2, Siptificance of the terni.—lf the etymology above indicated be adopted, this of itself will in great measure determine the meanino and force of the word. According to the anal'ogy of futures used as proper names (comp. -1n),, rw3-0, priv, etc.), it must be regarded as expressin„o the concentration, in the Being to whom it is applied, of the quality expressed by the simple verb ; that is, in this case, the quality of being or existence. This term, therefore, as applied to God, intimates that to be is his peculiar characteristic ; that He is in a sense in which no other being is ; that He is self-existent, and cannot but be ; that He is the source of all being, the unchangeable, infinite, eternal essence. , With this explanation of the word all the passages in Scripture in which stress is laid on it as a designation of the Almighty ac cord. It is because this is his name that He changes not (Mal. iii. 6); that He is king, of the whole earth, reigning for ever (Ps. x. 16 ; xcix. ; cxlvi. to) ; that He is the author of crcation and the ruler of the universe (Amos v. 8 ; ix. 6 ; Ps. lxviii. 4 ; Jer. xxxii. 27 ; comp. also the often recurring phrase rirr, Lord of Hosts) ; that his people may with confidence call on Him as ever present and as having all things in his band (Jer. xxxiii. 2 ; 33, 34) ; and that in this lies a security for his forgiving grace enduring from generation to generation (Exod. xxxiv. 5-7). Worthy of notice also is it, that the most solemn oath of the Jews was by Jehovah as the Living One (Jer. v. 2). In the opinion that in this lies the significancy of the name, the ancient Jews and most scholars of eminence have concurred. R. Bechai (in Exod., fol. 65, col. 4, quoted by Bux torf, Lexicon in verb.) says, The blessed God rules in the three times, past, present, and future, and the name alone (MIN) embraces these three times ;' and again, M:71, in the appropriated name (rim are comprehended these three times, as is known to all' (comp. also the Targum Jon ath. on Exod. 14) ; Buxtorf Nomen Dei pro prium ipsum ab essentia sua denominans, q. d. 411S, existens ab xterno et in xternum ; Hottinger : Nomen rnro est essentiale, e. simplicissimam, in finitam et xternam Dei essentiam significantissime exprimit. The meaning,' says Knobel (Exeget. Helb. z. Exod. p. 30), cannot be doubtful. The LXX. render rime, -et,: rorm by 176 elp.t &v, and the following n'Titt by 6 6v, and the Greco Venet. by 6 6vrc6r77s. Theodotion gives 76 6v as the rendering of Hesychius explains by alvos Tcp 6vn a/ 843, and Theodoret (Quart. ad Paraliponi. I.) explains 'lad, as meaning 5-cds as also on Ps. cx. t, ir as 6 6v. Recent writers also, as Hitzig (on Is. i. 2) and Maurer (TV. B.), embrace this meaning. Jehovah calls Himself THE BEING in contradistinction to the Gods of the nations, which, as gods, had no being, but were mere fictions and pretences, and therefore non entities • He thus denotes Himself as the true and only Go'cl. Many regard this being as unchange able and eternal (Gesen., Rosenm., Hengstenb., Reinke, Herder. Geist. der Eb. Poes. I. p. to8 ; Tuch. Genes. p. xxxv. ; von Coelln. Bibl. Theo!. i. p. too), and accordingly give Eternal as its mean ing. This is intimated already by the /6v 'cal Kai 6 ipx6aevos of Apoc. 4, 8, and the 6 c'.6v Kat 6 of ch. xi. 17, and xvi. 5 ; also by the O 6iv Kai ePX6Acvor of Clement, and the Ss 'fp Kai eo-rt. Kai act of Epiphanius ; but how this idea lies in a deri vative from MI, to be, does not appear' (Book cited, p. 30). The difficulty hinted at in this 'con cluding clause may be easily obviated. If the tetragrammaton conveys the idea of absolute essence, then, as this is not separable either in reality or in thought from eternal self-existence, it must include also the latter. It has been objected to this, that the idea thus conveyed of God is too abstract to be suitcd to the genius of the ancient Hebrews. To meet this Gesenius has suggested (Thes. in voc.) that we may read the word row as the fut. in IIiphil = He who causes to be, the Creator. This is ingenious but purely conjectural, as the verb does not occur in the Hiphil ; and besides the idea of creativeness does not predominate in the usages of the word. Ilrivernick (Introd., p. 31, E. T.) says, this name denotes the essence of the God head in its concrete relation to mankind, the reve lation of the living God Himself ;' and again (p. 6o), that it does not assign so much the abstract idea of eternal existence as that rather of the con crete existence of God, and his disposition towards Israel, his permanent relationship to them.' But, though it is as Jehovah that God enters into covenant relations with men, it does not follow from this that such is the meaning of the word ; rather is it because He is Jehovah, the self-existent, that such relations subsist. The proper answer to the objection is that it proceeds on an as sumption which is quite gratuitous the ancient Hebrews werc not so destitute of ab'stract notions as it presumes. Modern Jewish translators gene rally prefer a rendering equivalent to Eternal. Since the version of Olivetan all the French ver sions translate the word L'Elernel ; some German versions follow this and give Der Ewige (see l3un sen, Bibelwerk, I. p. lxxxviii.) By some recent writers stress is laid on the fact of the finitre tense being used, and a meaning corresponding to this has been attached to thc word. Thus Baumgarten says ( rhea. Com. p. 410), We must go to nro from the words rrn,1.4 itjt.; ronN, and thus Jeho vah is, as He Himself declares, the historical God, the God of Abraham. The reference becomes clear when with Aquila and Theodotion we give the mood its usual, r. e., futuritivc meaning. Since the repetition of ri4M.:, cannot be tautological, we tmnslate : I shall be who I will and should be (‘ Ich werde sein der ich sein will und soll'). We have thus here the reference to the promise to the fathers, which ever points to a future ntanifestation of Jehovah.' Delitzsch adopts substantially tbe same view (Genesis, p. 32) : Creation,' says he, is the beginning, and the bringing of every thing created perfectly to its idea is the end. The king dom of power must become the kingdom of glory. Between lies the kingdom of grace, a long history, whose essential content is Redemption. ;TV is the Lord who mediates the beginning and the end in the lapse of this history, in one word, God the Redeemer.' That the idea here suggested is sub stantially true cannot be questioned ; God the ever lasting is from that very fact God who is ever re vealing Himself to His creatures, and in the sphere of this fallen world ever revealing Himself as the Restorer and Redeemer ; but that his reason for taking to Himself the name Jehovah was to convey this truth, or that this is to be found in the futuri tive form of the word seems altogether without ground.* This idea has been carried still farther by Air. Tyler (7ehovah the Redeemer God, etc., Loud. 1S61), by Air. Macwhorter (Biblioth. Sac., Jan. 1S37), and by Mr. Macdonald (Introa'uction to the Pentateuch); by whom the term Jehovah is made to bear reference to the future manifestation of God the Saviour in Jesus Christ. What has been advanced in illustration of their view by these writers, contains much that is ingenious, interest ing, and instructive ; but their entire theory seems to us to want a basis in fact on which to rest. Mr. Macwhortcr renders the exclamation of Eve on the birth of her son Cain, thus : I have gotten a man, even him who is to be' or to come ;' with this Mr. Ty-ler substantially coincides, and on this their theory rests. Now, is such a rendering grammati cally possible ? Can a single instance be adduced of a verb not alreaa'y recognised as a proper name being placed in apposition with a preceding clause by means of ? And, with respect to the whole class to which this view belongs, may we not ask whether it be not liable to the objection of conveying to us unworthy views of God, as if He, the immu table and eternal, should give as his peeuliar name —the symbol conveying the true concept of Him— a word which expresses rather what He is to be come, as manifested to inen, than what He is in Himself ? On the whole, wc accept as that best sustained, the old view, that by this name God would convey to us the idea that PURE BEING is his peculiar and characteristic quality.
3. Relation of Jehovah to Elohint.—As both of these are desigmations of the one God, it is not sur prising that we should find sometimes the one, sometimes the othcr, and sometimes both together, used by the sacred writers. It is remarkable, how ever, that usually where the writer employs the one he does not in the same section or context employ the other. [See article Gon.] This has excited notice, and has led to much investigation, some contending that the use of the one term or the other is determined by the suitableness of its signifi cancy to the subject of the context in which it occurs ; others finding in the distinctive use of the terms traces and evidences of separate authorship of the sections ; while others see in this nothing but one of the accidents of composition. This is not the place to enter fully into this subject, which will be better discussed where the question becomes one of practical value as bearing on the authcnticity and integrity of certain books of Scripture ; but a few' general observations may not be out of place here.
t. The two first of the hypotheses just stated have been generally put forth as directly antagonist to each other. Should we not, however, rather say that both rest really on the same fundamental assumption—that, namely, of such a distinction in the meaning of the two terms as renders it proper that the one and not the other should be used in certain connections ? This is avowedly the assumption of those who advocate the former of the two ; but it is not less by implication involved in the latter. For if the difference of usage is traceable to difference of authorship, then as each author must have had a reason for preferring the one name to the other, and as the only reason that could have dictated such a pre ference is one arising from the signification of the word, we are as much on this hypothesis as on the other thrown back on the inquiry whether any such distinction of signification can be established as will account for the one name being used in any given connection rather than the other. We say the only reason that could have led different writers to use the one word rather than the other is such a distinctive difference of sense as rendered the one word proper and the other not in the connection ; for to what else can the preference of the one to the other be referred ? It cannot be pretended that both names were not equally familiar to every Hebrew writer ; and if it be said that mere accia'ent determined it, a cause is assumed which will ac count for the diversity as well on the hypothesis of one writer throughout, as on that of several ; which is a virtual giving up of the latter hypothesis entirely. We conclude, then, that the assumption we have specified is essential to both hypotheses. The question thus comes to be, can such a distinction of meaning be established ? That the two words in their primary etymological sense are distinguish able from each other lies on the surface ; but this is not the question here. The question is, Are they so distinct that a correct writer would feel in some connections he could use only the one, and in other connections only the other ? To this question no satisfactory answer has been yet given. Many suggestions have been offered as to the distinctive difference of the two words ; but they can be re garded in no other light than as the a prim guesses of learned and ingenious men. As yet no attempt has been made to discover by a careful induction what is the conclusion which the usage of Scripture authorises on this point. 2. Sufficient care does not seem to have been taken to eliminate passages which can contribute nothing to the settlement of the question at issue—to purge the instances,' if we may use the language of Bacon. Of the many cases in which Elohim is used, a very large number prove nothing whatever as to any preference on the part of the writer for that name rather than Jehovah, simply because the grammatical conditions of the sentence preclude the use of a proper name such as Jehovah. In all cases, for instance, where a pronoun or adjective has to be used along with the appellation of God, the writer lies under a necessity of using Elohim and not Jehovah. On the other hand, there are cases where Jehovah could alone be used ; as, for instance, when Jacob says (Gen. xxviii. 21), then shall Jehovah be my God,' or when Pharaoh asks (Exod. v. 2), Who is Jehovah that I should obey his voice ?' or when Moses said to Pharaoh that he would pray Jehovah to send a judgment on him that Ile might know that the earth is Jehovah's (Exod. ix. 29), or when Moses cried when he saw the people offering idolatrous homage to the calf, Who is on 'the side ol Jehovah ?' (Exod. xxxii. 26), and a multitude of similar instances, where from the very circumstances of the case only a proper name could be used. Such instances are obviously to be abstracted from ; and when this is done with due care it will be found that a very large proportion of the cases in which either word is used is accounted for without the aid of either of the hypotheses above stated. 3. Due regard does not seem to have been paid to the bearing of exceptive cases on the question at issue. It is a rule of the inductive method that where any hypothesis is found irreconcilable with any ascer tained fact, which, if true, it ought to embrace, it must be set aside as thereby invalidated : Data instantia cadit inductio. Now there are instances of the use both of Jehovah and of Elohim in the O. T. which cannot be brought under either of these hypotheses ; and front this it follows that both are logically unsound ; each involves the fallacy of an undistributed middle.' Such exceptional pas sages, for instance, in relation to the Document hypothesis are found in Gen. iv., which is said to be Jehovistic, but in which at ver. 25 we find Elohim used ; in Gen. vi. 1-6, where Jehovah and Elohim are both used ; in Gen. xx., where Elohim is chiefly used, but where in ver. 4 and ver. IS we have Jehovah. Such instances are plainly utterly irreconcilable with the hypothesis of original Elo histic documents with which Jehovistic documents have at a later period been interwoven. Equally irreconcilable with both hypotheses are those pas sages in which the narrative is plainly uniform and continuous, but where the Document hypothesis would require us violently to dislocate the whole, and where it is impossible to discover any such diffe rences of reference and application in the portions where the two divine appellations are used respec tively as a regard to the Sense hypothesis would de mand. To this objection we have never seen a fair and tenable answer. It is easy to say the passages are interpolated, or to suggest the agency of a second, third, or seventh reviser ; but to men of scientific habits of research such expedients only serve the more to condemn the hypothesis they are adopted to save. 4. It would be well before setting to work to frame hypotheses affecting the integrity and genuineness of the sacred books, were some attempt made to settle on a solid basis the criteria by which questions of this sort are to be deter mined. Especially in relation to such a case as that before us, it would be well to settle with some degree of precision; and by means of a large induc tion from the phenomena of literature, what kind and what degree of variety in phraseology and style afford a safe criterion of diversity of authorship. At present it seems to be chiefly the critic's own subjectivity that determines his conclusion ; the consequence of which is that different men arrive at conflicting conclusions, all of which are alike without any solid ground on which they can be rested. It would be well, before we dispute further on such points, that some organo/z of the higher criticism were in recognised use among critics.