Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

God is a spirit (Jn. 4:24). The only means which man has to obtain a knowledge of God is through His revealing Himself to us. Although man can know that there is a Creator from the things which are made, he cannot know whether there is one God or many gods, whether that God is evil or good, or whether He loves or hates us, etc. on the basis of observation of the creation.

We can know God because He revealed Himself through the inspired Bible. One of the means by which He revealed Himself to us is through the names He is called in the Bible. The Hebrew usage of names served not only as a means of designating someone but also as a means of describing him.

Among the Hebrews the name was never a mere sign whereby one person could be distinguished from another. It always remained descriptive; it expressed the meaning of the person or thing designated. The name bore the same relation to the significance of the thing or person as a word does to a thought. It was always the expression of it. Hence when a person acquired a new significance, or was in some sense a new man, he received a new name. Therefore Abram became Abraham; Jacob, Israel; Solomon, Jedidiah`beloved of God’ (2 Sam. 12:25). . . . And the same is true of God’s own names. Such a name expresses that which is known to men of the nature of God. When a new or higher side of the Being of God is revealed to men there arises a new name of God. Any name of God expresses some revelation of His Being or character.(1)

By considering the names by which God is designated, we can learn more about God.

Designations Of God

Here is a partial list of the names by which God is called in the Old Testament.

1. El, Eloah, Elohim. These are the most frequently occurring designations of God. El is the most general designation for God; Eloah is the singular form of the more widely used plural Elohim. Their derivation in Hebrew is not absolutely known, although many scholars suggest that they are derived from a root which means “to be strong.” The term points to God as “the strong and mighty One, or as the object of fear.” In Numbers 23:22, God is spoken of as the God who brought Israel out of Egypt who “hath as it were the strength of a unicorn (wild ox).” “For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of Lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible. . .” (Deut. 10:17). “This name properly represented One only Being, who revealed Himself to man as Creator, Ruler, and Lord. It was His own peculiar title, and ought to have been confined to Him. Accordingly we read, `in the beginning God (Elohim in the plural) created (in the singular) the heavens and the earth.”‘(2) This designation of God is a general one which might be equivalent to Deity.

The word Elohim is a plural noun. The significance of this plural has been variously interpreted. Here are some ideas: (1) the word reflects a time when Israel had a polytheistic concept of God; (2) the word designates the one God in conjunction with the angelic hosts of heaven; (3) the plural is used to designate unlimited greatness; the plural signifies the infinite fulness of the might and power which lies in the divine being and thus becomes an intensive plural: (4) the plural

form is used because God exists in three persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Of these explanations, only 3 and 4 are viable options if one accepts the Christian doctrine of God and the Bible as a divine revelation. Girdlestone commented:

. . .there is certainly nothing unreasonable in the supposition that the name of the Deity was given to man in this form, so as to prepare him for the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons.

As long as the passage above quoted stands on the first page of the Bible the believer in the Trinity has a right to turn to it as a proof that Plurality in the Godhead is a very different thing from Polytheism, and as an indication that the frequent assertions of the Divine Unity are not inconsistent with the belief that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.(3)

The plural form of God as indicating a plurality of persons constituting the Godhead is also consistent with the plural pronouns of Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7.

This word which should have been reserved for God alone, was corrupted to apply to pagan deities (cf. Psa. 95:3). It is also used to describe angels and even the judges of Israel (Psa. 82:1).

This name of God reminds us of His might and power in the creation of the universe. We should be reminded that we owe our existence and sustenance to the mighty God.

2. Adonai. The Hebrew word adonai is translated “Lord.” This points to God as the almighty Ruler, to whom everything is subject, and to whom man is related as a servant.”(4) God is the owner of the entire creation and, consequently, He demands unrestricted obedience of all of it.

The claim upon man which is indicated by this designation is well illustrated by Malachi 1:6-“A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honor? And if I be a master, where is my fear?” Jesus related this same idea when He said, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Lk. 6:46). The significance of the designation adonai is the absolute lordship of God over His creation and the consequent responsibility of His creation to obey Him.

One of the most significant facts about this word is that it was used as a substitute for Jehovah (YHVH). The Jews developed a superstition about pronouncing the name of God; hence, when they read the name YHVH (Jehovah), in the text, they pronounced adonai. Consequently, in the Hebrew text, the vowel points of adonai are written with YHVH.

This name of God calls upon each of us to submit to the revealed will of God. As our Lord, He has the right to command and we have the responsibility to obey. If we can understand the role of civil authorities and employers over us, we should certainly be able to comprehend the right of God to command us.

3. El Shaddai. The designation of God as El Shaddai occurs in passages which intend to impress us with His almighty power.

The name characterizes God as revealing Himself in His might; the LXX. do not understand the expression in the Pentateuch, but it is correctly rendered by pantokrator (Almighty, mw) in most passages in Job. It is no longer the powerful Divinity ruling in the world in general that is El-Shaddai, but the God who testes of Himself in special deeds of power, by which He subdues nature to the ways of His kingdom . . . (5)

The title first appears in Genesis 17:1 where God appeared to Abram and said, “I am the Almighty God . . . I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly . . . . Thou shalt be a father of many nations.” The significance of this designation is caught in such statements as, “Is any thing too hard for the Lord?” (Gen. 19:14).

The almighty power of God enables Him to perform anything which He promises to do for man. Hence, this designation of God points to the inexhaustible store of His bounty and power. Whatever God desires to do, He has the power to accomplish. Any promise He has given to man, He can fulfill.

4. The Holy One of Israel. This designation of God is a favorite of Isaiah, having been used 32 times in that book. The root meaning of kadosh is “to separate.” The word emphasizes the transcendence of God, His separateness above all other beings. The designation also points to His moral attribute of being without sin. The holiness of God makes sinful man quake in His presence (see Isa. 6).

The designation of God as the “Holy One of Israel” should constantly remind us of our sinfulness and our need of forgiveness through the precious blood of Jesus. It should cause us to be humble before Him who is without blemish or moral fault.

5. El Roi. When Hagar fled the presence of Sarah after conceiving Ishmael and after realizing that she was hated in Sarah’s sight, God appeared to her in the wilderness and promised to multiply her seed. He promised, “Behold, thou art with child, and shah bear a son, and shaft call his name Ishmael; because the Lord bath heard thy affliction” (Gen. 16:11). In response, Hagar said, “Thou God seest me” (Gen. 16:13-Thou art El Rot). This designation of God reminds us that He knows our needs and cares about our plight. Peter said, “Casting all your care upon him; for he: careth for you” (1 Pet. 5:7).

We have a God who knows our every need, even before we ask (Matt. 6:32). He sees every sparrow that falls. He knows the needs of the animals of the field, the birds of the heaven, the green grass and the lilies. He also is aware of my needs and responds to provide for them.

The Name Jehovah

The name Jehovah needs more personal attention. The name Jehovah is derived from the Hebrew tetragrammaton (four-letter word) YHVH. No on knows its correct pronunciation. The English word Jehovah is formed by using the vowel points of adonai (Lord) with YHVH. The more recent books use the word Yahweh rather than Jehovah to translate the divine name. In the AV, the divine name is translated Lord. To distinguish it from adonai, the AV uses `Lord” for adonai and “LORD” for YHVH. This designation of God occurs 6,823 times in the Old Testament.

The word Jehovah is the personal name of God. It compares with names such as Baal, Chemosh, and Diana-the personal names of pagan deities. In the name Jehovah, the personality of God is distinctly expressed.

The origin of this name for God is generally related to God’s appearance to Moses in the burning bush. When God instructed Moses to return to Egypt and lead His people out of bondage, Moses said, “Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you” (Exod. 3:13-14). Later He added, “I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty (El Shaddai), but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them” (Exod. 6:3).

The name YHVH is generally thought to be derived from the verb hayah, “to be.” The name points to God as the God who was, is, and always will be. As such, this name emphasizes the eternity and immutability of God. Inasmuch as the eternal God does not change (Mal. 3:6), the divine name Jehovah is an assurance that God will be true to His covenant. Though many centuries passed, God did not fail to fulfill His covenant with Abraham. The divine name Jehovah is just as much an assurance to us that Jesus will come again and receive us into heaven as it was an assurance that God would fulfill His covenant to Abraham. “God’s personal existence, the continuity of His dealings with man, the unchangeableness of His promises, and the whole revelation of His redeeming mercy, gather round the name Jehovah.”(6)

God is also called Jehovah Saboath (The Lord of Hosts). This is a compound name based on the name Jehovah. The Hosts of Jehovah are not the armies of Israel; they are the legions of angels available to accomplish God’s will. The name Jehovah of Hosts indicates the power of God to accomplish His revealed will, despite the forces of evil which might be aligned against Him. We are reminded that God has all of the unseen angels to accomplish what He desires. As such, those who are for us will always be greater than those who are against us. The forces of Satan can never overcome and conquer the forces of God.

New Testament Designations of God

“The variety of names which characterizes the OT is lacking in the NT, where we are all but limited to two names, each of which corresponds to several in the OT.”(7)

1. Theos. The word God is translated from Theos. This term is parallel to Elohim. It refers to the concept of Deity in the general sense. It can apply to Father, Son or Holy Spirit (Jn. 1:1; Acts 5:3).

2. Kurios. The word “Lord” is translated from kurios. It has the same basic idea as adonai; some passages in the Old Testament which contain the word Jehovah are translated in the New Testament by the word kurios, reflecting the Jewish usage of adonai in the place of YHVH.

3. Descriptive Titles. God is also designated the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega (a descriptive explanation of YHVH [see Rev. 1:4,8,17; 2:8; etc.]). He is known as the Almighty God, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Each of these descriptive terms indicates something about God, such as His eternity, His omnipotent power, or His Lordship.

Conclusion

As we look at these designations of God, we are reminded that the God whom we serve is a mighty One, our Lord, the Almighty God for whom nothing is impossible, the Holy One, the eternal and immutable God who has the hosts of heaven to accomplish His will. Whatever He promises or wills, He has the power to accomplish. May we ever bow before Him in reverence and awe, loving and serving Him throughout this life.

Endnotes

1. A.B. Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament, p. 37.

2. Robert B. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, p, 19.

3. Ibid., p. 22.

4. L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 49.

5. Gustav Friedrich Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 91.

6. Girdlestone, op. cit., p: 38.

7. James Orr, editor, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 1267.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 2, pp. 34, 54-55
January 17, 1985

WASHINGTON (RNS) – Mainline Protestant denominations – long identified with the pro-choice side of the abortion debate – have begun to revise and reassess their positions on this divisive moral and political issue.

The reassessment has come as opponents of abortion within the denominations have begun to organize themselves more effectively, posing the most formidable challenge to the churches’ pro-choice views since abortion was legalized in 1973.

According to many in the churches, the mainline Protestant activity also is challenging the view that opposition to abortion is purely a matter of Roman Catholic or fundamentalist Protestant doctrine.

For instance, the Presbyterian Church (USA), on October 15, sent study materials on abortion to its 12,000 congregations, launching a four-month period of review of a 1983 statement issued by the denomination. The 1983 position came under attack by local church bodies at the denomination’s annual meeting last July. Many objected to the statement’s view that abortion is not only a right but sometimes an “act of faithfulness before God.”

“The church is not satisfied with its position on abortion. There is a great deal of fermentation and rethinking going on,” said Dr. James Andrews, recently elected as Presbyterian stated clerk, the equivalent of church president.

In other recent Protestant developments on abortion:

-The Lutheran World Federation, which embraces 54 million Lutherans, passed a strong resolution at its August meeting in Budapest, Hungary, opposing the abortion of “pre-born children.”

-The General Conference of the United Methodist Church, meeting last May, tightened its stand on abortion, and touched off a growing dispute in the church over the significance of the revision.

-At its quadrennial meeting in mid-summer, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the second largest black denomination in the country, reaffirmed its opposition to legal abortion except in cases of rape and incest.

-At its 1985 general convention, the Episcopal Church is expected to face the strongest challenge ever to its “unequivocal opposition” to laws against abortion. Mounting the effort now is the newly-incorporated National Organization of Episcopalians for Life, known by its acronym, NOEL.

-In July, delegates to the annual meeting of the Church of the Brethren, a historic “peace” church, tightened its position on abortion by stating flatly that the church “opposes abortion because the rejection of unborn children violates the love of God by which God creates and nurtures human life. “

At the same time, however, the Brethren supported the “integrity of conscience in decision-making in relation to pregnancy and child-bearing This protest against abortion, combined with moral support for those who feel they must undergo an abortion, reflect two main tenets held by the Brethren – respect for life and respect for conscience.

-In June, the 14-million-member Southern Baptist Convention passed its strongest anti-abortion resolution ever, opposing it even in cases of rape and incest. The nation’s largest Protestant denomination first went on record against legal abortion in 1980.

Dr. Andrews of the Presbyterian Church said he sees a “very broad concern and rethinking” on abortion underway in his denomination and possibly throughout mainline Protestantism. . . .

Behind much of the reassessment have been a growing number of organized anti-abortion groups within the churches. Unlike other right-to-life groups, they tend to stay out of the public arena and work, instead, on reversing or modifying their churches’ views.

They often base their appeals on Scripture and “original” Christian teachings, as well as on recent medical advances. The groups have been influenced by new procedures such as those involving medical treatment of the fetus and techniques allowing pregnant women to see and hear their unborn. A heavy emphasis is also placed on services to help troubled pregnant women have their babies. Some denominations have also called for these services as an alternative to laws against abortion (Sword of the Lord [6 November 1984], p. 10).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, p. 12
January 3, 1985

By Stanley Paher

Harry Truman’s bold words, “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen,” is an apt commentary upon Larry Hafley’s five page rambling response to my letter sent directly to him recently. If Larry has not violated the letter of Matthew 18:15 – if a brother sins against you, go show him your fault – then he has violated the spirit of that great principle. The lessons are two-fold: (1) if he criticizes others’ articles and differences over faith, then he should learn to take criticism; he should also (2) respond directly to a simple letter instead of converting a private matter into a public one through publication in a journal such as Guardian of Truth.

Larry has not answered my argument. He says that Simon is an example of yo-yo-ism. But all one can get out of Acts 8:18-24 is saved, lost, saved, if that. Larry’s yo-yo string is jammed. Now the ongoing debate on this matter is whether or not salvation is a reality in the Christian’s life continuously (interrupted only by faith failing and renouncing Christ) or whether salvation is an on-off, yes-no, up-down thing, hour by hour, in the Christian walk. The latter is implied in yo-yo-ism and expressed in his letter and recent article in Guardian of Truth. It is erroneous.

More than the above faults, Larry knows that those who advocate constant cleansing do not excuse sin or minimize any sin. We do not love error or knowingly tolerate it or otherwise have fellowship with it. Yet Larry says that our position “opens up broad opportunities for wickedness,” others say that constant cleansing promotes a loose attitude toward error and encourages sinful living.

The opposite is true. Yo-yo-ism advocates have an inadequate notion of what sin is. It is more than transgression of law; sin is any thought, word, deed or action that violates the spirit of any of God’s laws, as well as the letter. Anyone with a profound sense of sin would not argue about how God saves and what he does about sins, day-in, and day-out.

To Larry and others of the Guardian of Truth, Facts and Faith, and Searching the Scriptures triad of papers, sin is treated subjectively rather than objectively. At most such concepts of sin and law saves one from sinning but not from sin itself; it saves from known sin but not from the corruption of a man’s heart. This is true because the triad ignores the fact that sin consists of any lack of conformity to the will of God as well as specific transgression of law. Secondly, acceptability consists of more than “repenting and confessing sin” (the so-called second law of pardon); it is a matter of forsaking sin as well.

Larry’s bypassing of me and gossiping my letter to others is evidently sin because the spirit of Matthew 18:15 is violated. By ignoring the spirit of God’s laws, it is often tempting and easy to cheat. “The Bible does not say, thou shalt not smoke,” some have reasoned. Mere adherence to the letter of commandments never makes a man holy, but living by the Christ-principles can and does make him upright. By recognizing divine biblical principles, one can find any number of good reasons why a Christian should not smoke.

Righteousness therefore comes through grace-faith and not solely by obeying New Testament commandments. Remission of sins, including violating Matthew 18:15, was never intended to come by mere law-keeping. Otherwise, justification could never be made sure (Rom. 4:16b). The Bible’s great moral principles must be recognized and made a very part of the fabric of our beings.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, p. 8
January 3, 1985

By Larry Houchen

On August 29, 1984, the body of Floyd Thompson was laid to rest in Santa Ana, California. Brother Floyd, as this writer affectionately called him, was called to his real home, having lost a bout with cancer. Elva West and Homer Hailey, long-time friends of the Thompsons, conducted the services. Ken Dart, the gospel preacher at Fairview in Garden Grove, conducted the grave side service.

Floyd and Ruth Thompson moved to California in November 1934. Brother Floyd had preached for about two years at Mt. Zion, Oklahoma, a rural congregation. For a couple of months after moving to California, brother Thompson preached for various congregations in southern California as he was needed. In January 1935, brother Floyd followed William S. Irvine at the Birch and Fairview (later Birch and McFadden) congregation in Santa Ana. He went for the purpose of “filling-in” until the congregation could secure someone to follow brother Irvine. Brother Floyd ended up “filling-in” until 1955. After serving the congregation for twenty years, brother Thompson and a number from the Birch and McFadden congregation began a new work in Garden Grove on Fairview Street. After twenty years with the Fairview congregation, brother Floyd resigned his full-time duties. (Thus, he had the unique experience of preaching to some of the same people for 40 years.) However, he remained with the congregation teaching Bible classes and serving in whatever other capacities that he could. In the last nine years, brother Floyd was often away from home engaged in gospel meetings.

Floyd Thompson’s life was greatly influenced by the writings of R.L. Whiteside and the personal twenty-five year association with C.R. Nichol. He often said that his two most favorite uninspired writers were these two brethren.

The Thompsons were unable to have children. Once, following a sermon on parental responsibilities, somebody asked brother Floyd, “How can you say the things you said having never experienced children of your own?” In his characteristically calm, bass voice, he replied, “It seems the apostle Paul had some things to say along those lines, too.”

Brother Floyd’s sermons, prayers, and general public remarks were characteristically brief. He said as much (and sometimes more) as many of us, only in fewer words. His brevity was not due to shallowness for all who knew him respected him for his obvious knowledge of “the text.” Some of this writer’s fondest memories of brother Floyd was having him expound verse by verse on certain chapters that this writer requested. He made such chapters as Matthew 24 and Romans 14 come alive. Those sessions will be dearly missed.

The apostle Paul wrote, “As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming” (Eph. 4:14). Brother Floyd was anchored securely to both the faith and hope as his life was doctrinally one of stability.

Brother Thompson was a friend to young preachers. Shortly after, this then twenty-seven year old writer began work with the Tustin church, just a few miles from the Fairview congregation, he heard a knock at the office door; brother Floyd had come to welcome him to the area. Here was a highly respected gospel preacher who was not too proud to encourage a young man. His subsequent visits were frequent and always appreciated. This writer, as wen as a host of others, loved him for not only what he stood for, but also for what he was – kind and thoughtful.

The Thompsons complemented each other – theirs was a very special relationship. Whenever sister Thompson mentioned to him that something around the house needed repairing, he dropped whatever he was doing and fixed whatever was broken, if it was within his ability. In speaking with sister Ruth recently, she wanted included in this tribute that brother Floyd’s influence not only extended to outsiders and to the spiritual family, it is also reflected in the contribution of encouraging her to teach Bible classes, write, and serve the Lord in other capacities. (She has authored a fine book, Train the Young Women, and has written numerous articles. LRH)

There is a vast void in sister Ruth’s life and in the lives of the rest of us who knew Floyd Thompson. But oh, the memories, aren’t they grand!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, p. 10
January 3, 1985