ἃ, Of the numerous shades of meaning connected with and probably. springing out of the usaga just noticed, we may refer to one or two. ‘The name of J”’ itself becomes a term to express a theophany in Is 307 (aiso. according to Cheyne,
ost-exilic), where it is described ‘as coming from ar, burning with his anger, and in thick rising smoke,’ etc.; with this passage we may perhaps compare 59", In Is 48° the term is ΚΡΌΤΩΙ used in the transferred sense of the praise which the divine self-manifestation calls forth from men; note the parallel clause and a similar transference of meaning in the parallel phrase ‘glory of J’’ (see GLory OF J” 1, ad fin.). In Zee 14° (ct. Is 56°) the name of J” is the manner in which men recog- nize the divine self-revelation—in other words, the worship of J’; Hitzig rightly interprets ‘his name shall be one’ as meaning that the unity of J”, which already exists in reality, will then also be acknowledged and recognized on earth.
But in virtue of its most characteristic and frequent usage ‘the name of J”’ belongs to a series of phrases, to which the ‘ glory of J’, ‘the face of J”,’ ‘the angel of J”’ also belong, by which the Hebrews endeavoured to distinguish between the Deity in himself and the Deity as manifested to and coming into relation with men ; or, in earlier times, between the Deity conceived as local and confined to Sinai, and on the other hand as accompanying his people in their journeyings. In the latter case, however, it is the ‘angel of J” that most frequently figures, and we need call attention only to one peculiar passage (Ex 23”) in which both ζῶο are combined, and ‘the name of J”’ is said to be in the angel; the meaning of this appears to be, that though the angel is not J” in his fulness (ef. v.*4), yet J”s nature is so far in him that what would offend J” will offend him. To the OT usage of the term ‘name of J”’ we have a perailel, striking at once in its similarity and its
issimilarity, in Phoenician. In an inscription (CIS 318) from Sidon ve find mention of ‘ Ash- toreth the name of Baal (Sy. ow nonvy),’ i.e. an Ashtoreth distinguished from other Ashtoreths by the fact that she was regarded as being a manifestation or representative of Baal. In this case, as in the parallel case of ‘Tanith the face of Baal (Sys 15 non),’ Pheenician, in striking contrast to Hebrew, has made of the representation or manifestation a new and distinct deity.
§. Finally, in our survey of OT usage we have to notice that in Lv 24"! the name (0:5) is used as a substitute for J” according to a practice which became very customary in post - biblical Hebrew. It is, however, probable that we owe this usage to the scribes and copyists rather than to the author of the section in question (cf. Geiger, Urschrift, 273 f.).
6. When we turn to NT we find, as we should expect, that in several instances ‘the name of the Lord’ occurs in actual quotations from OT (see e.g. Mt 1271 23°, Ac 271, Ro 15%, He 213), and that in others the phrases are of the same or nearly the same character as those current in OT (e.g. Mt 6°, Jn 17%), The question is how far does OT usage serve to explain the NT term where, owing to new circumstances and conditions, it has to express ideas in large ἜΣ new? Is it necessary to presuppose entirely different modes of thought to explain the NT term; or is it possible to explain its new meanings as the natural de- velopment out of the old?
Clearly, phrases which differ from the OT
equivalents only by the substitution of ‘Jesus’ for ‘J”’ may be similarly interpreted unless cogent reasons for the contrary be forthcoming:
NAME
NAME
hence, 6.5.» ‘ age in the name of Jesus’ corresponds in to prophesy or speak in the name of J” in OT. Such a phrase as ‘to believe in the name of Jesus’ differs somewhat more from OT usage, and yet is certainly in line with it. It very significantly alternates in the same writer with the phrase ‘to believe in Jesus’ (see e.g. Jn 113 2% 318 ; 816. 18 6%) ; i.e. the name of Jesus is a parallel term to the word ‘ Jesus’ itself, and is most ri Peper used ix the present phrase because ‘the name of Jesus’ briefly sums up the personality of Jesus as made known; to believe in his name is to believe in and accept his claims.
But a very different mode of interpretation has been recently advocated by Conybeare. Briefly stated, it is an assimilation of ‘the use of the name of Jesus Christ to ancient magic’ (JQF ix. 66) ; or again, in Conybeare’s own words, ‘ Why did Jesus instruct his disciples to cast out demons in his name? Why do we end our prayers with the formula in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord? Why did the Christians glory in the name? Why were they persecuted for the name? The answer to all these questions is furnished by ancient magic’ (i 581). ‘In or by the naine of Jesus Christ our Lord’ is a ‘theurgic formula,’ and its use was due to the fact that Christians shared the ancient but still prevalent belief that a god or demon must come when his name is correctly pro- nounced in an invocation.