embraced Christ as Meshiach)—with the mistaken notion that cloaking the Christian faith in the robes and phylacteries of Orthodox Jewish religious traditions somehow makes Christianity seem more "authentic." (As if Christ were not Savior of the Goyim, too.) That's the very mindset that gave rise to Galatianism, and it's a troubling and persistent tendency of Messianic Judaism, I fear.

You wrote,

> As a trained Rav', surely Shaul
> would have not have shown such
> disrespect to G-d's name as to
> write it out when corresponding
> with fellow Jews.

However, he did just that, in his epistle to the Romans, which included Jewish recipients.

And he certainly would not have shown such disrespect to his Gentile brethren as to insist on treating God's name as unspeakable in his correspondence with them. Nothing you have said explains why you insist on observing Hasidic superstitions in your correspondence with me.

Thus my objection to the missing vowels still stands. This is not a legitimate principle of Old Testament law, but a manufactured tradition invented by men, or worse—a matter of superstition based on a serious corruption of the law.

And I think it is a serious mistake for Christians to play along with such superstitions.

[solitas]

They're nutty. Plain and simple. Ever get in a conversation with one of them? Kinda hard to talk without vowels.

Take a look at http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2005/09/tag-teaming-with-phil-johnson-on.html

[Lee N. Field]

(The title should be "obfuscating", sorry, y'all for the bad proofreading.)

Saw that, linked from Philip Johnson's blog.

They're nutty

I tend to agree.

And there's also people out there that want to "restore" Hebrew names to the New Testament accounts (ex. "Yeshua" and "Shaul" where the Greek has "Iesous" and "Paulos").

[Between the Lines]

Romans 14

1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11 It is written:

" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "
12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. 22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

[William Terrell]

I think it's interesting that it's been 3 hours since this thread has been posted and so few responses, even on a Sunday.

If what Mr. Phillips has said,"It really isn't about God anyway, is it? It's about the person. It's about being different and special. It's all about "Hey! Hey, look at me! I'm so different and extra-cool! Look at me, me me!" As I recall, C. S. Lewis referred to this sort of thing as "trying to be holier than God." Since God Himself, in moving the writers to inscripturate His Word, felt no such compunction and issued no such commands, that is indeed all this is. It is "improving" on His Word. It is "helping" God, filling in all those nasty blanks He inadvertently left, but would have filled in Himself had He our foresight and insight." is accurate, that would explain the silent sound of crickets here.

[HarleyD]

I would agree. I don't think its a matter of a weaker brother as BTL suggests. I think it an indication of some sort of piety that should be examined. After all, the Jews who wrote the Bible had no problems with using vowels now did they? ;O)

[William Terrell]

I think it an indication of some sort of piety that should be examined.

Notice how many Jews and (what I call) Messianic Christians are showing up to debate it. I think it's a condition of wanting to believe a thing is so for one's own purposes, and the principles put forth here make it very hard to continue to believe. So they aren't going to go there.

[hlmencken3]

I Googled the subject, and the first entry was

http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm

Writing the Name of God

Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").

Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.

The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God.

It is worth noting that this prohibition against erasing or defacing Names of God applies only to Names that are written in some kind of permanent form, and recent rabbinical decisions have held that writing on a computer is not a permanent form, thus it is not a violation to type God's Name into a computer and then backspace over it or cut and paste it, or copy and delete files with God's Name in them. However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one or in newsgroup messages: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it.

Normally, we avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing "G-d" instead of "God." In addition, the number 15, which would ordinarily be written in Hebrew as Yod-Heh (10-5), is normally written as Tet-Vav (9-6), because Yod-Heh is a Name. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about using letters as numerals.

[P-Marlowe]

I think it's interesting that it's been 3 hours since this thread has been posted and so few responses, even on a Sunday.

Frankly I've never seen anyone give a second thought to the practice before this.

FWIW there are no vowels in the Name God gave himself in Hebrew. If someone wishes to carry that fact over into their own writings as a show of respect when referring to God, then so what? I'm certainly not offended by it, and I'm sure God does not condemn a person for showing Him respect in such a manner.

Indeed, to the person who believes it is in any way sacriligious to use a vowel when referencing God, then would it not be "sin" for that person to spell God with a vowel? Would that not then, in his heart, be a show of disrespect? And by mocking their practice are you not then encouraging them to sin in their own hearts?

Frankly I think the author's attitude is somewhat disrespectful in judging those who do not use a vowel as trying to be holier than thou's. In that sense Mr. Johnson is trying to be holier than them in mocking the practice.

[P-Marlowe]

After all, the Jews who wrote the Bible had no problems with using vowels now did they? ;O)

Harley, your ignorance is showing. The Jews who wrote the Bible did not have any vowels to use when writing the name of God. So YES they did have a serious problem when writing the name of God since the name of God contained no vowels.

[HarleyD]

"Harley, your ignorance is showing. The Jews who wrote the Bible did not have any vowels to use when writing the name of God."

Well, it won't be the first time.

But that aside I'm baffled by your comment. Since the Greeks had a number of "gods", doesn't it seem logical that the Greek language used by the Apostles would have a spellable word for "god"?

According to my "Essentials of New Testament Greek" by a Mr. Ray Summers, on page 2 Mr. Summers lists the Greek vowels used in the New Testament. On page 160 Mr. Summers shows God spelling to be (th)eos. (Please forgive that I do not have Greek fonts.) A number of my books on Greek shows Greek vowels and a number of my Greek Bibles show God the Father being referred to as (Th)eos.

I'm not quite sure what to make of your comment.

[P-Marlowe]

But that aside I'm baffled by your comment. Since the Greeks had a number of "gods", doesn't it seem logical that the Greek language used by the Apostles would have a spellable word for "god"?

You seem to be missing the point. The Greek language contained vowels, but Hebrew did not and does not.

When the "Jews wrote the Bible", I assume that they were writing it in Hebrew and not Greek.

The English Equivalent for the Hebrew name for God is YHVH. Four letters which have been variously translated as Jehovah, Yahweh, Yahovah... whatever. Observant Jews generally do not even attempt to pronounce the name for fear of mispronouncing it. They also tend to write "G-d" to show the same reverence to "the Name" that they show in refusing to add vowels to the Name or in refusing to misprounounce it.

It is interesting that the KJV translators did not try to pronounce it either. Instead they translated YHVH as "THE LORD".

[HarleyD]

If memory serves me correctly the New Testament was written in Greek (and I believe Aramaic)-not Hebrew.

[P-Marlowe]

So you are claiming that Jews wrote the New Testament?

I thought it was written by Christians.

[xzins]

Nothing wrong with worshipping Jesus within the parameters of freedom. It is for freedom that Christ has set me free.

Therefore, if I feel like emphasizing the omission of vowels in the word "God" then that's my business.

But, I can't require it of others.

I the same way, I can abstain from eating pork if I wish. But....I can't require that my freedom becomes someone else's slavery.

[xzins]

Obviously, they weren't referring to Greek, were they?

[Between the Lines]

I don't think its a matter of a weaker brother as BTL suggests. I think it an indication of some sort of piety that should be examined.

LOL.... Well I guess I have to spell out what I was trying to say by quoting verse.

While most on this thread have chosen sides, if look at the issue in relation to Romans 14 you will see that both men are at fault. Both men are being pious in that they see the other as the weaker Christian. And both are trying to put stumbling blocks in the way of the other. Both need to head the advice in Romans 14 and quit being petty.

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food vowels.

And let's not even go to who cast the first stone. This is a petty subject for petty minds, and His glory or our mutual edification cannot be found in it. EOS

[William Terrell]

Indeed, to the person who believes it is in any way sacriligious to use a vowel when referencing God, then would it not be "sin" for that person to spell God with a vowel?

No. Sins aren't based on belief. Just guilt.

I object because when I read the word "G_D" a popular blasphemy goes through my mind associated with the communication of "God", and causes me to take the name of God in vain. It is offensive, unnecessary and not Biblically supported in either Testament.

[P-Marlowe]

I object because when I read the word "G_D" a popular blasphemy goes through my mind..

That is an illness. Seek professional help.

[William Terrell]

But you know what I mean. Those who beleive that spelling out the English name of God is prohibited or sanctioned by God should seek spiritual help.