In 1990, Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903-1994) summarized an interpretation of the meaning of El Shaddai by Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (1135-1204), popularly known as Maimonides:

[Maimonides] explains El Shaddai in terms of “the God for whom it is sufficient (shaddai lo): the God who is sufficient in Himself, whose essence is Himself, not in functions which He fulfills in relation to the world. That was the perception of our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, of El Shaddai. On this the midrash comments, that our fathers – unlike the generation of Moses – did not demand signs and wonders upon which to base their faith in God. Now though, that Moses was sent to bring the tidings of the redemption to the Israelites, who did not know of God as El Shaddai, there was a need to use names of God that represented His actions in the world.

In slight contrast is a tradition that interprets the word Shaddai as derived from the phrase sh-dai meaning “that which is (sh) enough (dai).”

By knowing God as El Shaddai, the Patriarchs recognized the inherent holiness within everything that God created. It was through this holiness that they were able to connect with God. Moses’s generation, by contrast, failed to see the holiness that existed before them. They required grand gestures, miracles and wonders, in order to sustain their faith.

On one hand, God stands self-sufficient, not defined as “Creator” or “Savior”, but simply “God”; on the other, God is intimately understood by and through the products or functions of Creation. One views God from God’s perspective, the other views God from our perspective. The first embodies the classic proverb of not being defined by your work, the second finds the holiness in the function of using or working with creation, e.g. “work to live, don’t live to work”.

However, this post isn’t so much to compare the two etymological interpretations of El Shaddai, but to focus on the common conclusion in both – that the generation of Israelites leaving Egypt with Moses were unable to recognize and believe in the holiness of God without overt functional signs. Their perception of God had been reduced to seeking “grand gestures, miracles and wonders.”

The slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt epitomizes the subjection of humankind to the curse of sin and the futility of the soil: broken and beaten, men and women are unable to look beyond the physical reach of their lives and will grasp any seemingly miraculous display that offers immediate stimulation and relief, however fleeting. That search began with the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden, reached the top of the tower of Babel, flashed in the forging of the golden calf, and so forth and so forth. Racing forward to 2000 years ago, we find echoes of this conclusion at various points in Jesus’ ministry:

He replied, “A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” (Matthew 16.4)

“No one has ever seen God, but the one and only [Son], who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” (John 1.18)

“Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” (John 3.14-15)

“Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.” (John 4.48)

We are no different today. In the constant search of new titillation to feed our attention-starved lives, we look for signs of the day rather than accept by faith that God is “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty,” the All Sufficient One. (Revelation 1.8) Without this faith, we fall sway to signs from any source, including those of Satan:

The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. (2 Thessalonians 2.9-10)

However, despite our wickedness, God loved the world in this way:

He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

Jesus is the ultimate sign of God’s holiness and sufficiency, and his death and resurrection is the true assurance of our faith that God is sufficient beyond the limits of Creation and the Curse.

Give strong drink to the hapless
And wine to the embittered.
Let them drink and forget their poverty,
And put their troubles out of mind.

Proverbs 31:6-7 (Tanakh Translation, JPS)

These verses are bookended by the admonishments for a king not to drink, “lest they forget what has been ordained, and infringe on the rights of the poor.” (31:5) and to “speak up for the dumb [mute], for the rights of all the unfortunate.” (31:8) Both of which sound like reasonable advice for a benevolent leader, but what about those middle verses?

The HCSB (among others) translates 31:6b as “And wine to one whose life is bitter.“† In the wording there is a faint echo of Naomi’s statements in Ruth 1 that her life has become bitter:

“No, my daughters, my life is much too bitter for you to share, because the Lord’s hand has turned against me.” (1:13b, HCSB)

“Don’t call me Naomi. Call me Mara,” she answered, “for the Almighty has made me very bitter. I left full, but the Lord has brought me back empty. Why do you call me Naomi, since the Lord has pronounced judgment on me, and the Almighty has afflicted me?” (1:20-21, HCSB)

Especially interesting to me (and this blog) is that it is the latter verse where the Septuagint translators used the Greek word hikanos for the Hebrew Shaddai instead of the more common pantokrator. Hikanos, in this context, can mean “the Sufficient One” (see NETS). So Shaddai has withheld from the storehouses of his sufficiency to make Naomi’s life bitter… and what cure is suggested in Proverbs? Wine and strong drink. Perhaps this is the true reason that Naomi encouraged Ruth to glean some more barley!

The Jewish Study Bible claims that “this advice is unparalleled” in scripture and I would tend to agree. What do you think?

1. Psalm 68: Shaddai cont. — Suzanne includes some of my earlier comments on the “God of the Mountain” and “God of Shaddai” possibilities, then quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia.com on the exegesis of “He is sufficient”: “It is conjectured also that the pointing of may be due to an improbable rabbinical explanation of the word as (“He who is sufficient”), and that the word originally may have been without the doubling of the middle letter.”
2. Psalm 68: Almighty — Here, Suzanne traces the origins of the English “Almighty” as the primary (and inaccurate) translation of Shaddai. Essentially, the Greek pantocrator was used in the Septuagint (LXX) as the primary translation of Yahweh Sabaoth, the Lord of Hosts. For the most part, Shaddai was simply translated theos, “God”, except in the book of Job, where Shaddai was translated using pantocrator. Then, in the Latin Vulgate, both Yahweh Sabaoth and Shaddai were translated as Omnipotens, or all powerful/almighty. When English translations were made, Yahweh Sabaoth was correctly translated “Lord of Hosts”, while Shaddai has inaccurately retained the “Almighty” translational thought of Omnipotens and pantocrator.

For additional insight related to Yahweh, Sabaoth and Shaddai, here is an interesting article on the translation decisions made by the NIV team as they created their new translation.

All of the above has made me even more appreciative of the decision by the translation team of the (New) Jerusalem Bible to use transliterated names of God in the Old Testament, rather than translated them into English. So Yahweh Sabaoth and El Shaddai, among the many other formal names of God used by the OT authors, appear directly in the text, rather than as footnotes. I wish more translations would take this approach.

“In seeking the meaning or connotation for El Shaddai I have come up with no answers but plenty of poetic allusions. Here are the three major connotations of El Shaddai – breasts and by association mountains, and destruction. These do not represent the known etymological roots of the word, but rather euphonic and associative connections. [...]

“It is perhaps best to simply remark that Shaddai is an archaic and poetic name for God. Perhaps it is a name remembered uniquely by the composer of this psalm, whether woman or man, one versed in the ancient poetic traditions. [...]

“I don’t think one can attempt to find the original derivation of the name Shaddai, but as the Almighty He gives the blessing of life and immortality, He dwells in the mountains and has the power of destruction. He is sufficient.

I agree that the original context may be lost to history, but still find it fascinating to trace some of the possible paths. I posted a few thoughts along these line in the comments to Suzanne’s post.

What caused me to chuckle is how he reciprocated. The link is titled “E-S Edwards”, with “E-S” clearly being an abbreviation of my first name “ElShaddai” and an avoidance of writing a proper name of God, much as translators use “LORD” in the Bible to avoid the tetragrammatron. That simple shortening recalled a life’s worth of unique experiences and inner debate for me.

But, before I get to the serious stuff, I want to throw out a few anecdotes from my almost 35 years of “ElShaddai living”:

• Yes, I know what my name means. I prefer “God, All-Sufficient” to “God Almighty” as far as translations go.
• Yes, I know the song. For most, that inevitably means Amy Grant, but some actually know that Michael Card wrote it. No, I was not named after the song; I was born in 1972, the song was written in 1981. And, no, as far as I know, the song was not written about me.
• For years, my grandparents in Texas would send cards addressed to “E. S. Edwards”. I don’t know if they thought “El” was my first name and “Shaddai” was my middle name, but it was always a bit odd, especially since my given middle name is my mom’s maiden name, “Cichocki” (yes, my full name is a mouthful: ElShaddai Cichocki Edwards – that’s Hebrew, Polish and Welsh for the record).
• Shifting uncomfortably in the pew of my hometown church as one of the elders gave a sermon on the names of God. This was a family church; everyone knew everyone and it was hard not to see a few glances when the elder came to “ElShaddai”.
• You know how drug stores have those kiosks of personalized license plate key rings? For years growing up, I thought that I’d eventually find a store that had an “ElShaddai” key ring in stock! It took me a while to understand that my name wasn’t likely to be in with the Tom, John and Harry’s of the world.
• I’ve tried to avoid nicknames based on my name, but have had to relent on a couple of occasions, mostly allowing others to shorten it to “El” for athletic contests when it’s just impractical to spit out a three-syllable Hebrew name when you’re sucking air.
• Being confronted in a restaurant where I was working as a bus boy by an older couple on vacation. They had noticed my name tag and absolutely demanded to know why I wasn’t in Israel fighting for my homeland. Definitely a headscratcher at that point for me, but certainly not the last time that I’ve had to explain that I’m not Jewish.
• Speaking of which, the most personally humorous professional anecdote was the time I flew to New York to conduct product training at B&H Photo, a NYC institution run by Hasidic Jews. I was ushered to their training room upstairs and led off with introductions. I soon found myself, ElShaddai, presenting to Abraham, Moses, Samuel, another Moses, etc. They were very polite about the whole situation and never made me feel uncomfortable; at least I didn’t have to pronounce my name more than once for them!
• My birth certificate actually has a hyphen on it: “El-Shaddai”, but I’ve never used it. It’s hard enough to insist that people capitalize the “S”.

I can’t say that I’m the only (human) person to currently bear this name, only that I’ve never personally met anyone else with that name nor have I met anyone who has known anyone else. Internet searches have only turned up one or two possible hits. So I have the privilege of having a name that almost no one else has. And it’s a real name, not a made up name or alternate spelling name. My name exists and has been known for thousands of years since the time that Abram walked on this earth!

And therein lies my problem. Everyday I physically live the commandment to “not misuse the name of the Lord your God, because the Lord will punish anyone who misuses His name.” (Exodus 20:7, HCSB) Everything I do, say and think will be judged in a way that very few others experience. What will it be like to be at the Last Judgement and be called by name to face my Creator and my Namesake?

I have often pondered going to seminary and undertaking theological studies. But the weight of the responsibility of using my name for any eventual published work or teaching ministry is paralyzing. The warning that “not many should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive a stricter judgment” (James 3:1, HCSB) is multiplied in my mind, knowing that using the name of God to teach under could be a powerful force of attraction for His good, but could also be tragically misused for my personal gain and selfish heart. Of the latter, there have been times where I feel so off course in my walk with Christ that I can’t help but feel like an antichrist, bearing false witness to His name through my sinful actions.

The original URL of this blog was http://elshaddai.wordpress.com/, but I changed it to the current address to avoid any hint of misusing the name of my Lord. Even signing my blog posts as “elshaddai” now gives me pause and I wonder if I should choose something more generic to avoid offending people like Iyov. Is that being reverent of a sacred name or am I simply being fearful to use a unique gift? Is my name a talent to be invested that it might bear extra fruit for Christ? So far, I’ve been the third servant in the parable of the talents who was afraid to lose his master’s money and buried it in the ground.

Just because I bear the name of God doesn’t mean that I claim to be God. I have never done so and I never will. My parents blessed me exceedingly with my name and I can only pray that God would grant me a extra live coal from His alter to purify my life so that my name will glorify His name.

Amen.

While some Bibles, such as the NLTse above and the New Jerusalem Bible, include the name El Shaddai in the text, most Bibles footnote the Hebrew and translate the name into English as “God Almighty”, following the LXX (Septuagint) text. Is this the correct translation of the first revealed name of God? Many studies and commentaries suggest other meanings of the word Shaddai. Some of more common translations are summarized below:

“Almighty”. The LXX (Septuagint) translates the Hebrew shadday into the Greek pantokrator (“all-powerful or almighty”). The translation “God Almighty” conveys a sense of God’s unequaled omnipotence in comparison to the local gods in the cultures around Abraham.

“Mountain”. This translation connects shadday with the Akkadian word sadu, meaning “mountain.” The ending -ay is added as a suffix meaning “of the”, i.e. “God of the Mountain”. “Mountain” was a common word for God in Semitic languages where gods often resided on a cosmic mountain that was the center of the earth. This is the translation seemingly preferred by academic scholars.

“Sufficient”. The rabbinic exegesis of shadday is that it is a compound word composed of the relative she (meaning “who”) and the word day (meaning “enough”): she-day, i.e. “the one who is (self)-sufficient”.

“Breasted”. This translation sees the root of Shaddai in the Hebrew shad, meaning “breast”. Many commentators expand on this approach along the lines of how the nourishment of breast milk is “all sufficient” for a baby, circling back to the rabbinic translation, though with a different etymology.

“Destroyer”. This translation connects shadday with the Hebrew verb shadad, meaning “to destroy.” Shades of this meaning might be found in passages in Job, but “almighty” seems to be the preferred translation.

Which translation is correct? I have no idea. My memory is of my father telling me that my Bible reads “God Almighty”, but that the full translation meant “God is sufficient for the needs of his people”. This seems to me to be a combination of [3] and [4], whereby God is not only sufficient for His own needs (and doesn’t need other gods around Him), but nourishes and takes care of His people.