DIVINE NAMES
Does the heavenly Father have
only one name - Yahweh or
something similar - that all
Christians must use? Does the
Bible teach a Sacred Name
doctrine?
by
Tom Driver
Certain of our Christian friends would answer "yes" to the
above questions. But what is the truth of the matter? To find
out, let's examine the following claims made by some of the
Sacred Name organizations.
1. Our Creator has only one name, and that is Yahweh.
Just as surely as one apple falling upwards would disprove
the law of gravity, so ONE example where the Creator's name is
shown to be something OTHER than Yahweh DISPROVES the theory that
Yahweh is the ONLY name of our father in heaven.
Amos 5:27 reads: "Therefore will I cause you to go into
captivity beyond Damascus, saith the Lord (YHVH), whose NAME IS
The God (Elohim) of hosts" (emphasis added). This text, along
WITH MANY OTHERS, shows that the creator has MANY NAMES that are
to be regarded AS NAMES and not just titles.
2. We should be specific and use the name not merely a
title.
Those who insist that Elohim (God) is the title and Yahweh
is the name must have trouble with the previous verse, Amos 5:27,
which shows Elohim as His name. The Bible seems to make little
DISTINCTION between a name and a title.
The word "president" is a title. Which is more respectful:
"Ladies and gentlemen, Ronald Reagan" (this dates the writing of
this article as many years ago) or "Ladies and gentlemen , the
President of the United States"? A title CAN carry GREAT
RESPECT, even more than a name in some cases. Is "President of
the United States" SPECIFIC? Of course. Only ONE has such an
office. So it is with the term "God." There is only ONE God,
only One who deserves that title which means SUPREME BEING,
Almighty Creator and Ruler of the Universe, Eternal.
"FATHER" is also a title. Do you call your natural father by
his first name? Most would agree that that is not the most
respectful form of address. Do people get confused when you talk
about your father without using his personal name? Of course not.
Except for identification purposes, using his personal name is
rarely necessary.
JESUS CHRIST SUPPORTS USING THE RESPECTFUL TITLE "FATHER"
THROUGHOUT THE NT, BOTH IN SPEAKING TO HIM ("Our Father, who art
in heaven....") AND ABOUT HIM ("my Father works and I work").
In an effort to show we should be specific with the name, a
Sacred name adherent once sent this writer a letter simply
addressed to "man" at my home address. I pointed out to him that
although he wasn't specific with the name, the letter still
arrived at the correct destination. Why? Because I happen to be
the man at my address. The letter was addressed properly. After
all, how many "Fathers in heaven" are there? I contend that
one cannot be more specific than "Father in heaven" or "God in
heaven" - for there is only One.
(The readers should bear in mind that the writer is here
using the name or title "God" towards the One Supreme person in
heaven who is over all and head of all, including Jesus Christ,
who is also in the NT called God - see 1 Cor.11:3 and Hebrews
1:8 - Keith Hunt).
3. We should not refer to the Eternal as Lord, because Baal
means "Lord" to the pagans.
If Satan called himself "ruler of the universe," should we
cease calling our heavenly Father the Supreme Ruler? How
ridiculous to strip away God's titles simply because pagans
decide to use those titles for their gods.
"Lord" means master. I will not give that title, that honor
to some pagan. Almighty God is my Lord or master, regardless of
who or what falsely assumed that title.
Baal does mean lord, master, or husband. If it still meant
that in modern Hebrew and we spoke Hebrew, there would be nothing
wrong in using Baal as a title for the Eternal. The Almighty
EVEN REFERRED TO HIMSELF AS PRECISELY THAT! Turn to Jeremiah
31:32. The Eternal said, "I was an husband unto them." The
original word for "husband" is BAAL. This verse shows that it is
the intent, not the word itself, that is important. If you call
out to Baal in the context of pagan worship, of course, that's
wrong. But in the context of humbly submitting to the Eternal,
honoring Him as Lord or Master, certainly, it is NOT wrong.
4. We should not use the title "god" because its primary
definition is "any of various beings conceived of as
supernatural," and therefore does not specifically refer to the
Eternal.
While that is the primary definition of god (spelled with a
small "g"), the primary definition of God (spelled with a capital
"G") is the Creator and Ruler of the Universe, who is regarded as
eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; the Supreme
Being; the Almighty.
"God" corresponds to the Hebrew elohim. The Eternal used
elohim in reference to Himself as well as others: "You shall
have no other gods (elohim) before me" (First Commandment, Exodus
20:3). Since our Creator does not sin, His use of the one word
in reference to the false as well as the True was not wrong.
Therefore, we are not wrong in using the same word in reference
to God and the so-called gods, so long as we acknowledge the
authority of the former.
In the NT, the Greek word for God is THEOS. Theos is also
used for Satan in the inspired Scriptures! Satan is called "the
god (theos) of this world" 2 Corinthians 4:4. So elohim and
theos could also be defined as "any of various beings conceived
of as supernatural," but that is NOT the definition of THE
Elohim, THE Theos, THE God of the universe!
If we cannot use any word that was used in pagan worship,
then I suppose the Bible is wrong in referring to our Savior as
the "SUN of righteousness" (Malachi 4:2), since the sUn has been
used in pagan worship for centuries. Now of course the Bible
is not, nor am I, advocating sun worship. The phrase is simply a
comparison between the healing which the Savior will bring to His
people and the life and health which the rising sun brings to our
planet. But the point is that the Almighty made use of a name
which He obviously knew was also used in pagan worship.
5. "God" was the pagan Teutonic deity.
It is true that "god" is a Teutonic word, since the English,
like German, is a Teutonic language. The word meant "supreme
being" to the germanic tribes, as it does to us today. If that
supreme authority was a pagan deity in their understanding, that
does not mean MY Supreme Authority is a pagan deity as well.
Would Sacred Name adherents STOP USING "Yahweh" if some PAGANS
STARTED USING THE SAME NAME in reference to THEIR gods? Of
course not!
Names and titles that properly belong to someone CANNOT BE
TAKEN AWAY just because someone undeserving ALSO USES those same
names and titles.
To be continued
|
