LOGOS

LITERATURE

 

The doctrine of the Logos has exerted a decisive and far-reaching influence upon speculative and Christian thought. The word has a long history, and the evolution of the idea it embodies is really the unfolding of man’s conception of God. To comprehend the relation of the Deity to the world has been the aim of all religious philosophy. While widely divergent views as to the Divine manifestation have been conceived, from the dawn of Western speculation, the Greek word logos has been employed with a certain degree of uniformity by a series of thinkers to express and define the nature and mode of God’s revelation.

 

Logos signifies in classical Greek both “reason” and “word.” Though in Biblical Greek the term is mostly employed in the sense of “word,” we cannot properly dissociate the two significations. Every word implies a thought. It is impossible to imagine a time when God was without thought. Hence, thought must be eternal as the Deity. The translation “thought” is probably the best equivalent for the Greek term, since it denotes, on the one hand, the faculty of reason, or the thought inwardly conceived in the mind; and, on the other hand, the thought outwardly expressed through the vehicle of language. The two ideas, thought and speech, are indubitably blended in the term logos; and in every employment of the word, in philosophy and Scripture, both notions of thought and its outward expression are intimately connected.

 

In this article it will be our aim to trace the evolution of the doctrine from its earliest appearance in Greek philosophy through its Hebrew and Alexandrian phases till it attained its richest expression in the writings of the New Testament, and especially in the Fourth Gospel.

 

The doctrine may be said to have two stages: a Hellenistic and a Hebrew; or, more correctly, a pre-Christian and a Christian. The theory of Philo and of the Alexandrian thinkers generally may be regarded as the connecting link between the Greek and the Christian forms of the doctrine. The Greek or pre-Christian speculation on the subject is marked by the names of Heraclitus, Plato and the Stoics. Philo paves the way for the Christian doctrine of Paul, Hebrews and the Johannine Gospel.

 

I. Greek Speculation.

 

The earliest speculations of the Greeks were occupied with the world of Nature, and the first attempts at philosophy take the shape of a search for some unitary principle to explain the diversity of the universe.

 

1. Heraclitus:

 

Heraclitus was practically the first who sought to account for the order which existed in a world of change by a law or ruling principle. This profoundest of Greek philosophers saw everything in a condition of flux. Everything is forever passing into something else and has an existence only in relation to this process. We cannot say things are: they come into being and pass away. To account for this state of perpetual becoming, Heraclitus was led to seek out a new and primary element from which all things take their rise. This substance he conceived to be, not water or air as previous thinkers had conjectured, but something more subtle, mysterious and potent–fire. This restless, all-consuming and yet all-transforming activity–now darting upward as a flame, now sinking to an ember and now vanishing as smoke–is for him at once the symbol and essence of life. But it is no arbitrary or lawless element. If there is flux everywhere, all change must take place according to “measure.” Reality is an “attunement” of opposites, a tension or harmony of conflicting elements. Heraclitus saw all the mutations of being governed by a rational and unalterable law. This law he calls sometimes “Justice,” sometimes “Harmony”; more frequently “Logos” or “Reason,” and in two passages at least, “God.” Fire, Logos, God are fundamentally the same. It is the eternal energy of the universe pervading all its substance and preserving in unity and harmony the perpetual drift and evolution of phenomenal existence. Though Heraclitus sometimes calls this rational principle God, it is not probable that he attached to it any definite idea of consciousness. The Logos is not above the world or even prior to it. It is in it, its inner pervasive energy sustaining, relating and harmonizing its endless variety.

 

2. Anaxagoras:

 

Little was done by the immediate successors of Heraclitus to develop the doctrine of the Logos, and as the distinction between mind and matter became more defined, the term nous superseded that of Logos as the rational force of the world. Anaxagoras was the first thinker who introduced the idea of a supreme intellectual principle which, while independent of the world, governed it. His conception of the nous or “mind” is, however, vague and confused, hardly distinguishable from corporeal matter. By the artificial introduction of a power acting externally upon the world, a dualism, which continued throughout Greek philosophy, was created. At the same time it is to the merit of Anaxagoras that he was the first to perceive some kind of distinction between mind and matter and to suggest a teleological explanation of the universe.

 

3. Plato:

 

In Plato the idea of a regulative principle reappears. But though the word is frequently used, it is nous and not Logos which determines his conception of the relation of God and the world. The special doctrine of the Logos does not find definite expression, except perhaps in the Timaeus, where the word is employed as descriptive of the Divine force from which the world has arisen. But if the word does not frequently occur in the dialogues, there is not wanting a basis upon which a Logos-doctrine might be framed; and the conception of archetypal ideas affords a philosophical expression of the relation of God and the world. The idea of a dominating principle of reason was lifted to a higher plane by the distinction which Plato made between the world of sense and the world of thought, to the latter of which God belonged. According to Plato, true reality or absolute being consisted of the “Ideas” which he conceived as thoughts residing in the Divine mind before the creation of the world. To these abstract concepts was ascribed the character of supersensible realities of which in some way the concrete visible things of the world were copies or images. Compared with the “Ideas,” the world of things was a world of shadows. This was the aspect of the Platonic doctrine of ideas which, as we shall see, Philo afterward seized upon, because it best fitted in with his general conception of the transcendence of God and His relation to the visible world. Three features of Plato’s view ought to be remembered as having a special significance for our subject:

 

(1) While God is regarded by Plato as the intelligent power by which the world is formed, matter itself is conceived by him as in some sense eternal and partly intractable.

 

(2) While in the Philebus Plato employs the expression, “the regal principle of intelligence in the nature of God” nous basilikos en te tou Dios phusei), it is doubtful if reason was endowed with personality or was anything more than an attribute of the Divine mind.

 

(3) The ideas are merely models or archetypes after which creation is fashioned.

 

4. Aristotle:

 

The doctrine of the Logos cannot be said to occupy a distinctive place in the teaching of Aristotle, though the word does occur in a variety of senses (e.g. orthos logos, “right insight,” the faculty by which the will is trained to proper action). Aristotle sought to solve the fundamental problem of Greek philosophy as to how behind the changing multiplicity of appearances an abiding Being is to be thought by means of the concept of development. Plato had regarded the “ideas” as the causes of phenomena–causes different from the objects themselves. Aristotle endeavored to overcome the duality of Plato by representing reality as the essence which contains within itself potentially the phenomena, and unfolds into the particular manifestations of the sensible world. This conception has exerted a powerful influence upon subsequent thought, and particularly upon the monotheistic view of the world. At the same time in working it out, the ultimate “prime-mover” of Aristotle was not materially different from the idea of “the Good” of Plato. And inasmuch as God was conceived as pure thought existing apart from the world in eternal blessedness, Aristotle did not succeed in resolving the duality of God and the universe which exercised the Greek mind.

 

5. Stoics:

 

It is to the Stoics we must look for the first systematic exposition of the doctrine of the Logos. It is the key to their interpretation of life, both in the realms of Nature and of duty. Interested more in ethical than physical problems, they were compelled to seek general metaphysical basis for a rational moral life. Some unitary idea must be found which will overcome the duality between God and the world and remove the opposition between the sensuous and supersensuous which Plato and Aristotle had failed to reconcile. For this end the Logos-doctrine of Heraclitus seemed to present itself as the most satisfactory solution of the problem. The fundamental thought of the Stoics consequently is that the entire universe forms a single living connected whole and that all particulars are the determinate forms assumed by the primitive power which they conceived as never-resting, all-pervading fire. This eternal activity or Divine world-power which contains within itself the conditions and processes of all things, they call Logos or God. More particularly as the productive power, the Deity is named the logos spermatikos, the Seminal Logos or generative principle of the world. This vital energy not only pervades the universe, but unfolds itself into innumerable logoi spermatikoi or formative forces which energize the manifold phenomena of Nature and life. This subordination of all particulars to the Logos not only constitutes the rational order of the universe but supplies a norm of duty for the regulation of the activities of life. Hence, in the moral sphere “to live according to Nature” is the all-determining law of conduct.

 

II. Hebrew Anticipation of Doctrine.

 

So far we have traced the development of the Logos-doctrine in Greek philosophy. We have now to note a parallel movement in Hebrew thought. Though strictly speaking it is incorrect to separate the inner Reason from the outer expression in the term Logos, still in the Hellenistic usage the doctrine was substantially a doctrine of Reason, while in Jewish literature it was more especially the outward expression or word that was emphasized.

 

1. Word as Revelation of God:

 

The sources of this conception are to be found in the Old Testament and in the post-canonical literature. The God who is made known in Scripture is regarded as one who actively reveals Himself. He is exhibited therefore as making His will known in and by His spoken utterances. The “Word of God” is presented as the creative principle (Gen 1:3; Psa 33:6); as instrument of judgment (Ho 6:5); as agent of healing (Ps 107:20); and generally as possessor of personal qualities (Isa 55:2; Psa 147:15). Revelation is frequently called the “Word of the Lord,” signifying the spoken as distinct from the written word.

 

2. Suggestions of Personal Distinctions in Deity:

 

In particular, we may note certain adumbrations of distinction of persons within the Being of God. It is contended that the phrase “Let us make” in Genesis points to a plurality of persons in the God-head. This indefinite language of Genesis is more fully explained by the priestly ritual in Nu (6:23-26) and in the Psalter. In Jer, Ezr and the vision of Isa (6:2-8) the same idea of Divine plurality is implied, showing that the Old Testament presents a doctrine of God far removed from the sterile monotheism of the Koran (compare Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, and Konig).

 

3. Theophanies:

 

Passing from these indefinite intimations of personal distinction in the inner life of God, we may mention first that series of remarkable apparitions commonly known as the theophanies of the Old Testament. These representations are described as the “Angel of Yahweh” or of “the Covenant”; or as the “Angel of his presence.” This angelic appearance is sometimes identified with Yahweh (Gen 16:11; Gen 16:13; Gen 32:29-31; Exo 3:2; Exo 13:21), sometimes distinguished from Him (Gen 22:15; Gen 24:7); sometimes presented in both aspects (Exo 3:6; Zec 1:11). We find God revealing Himself in this way to Abraham, Sarah, Lot, Hagar, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Manoah. Who was this angel? The earliest Fathers reply with general unanimity that He was the “Word” or “Son of God.” But while the earlier church teachers distinguished between the “Angel of the Lord” and the Father, the Arians sought to widen the distinction into a difference of natures, since an invisible Being must be higher than one cognizable by the senses. Augustine insists upon the Scriptural truth of the invisibility of God as God, the Son not less than the Father. He will not presume, however, to say which of the Divine persons manifested Himself in this or that instance; and his general doctrine, in which he has been followed by most of the later teachers of the church, is that theophanies were not direct appearances of a Person of the Godhead, but self-manifestations of God through a created being.

 

4. Wisdom:

 

A further development of the conception of a personal medium of revelation is discernible in the description of Wisdom as given in some of the later books of the Old Testament. The wisdom of Jewish Scripture is more than a human endowment or even an attribute of God, and may be said to attain almost to a personal reflex of the Deity, reminding us of the archetypal ideas of Plato. In Job, wisdom is represented as existent in God and as communicated in its highest form to man. It is the eternal thought in which the Divine Architect ever beholds His future creation (Job 28:23-27). If in Job wisdom is revealed only as underlying the laws of the universe and not as wholly personal, in the Book of Proverbs it is coeternal with Yahweh and assists Him in creation (Pr 8:22-31). It may be doubtful whether this is the language of a real person or only of a poetic personification. But something more than a personified idea may be inferred from the contents of the sapiential books outside the Canon. Sirach represents Wisdom as existing from all eternity with God. In Baruch, and still more in Wisdom, the Sophia is distinctly personal–“the very image of the goodness of God.” In this pseudo-Solomonic book, supposed to be the work of an Alexandrian writer before Philo, the influence of Greek thought is traceable. The writer speaks of God’s Word (me’mera’) as His agent in creation and judgment.

 

5. Targums:

 

Finally in the Targums, which were popular interpretations or paraphrases of the Old Testament Scripture, there was a tendency to avoid anthropomorphic terms or such expressions as involved a too internal conception of God’s nature and manifestation. Here the three doctrines of the Word, the Angel, and Wisdom are introduced as mediating factors between God and the world. In particular the chasm between the Divine and human is bridged over by the use of such terms as me’mera’ (“word”) and shekhinah (“glory”). The me’mera proceeds from God, and is His messenger in Nature and history. But it is significant that though the use of this expression implied the felt need of a Mediator, the Word does not seem to have been actually identified with the Messiah.

 

III. Alexandrian Synthesis.

 

We have seen that according to Greek thought the Logos was conceived as a rational principle or impersonal energy by means of which the world was fashioned and ordered, while according to Hebrew thought the Logos was regarded rather as a mediating agent or personal organ of the Divine Being. The Hellenistic doctrine, in other words, was chiefly a doctrine of the Logos as Reason; the Jewish, a doctrine of the Logos as Word.

 

Philo:

 

In the philosophy of Alexandria, of which Philo was an illustrious exponent, the two phases were combined, and Hellenistic speculation was united with Hebrew tradition for the purpose of showing that the Old Testament taught the true philosophy and embodied all that was highest in Greek reflection. In Philo the two streams meet and flow henceforth in a common bed. The all-pervading Energy of Heraclitus, the archetypal Ideas of Plato, the purposive Reason of Aristotle, the immanent Order of the Stoics are taken up and fused with the Jewish conception of Yahweh who, while transcending all finite existences, is revealed through His intermediatory Word. As the result of this Philonic synthesis, an entirely new idea of God is formulated. While Philo admits the eternity of matter, he rejects the Greek view that the world is eternal, since it denies the creative activity and providence of God. At the same time he separates Divine energy from its manifestations in the world, and is therefore compelled to connect the one with the other by the interposition of subordinate Powers. These Divine forces are the embodiment of the ideai, of Plato and the aggeloi, of the Old Testament. The double meaning of Logos–thought and speech–is made use of by Philo to explain the relation subsisting between the ideal world existing only in the mind of God and the sensible universe which is its visible embodiment. He distinguishes, therefore, between the Logos inherent in God (logos endiathetos), corresponding to reason in man, and the Logos which emanates from God (logos prophorikos), corresponding to the spoken Word as the revelation of thought. Though in His inner essence God is incomprehensible by any but Himself, He has created the intelligible cosmos by His self-activity. The Word is therefore in Philo the rational order manifested in the visible world.

 

Some special features of the Philonic Logos may be noted:

 

(1) It is distinguished from God as the instrument from the Cause.

 

(2) As instrument by which God makes the world, it is in its nature intermediate between God and man.

 

(3) As the expressed thought of God and the rational principle of the visible world, the Logos is “the Eldest or Firstborn Son of God.” It is the “bond” (desmos) holding together all things (De Mundi, i.592), the law which determines the order of the universe and guides the destinies of men and nations (same place) . Sometimes Philo calls it the “Man of God”: or the “Heavenly man,” the immortal father of all noble men; sometimes he calls it “the Second God,” “the Image of God.”

 

(4) From this it follows that the Logos must be the Mediator between God and man, the “Intercessor” (hiketes) or “High Priest,” who is the ambassador from heaven and interprets God to man. Philo almost exhausts the vocabulary of Hebrew metaphor in describing the Logos. It is “manna,” “bread from heaven,” “the living stream,” the “sword” of Paradise, the guiding “cloud,” the “rock” in the wilderness.

 

These various expressions, closely resembling the New Testament descriptions of Christ, lead us to ask: Is Philo’s Logos a personal being or a pure abstraction? Philo himself seems to waver in his answer, and the Greek and the Jew in him are hopelessly at issue. That he personifies the Logos is implied in the figures he uses; but to maintain its personality would have been inconsistent with Philo’s whole view of God and the world. His Jewish faith inclines him to speak of the Logos as personal, while his Greek culture disposes him to an impersonal interpretation. Confronted with this alternative, the Alexandrian wavers in indecision. After all has been said, his Logos really resolves itself into a group of Divine ideas, and is conceived, not as a distinct person, but as the thought of God which is expressed in the rational order of the visible universe.

 

In the speculations of Philo, whose thought is so frequently couched in Biblical language, we have the gropings of a sincere mind after a truth which was disclosed in its fullness only by the revelation of Pentecost. In Philo, Greek philosophy, as has been said, “stood almost at the door of the Christian church.” But if the Alexandrian thinker could not create the Christian doctrine, he unconsciously prepared the soil for its acceptance. In this sense his Logos-doctrine has a real value in the evolution of Christian thought. Philo was not, indeed, the master of the apostles, but even if he did nothing more than call forth their antagonism, he helped indirectly to determine the doctrine of Christendom.

 

IV. Christian Realization.

 

We pass now to consider the import of the term in the New Testament. Here it signifies usually “utterance,” “speech” or “narrative.” In reference to God it is used sometimes for a special utterance, or for revelation in general, and even for the medium of revelation–Holy Scripture. In the prologue of the Fourth Gospel it is identified with the personal Christ; and it is this employment of the term in the light of its past history which creates the interest of the problem of the New Testament doctrine.

 

1. Pauline Doctrine:

 

The author of the Fourth Gospel is not, however, the first New Testament writer who represents Jesus as the Logos. Though Paul does not actually use the word in this connection, he has anticipated the Johannine conception. Christ is represented by Paul as before His advent living a life with God in heaven (Gal 4:4; Rom 10:6). He is conceived as one in whose image earthly beings, and especially men, were made (1Co 11:7; 1Co 15:45-49); and even as participating in the creation (1Co 8:6). In virtue of His distinct being He is called God’s “own Son” (Ro 8:32).

 

Whether Paul was actually conversant with the writings of Philo is disputed (compare Pfleider, Urchristentum), but already when he wrote to the Colossians and Ephesians the influence of Alexandrian speculation was being felt in the church. Incipient Gnosticism, which was an attempt to correlate Christianity with the order of the universe as a whole, was current. Most noticeable are the pointed allusions to Gnostic watchwords in Eph 3:19 (“fullness of God”) and in Col 2:3 (“Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden”), where Paul shows that everything sought for in the doctrine of the Pleroma is really given in Christ. The chief object of these epistles is to assert the unique dignity and absolute power of the Person of Christ. He is not merely one of the Eons which make up the Pleroma, as Gnostic teachers affirm, but a real and personal Being in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells. He is not merely an inferior workman creating glory for a higher Master. He creates for Himself. He is the end as well as the source of all created. things (Col 1:15-20). Though throughout this epistle the word “Logos” is never introduced, it is plain that the eikon, of Paul is equivalent in rank and function to the Logos of John. Each exists prior to creation, each is equal to God, shares His life and cooperates in His work.

 

2. Doctrine in Hebrews:

 

In the Epistle to the Hebrews we have an equally explicit, if not fuller, declaration of the eternal Deity of Christ. Whatever may be said of Paul there can be little doubt that the author of He was familiar with the Philonic writings. Who this writer was we do not know; but his Philonism suggests that he may have been an Alexandrian Jew, possibly even a disciple of Philo. In language seemingly adapted from that source (“Son of God,” “Firstborn,” “above angels,” “Image of God,” “Agent in Creation,” “Mediator,” “Great High Priest” “Melchizedek”) the author of He sneaks of Christ as a reflection of the majesty and imprint of the nature of God, just as in a seal the impression resembles the stamp. The dignity of His title indicates His essential rank. He is expressly dressed as God; and the expression “the effulgence of his glory” (the Revised Version (British and American) apaugasma) implies that He is one with God (Heb 1:3). By Him the worlds have been made, and all things are upheld by the fiat of His word (Heb 1:3). In the name He bears, in the honors ascribed to Him, in His superiority to angels, in His relationship as Creator both to heaven and earth (Heb 1:10), we recognize (in language which in the letter of it strongly reminds us of Philo, yet in its spirit is so different) the description of one who though clothed with human nature is no mere subordinate being, but the possessor of all Divine prerogatives and the sharer of the very nature of God Himself.

 

3. Doctrine in the Fourth Gospel:

 

In the Fourth Gospel the teaching of Paul and the author of He finds its completest expression. “The letter to the He stands in a sense half-way between Pauline and Johannine teaching” (Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, V, 11). It is, however, too much to say that these three writers represent the successive stages of single line of development. While all agree in emphasizing the fact of Christ’s Divine personality and eternal being, Paul represents rather the religious interest, the Epistle to the Hebrews the philosophical. In the Johannine Christology the two elements are united.

 

In discussing the Johannine doctrine of the Logos we shall Speak first of its content and secondly of its terminology.

 

(1) Content of Doctrine.

 

The evangelist uses “Logos” 6 times as a designation of the Divine preexistent person of Christ (Joh 1:1; Joh 1:14; Joh 1:1; Rev 19:13), but he never puts it into the mouth of Christ. The idea which John sought to convey by this term was not essentially different from the conception of Christ as presented by Paul. But the use of the word gave a precision and emphasis to the being of Christ which the writer must have felt was especially needed by the class of readers for whom his Gospel was intended. The Logos with whom the Fourth Gospel starts is a Person. Readers of the Synoptics had long been familiar with the term “Word of God” as equivalent to the Gospel; but the essential purport of John’s Word is Jesus Himself, His Person. We have here an essential change of meaning. The two applications are indeed connected; but the conception of the perfect revelation of God in the Gospel passes into that of the perfect revelation of the Divine nature in general (compare Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, V, ii, 320).

 

In the prologue (which, however, must not be regarded as independent of, or having no integral connection with, the rest of the book) there is stated: (a) the relation of the Logos to God; and (b) the relation of the Logos to the world.

 

(a) Relation of Logos to God:

 

Here the author makes three distinct affirmations:

 

(i) “In the beginning was the Word.”

 

The evangelist carries back his history of our Lord to a point prior to all temporal things. Nothing is said of the origin of the world. As in Ge 1:1, so here there is only implied that the Logos was existent when the world began to be. When as yet nothing was, the Logos was. Though the eternal preexistence of the Word is not actually stated, it is implied.

 

(ii) “The Word was with God.”

 

Here His personal existence is more specifically defined. He stands distinct from, yet in eternal fellowship with, God. The preposition pros (bei, Luther) expresses beyond the fact of coexistence that of perpetual intercommunion. John would guard against the idea of mere self-contemplation on the one hand, and entire independence on the other. It is union, not fusion.

 

(iii) “The Word was God.”

 

He is not merely related eternally, but actually identical in essence with God. The notion of inferiority is emphatically excluded and the true Deity of the Word affirmed. In these three propositions we ascend from His eternal existence to His distinct personality and thence to His substantial Godhead. All that God is the Logos is. Identity, difference, communion are the three phases of the Divine relationship.

 

(b) Relation of Logos to the World:

 

The Logos is word as well as thought, and therefore there is suggested the further idea of communicativeness. Of this self-communication the evangelist mentions two phases–creation and revelation. The Word unveils Himself through the mediation of objects of sense and also manifests Himself directly. Hence, in this section of the prologue (Joh 1:3-5) a threefold division also occurs.

 

(i) He is the Creator of the visible universe. “All things were made through him”–a phrase which describes the Logos as the organ of the entire creative activity of God and excludes the idea favored by Plato and Philo that God was only the architect who molded into cosmos previously existing matter. The term egeneto (“becomes,” werden), implies the successive evolution of the world, a statement not inconsistent with the modern theory of development.

 

(ii) The Logos is also the source of the intellectual, moral and spiritual life of man. “In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” He is the light as well as the life–the fountain of all the manifold forms of being and thought in and by whom all created things subsist, and from whom all derive illumination (compare 1 Joh 1:1-3; also Col 1:17). But inasmuch as the higher phases of intelligent life involve freedom, the Divine Light, though perfect and undiminished in itself, was not comprehended by a world which chose darkness rather than light (Joh 1:5; Joh 1:11).

 

(iii) The climax of Divine revelation is expressed in the statement, The Word became flesh,” which implies on the one hand the reality of Christ’s humanity, and, on the other, the voluntariness of His incarnation, but excludes the notion that in becoming man the Logos ceased to be God. Though clothed in flesh, the Logos continues to be the self-manifesting God, and retains, even in human form, the character of the Eternal One. In this third phase is embodied the highest manifestation of the Godhead. In physical creation the power of God is revealed. In the bestowal of light to mankind His wisdom is chiefly manifested. But in the third especially is His love unveiled. All the perfections of the Deity are focused and made visible in Christ–the “glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (Joh 1:14).

 

Thus the Word reveals the Divine essence. The incarnation makes the life, the light and the love which are eternally present in God manifest to men. As they meet in God, so they meet in Christ. This is the glory which the disciples beheld; the truth to which the Baptist bore witness (Joh 1:7); the fullness whereof His apostles received (Joh 1:16); the entire body of grace and truth by which the Word gives to men the power to become the sons of God.

 

There is implied throughout that the Word is the Son. Each of these expressions taken separately have led and may lead to error. But combined they correct possible misuse. On the one hand, their union protects us from considering the Logos as a mere abstract impersonal quality; and, on the other, saves us from imparting to the Son a lower state or more recent origin than the Father. Each term supplements and protects the other. Taken together they present Christ before His incarnation as at once personally distinct from, yet equal with, the Father–as the eternal life which was with God and was manifested to us.

 

(2) Origin of Terminology.

 

We have now to ask whence the author of the Fourth Gospel derived the phraseology employed to set forth his Christology. It will be well, however, to distinguish between the source of the doctrine itself and the source of the language. For it is possible that Alexandrian philosophy might have suggested the linguistic medium, while the doctrine itself had another origin. Writers like Reuss, Keim, Holtzmann, Weizsacker, Schmiedel, etc., who contend for the Alexandrian derivation of the prologue, are apt to overlook two considerations regarding the Johannine doctrine:

 

(1) There is no essential difference between the teaching of John and that of the other apostolic writers; and even when the word “Logos” is not used, as in Paul’s case, the view of Christ’s person is virtually that which we find in the Fourth Gospel.

 

(2) The writer himself affirms that his knowledge of Christ was not borrowed from others, but was derived from personal fellowship with Jesus Himself. “We beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten.” This is John’s summary and witness upon which he proceeds to base the vivid memories of Jesus which follow. The Johannine doctrine is not to be regarded merely as a philosophical account of the nature of God and His creation of the world, but rather as the statement of a belief which already existed in the Christian church and which received fresh testimony and assurance from the evangelist’s own personal experience.

 

But the question may still be asked: Even if it was no novel doctrine which John declared, what led him to adopt the language of the Logos, a word which had not been employed in this connection by previous Christian writers, but which was prevalent in the philosophical vocabulary of the age? It would be inconceivable that the apostle lighted upon this word by chance or that he selected it without any previous knowledge of its history and value. It may be assumed that when he speaks of the “Word” in relation to God and the world, he employs a mode of speech which was already familiar to those for whom he wrote and of whose general import he himself was well aware.

 

The truth that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ was borne in upon John. The problem which confronted him was how he could make that truth real to his contemporaries. This he sought to do by using the language of the highest religious thought of his day.

 

We have seen that the term “Logos” had undergone a twofold and to some extent parallel evolution. On the one hand, it had a Hebrew and, on the other, a Hellenic history. In which direction are we to look for the immediate source of the Johannine terminology?

 

(a) Hebrew Source:

 

As a Palestinian Jew familiar with current Jewish ideas and forms of devout expression, it would be natural for him to adopt a word, or its Greek equivalent, which played so important a part in shaping and expressing the religious beliefs of the Old Testament people. Many scholars consider that we have here the probable source of Johannine language. In the Old Testament, and particularly, in the Targums or Jewish paraphrases, the “Word” is constantly spoken of as the efficient instrument of Divine action; and the “Word of God” had come to be used in a personal way as almost identical with God Himself. In Re 19:13, we have obviously an adoption of this Hebrew use of the phrase. Throughout the Gospel there is evinced a decided familiarity and sympathy with the Old Testament teaching, and some expressions would seem to indicate the evangelist’s desire to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of Jewish expectation (e.g. Joh 1:14; Joh 1:29; Joh 1:31; Joh 2:19; Joh 3:14; Joh 6:32; Joh 6:48-50), and the living embodiment of Israelite truth (Joh 1:16; Joh 8:12; Joh 11:25; Joh 14:6). But as against this it has been pointed out by Weizsacker (Apostolisches Zeitalter) that the Word of God is not conceived in the Old Testament as an independent Being, still less as equivalent for the Messiah, and that the rabbinical doctrine which identifies the memra with God is of much later date.

 

At the same time the Hebrew cast of thought of the Johannine Gospel and its affinities with Jewish rather than Hellenic modes of expression can hardly be gainsaid. Though John’s knowledge of and sympathy with Palestinian religion may not actually account for his use of the term “Logos,” it may have largely colored and directed his special application of it. For, as Neander observes, that name may have been put forward at Ephesus in order to lead those Jews, who were busying themselves with speculations on the Logos as the center of all theophanies, to recognize in Christ the Supreme Revelation of God and the fulfillment of their Messianic hopes.

 

(b) Hellenic Source:

 

Other writers trace the Johannine ideas and terms to Hellenic philosophy and particularly to Alexandrian influence as represented in Philo. No one can compare the Fourth Gospel with the writings of Philo without noting a remarkable similarity in diction, especially in the use of the word “Logos”. It would be hazardous, however, on this ground alone to impute conscious borrowing to the evangelist. It is more probable that both the Alexandrian thinker and the New Testament writer were subject to common influences of thought and expression. Hellenism largely colors the views and diction of the early church. Paul takes over many words from Greek philosophy. “There is not a single New Testament writing,” says Harnack (Dogmen-Geschichte, I, 47, note), “which does not betray the influence of the mode of thought and general culture which resulted from the Hellenizing of the East.” But, while that is true, it must not be forgotten, as Harnack himself points out, “that while the writers of the New Testament breathe an atmosphere created by Greek culture, the religious ideas in which they live and move come to them from the Old Testament.”

 

It is hardly probable that John was directly acquainted with the writings of Philo. But it is more than likely that he was cognizant of the general tenor of his teaching and may have discovered in the language which had floated over from Alexandria to Ephesus a suitable vehicle for the utterance of his own beliefs, especially welcome and intelligible to those who were familiar with Alexandrian modes of thought.

 

But whatever superficial resemblances there may be between Philo and John (and they are not few or vague), it must be at once evident that the whole spirit and view of life is fundamentally different. So far from the apostle being a disciple of the Alexandrian or a borrower of his ideas, it would be more correct to say that there is clearly a conscious rejection of the Philonic conception, and that the Logos of John is a deliberate protest against what he must have regarded as the inadequate and misleading philosophy of Greece.

 

(c) Contrast between Philo and John:

 

The contrast between the two writers is much more striking than the resemblance. The distinction is not due merely to the acceptance by the Christian writer of Jesus as the Word, but extends to the whole conception of God and His relation to the world which has made Christianity a new power among men. The Logos of Philo is metaphysical, that of John, religious. Philo moves entirely in the region of abstract thought, his idea of God is pure being; John’s thought is concrete and active, moving in a region of life and history. Philo’s Logos is intermediate, the instrument which God employs in fashioning the world; John’s Logos is not subsidiary but is Himself God, and as such is not a mere instrument, but the prime Agent in creation. According to Philo the Deity is conceived as an architect who forms the world out of already existent matter. According to John the Logos is absolute Creator of all that is, the Source of all being, life and intelligence. In Philo the Logos hovers between personality and impersonality, and if it is sometimes personified it can hardly be said to have the value of an actual person; in John the personality of the Logos is affirmed from the first and it is of the very essence of his doctrine, the ground of His entire creative energy. The idea of an incarnation is alien to the thought of Philo and impossible in his scheme of the universe; the “Word that has become flesh” is the pivot and crown of Johannine teaching. Philo affirms the absolute incomprehensibility of God; but it is the prime object of the evangelist to declare that God is revealed in Christ and that the Logos is the unveiling through the flesh of man of the self-manifesting Deity. Notwithstanding the personal epithets employed by Philo, his Logos remains a pure abstraction or attribute of God, and it is never brought into relation with human history. John’s Logos, on the other hand, is instinct with life and energy from the beginning, and it is the very heart of his Gospel to declare as the very center of life and history the great historical event of the incarnation which is to recreate the world and reunite God and man.

 

From whatever point of view we compare them, we find that Philo and John, while using the same language, give an entirely different value to it. The essential purport of the Johannine Logos is Jesus Christ. The adoption of the term involves its complete transformation. It is baptized with a new spirit and henceforth stands for a new conception. From whatsoever source it was originally derived–from Hebrew tradition or Hellenic speculation–on Christian soil it is a new product. It is neither Greek nor Jewish, it is Christian. The philosophical abstraction has become a religious conception. Hellenism and Hebrewism have been taken up and fused into a higher unity, and Christ as the embodiment of the Logos has become the creative power and the world-wide possession of mankind.

 

The most probable view is that Philo and John found the same term current in Jewish and Gentilecircles and used it to set forth their respective ideas; Philo, following his predilections for Greek philosophy, to give a Hellenic complexion to his theory of the relation of Divine Reason to the universe; John, true to ,his Hebrew instincts, seeing in the Logos the climax of that revelation of God to man of which the earlier Jewish theophanies were but partial expressions.

 

There is nothing improbable in the surmise that the teaching of Philo gave a fresh impulse to the study of the Logos as Divine Reason which was already shadowed forth in the Biblical doctrine of Wisdom (Westcott). Nor need we take offense that such an important idea should have come to the Biblical author from an extra-Biblical writer (compare Schmiedel, Johannine Writings), remembering only that the author of the Johannine Gospel was no mechanical borrower, but an entirely independent and original thinker who gave to the Logos and the ideas associated with it a wholly-new worth and interpretation. Thus, as has been said, the treasures of Greece were made contributory to the full unfolding of the Gospel.

 

V. Patristic Development.

 

The Johannine Logos became the fruitful source of much speculation in Gnostic circles and among the early Fathers regarding the nature of Christ. The positive truth presented by the Fourth Gospel was once more broken up, and the various elements of which it was the synthesis became the seeds of a number of partial and one-sided theories respecting the relation of the Father and the Son. The influence of Greek ideas, which had already begun in the Apostolic Age, became more pronounced and largely shaped the current of ante-Nicene theology (see Hatch, Hibbert Lectures).

 

Gnosticism in particular was an attempt to reconcile Christianity with philosophy; but in Gnostic systems the term “Logos” is only sparingly employed. According to Basilides the “Logos” was an emanation from the nous as personified Wisdom, which again was directly derived from the Father. Valentinus, in whose teaching Gnosticism culminated, taught that Wisdom was the last of a series of Eons which emanated from the Primal Being, and the Logos was an emanation of the first two principles which issued from God–Reason, Faith. Justin Martyr, the first of the sub-apostolic Fathers, sought to unite the Scriptural idea of the Logos as Word with the Hellenic idea of Reason. According to him God produced in His own nature a rational power which was His agent in creation and took the form in history of the Divine Man. Christ is the organ of all revelations, and as the logos spermatikos, He sows the seeds of virtue and truth among the heathen. All that is true and beautiful in the pagan world is to be traced to the activity of the Logos before His incarnation. Tatian and Theophilus taught essentially the same doctrine; though in Tatian there is a marked leaning toward Gnosticism, and consequently a tendency to separate the ideal from the historical Christ. Athenagoras, who ascribes to the Logos the creation of all things, regarding it in the double sense of the Reason of God and the creative energy of the world, has a firm grasp of the Biblical doctrine, which was still more clearly expressed by Irenaeus, who held that the Son was the essential Word, eternally begotten of the Father and at once the interpreter of God and the Creator of the world.

 

The Alexandrian school was shaped by the threefold influence of Plato, Philo and the Johannine Gospel. Clement of Alexandria views the Son as the Logos of the Father, the Fountain of all intelligence, the Revealer of the Divine Being and the Creator and Illuminator of mankind. He repudiates the idea of the inferiority of the Son, and regards the Logos not as the spoken but as the creative word. Origen seeks to reconcile the two ideas of the eternity and the subordination of the Logos, and is in this sense a mediator between the Arian and more orthodox parties and was appealed to by both. According to him the Son is equal in substance with the Father, but there is a difference in essence. While the Father is “the God” (ho theos) and “God Himself” (autotheos), the Logos is “a second God” (deuteros theos). In the Nicene Age, under the shaping influence of the powerful mind of Athanasius, and, to a lesser degree, of Basil and the two Gregories, the Logos-doctrine attained its final form in the triumphant statement of the Nicene Creed which declared the essential unity, but, at the same time, the personal distinction of the Father and Son. The Council of Nicea practically gathered up the divergent views of the past and established the teaching of the Fourth Gospel as the doctrine of the church.

 

LITERATURE.

 

(1) On Greek Logos:

 

Schleiermacher, Herakleitos der Dunkle; Histories of Philosophy, Zeller, Ueberweg, Hitter; Heinze, Die Lehre yore Logos in der Greek Phil. (1872); Aall, Gesch. d. Logosidee in d. Greek Phil. (1896).

 

(2) On Jewish Doctrine:

 

Oehler, O T Theol. (1873); Schurer, Lehrbuch d. New Testament Zeitgesch; Schultz, Old Testament Theol.

 

(3) On Alexandrian Doctrine:

 

Gfrorer, Philo u. die alex. Theosophie (1831); Dahne, Gesch. Darstell. der jud-alex. Religions-Philosophic (1843); Keferstein, Philos Lehre yon den gottlichen Mittelwesen (1846); Dorner, Entwicklungsgesch. der Lehre v. d. Person Christi; Siegfried, Philo v. Alex. (1875); Drummond, Philo Judaeus (1888); Reville, La doctrine du Logos; Huber, Die Philosophic der Kirchenvater; Grossmann, Questiones Philoneae (1841); Watson, Philos. Basis of Religion (1907).

 

(4) On Johannine Gospel:

 

Relative comma. of Meyer, Godet, Westcote, Luthardt, E. Scott (1907); Liddon, Divinity of our Lord (“Bampton Lectures,” 1866); Watkins, Modern Criticism on the Fourth Gospel (“Bampton Lectures,” 1890); Gloag, Introduction to Johannine Writing, (1891); Stevens, Johannine Theol. (1894); Drummond, Gospel of John; Bertling, Der Johan. Logos (1907); Schmiedel, The Johannine Writings (1908); Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, V, ii; Beyschlag and Weiss, Biblical Theol. of New Testament; Drummond, Via, Veritas, Vita (1894); Hatch, Greek Ideas and Usages, Their Influence upon the Christian Church (Hibbert Lectures, 1888).

 

(5) Patristic Period:

 

Harnack, Dogmen-Gesch.; Baur, Kirchen-Gesch.; Dorner, System d. chr. Glaubenslehre; Loofs, Leitfaden fur seine Vorlesungen uber Dogmengeschichte; Atzbergen, Die Logoslehre d. heiligen Athanasius (1880).

 

B.D. Alexander

THE STORY OF CREATION

 

The Bible and science

 

Modern science has revealed so much about the wonders and the size of the physical universe that human beings may seem almost to be nothing. The Bible takes a different view. Human beings are its main concern, for they alone are made in God’s image. The story of creation is but an introduction to the story of God’s dealings with the human race. The Bible demonstrates this order of importance from the outset by fitting the story of creation into a mere week, into the opening page of a 1,000-page Bible. 

The Bible was never intended to be a scientific textbook. It is not concerned with the sort of investigation that modern science is concerned with. If its language were that of modern science, people in former ages would not have understood it, and people in future ages would find it out of date. The purpose of the Genesis account of creation was not to teach scientific theories, but to give a short simple account of the beginning of things in language that people of any age would understand.

 

Language of the Bible

 

As with the rest of the Bible, the book of Genesis was written in the everyday language of the people of the time. For example, the Bible speaks of the four corners of the earth (Isa 11:12) and of the pillars, bases and cornerstone of the earth (Job 9:6; 38:4-6); but if people use those statements to deny that the earth is a globe, they misuse the Bible. They show a misunderstanding of the nature of the Bible’s language.

 

Yet such misunderstandings occur. Centuries ago people thought that the sun moved round the earth, but when one scientist suggested that the earth moved round the sun, he was condemned for not believing the Bible. The argument his accusers used was that the Bible says the earth remains still and the sun rises and sets upon it (1 Chron 16:30; Eccles 1:5).

 

The Bible speaks of the heavens and the earth as ordinary people see them from their standpoint on earth. The scientist may speak of the sun as the centre of the solar system, with the earth a minor planet of the sun, and the moon a small satellite of the earth. But to people of ancient times, and even to us today, the earth where people live is the centre of their world. The sun is merely the ‘greater light to rule the day’, and the moon the ‘lesser light to rule the night’.

 

In reading the Bible we must understand not only what the Bible says but also what it means. When it says that God ‘sits above the circle of the earth’ (Isa 40:22), it does not mean that he sits in space somewhere above the horizon, but that he is the sovereign Lord of the universe. Likewise when it says that God ‘made man from the dust of the earth’ (Gen 2:7), it does not mean that he took in his hands a ball of clay and formed it into a human shape as a baker makes a gingerbread man, but that he made man out of common chemicals. Even we ourselves, who came by natural processes of birth, are said to be formed out of clay and made from the dust of the earth (Job 10:9; Eccles 3:20).

 

The Creator at work

 

God is pleased when people study his creation and learn its wonders (Ps. 111:2). The Bible tells us that God is the Creator, and it reveals something of his purposes in creation, but if people want to find out how the physical creation functions, they must do so by hard work as God has appointed (Gen 3:19). God does not give such knowledge by direct revelation. How the various organs of the human body function, for example, is a problem for medical science to solve, not the Bible. The same principle applies in other fields of science.

 

Science may tell us more about God’s creation, but it does so from a viewpoint that is different from that of the Bible. The Bible tells us that God is the one who did these things, and the scientist tells how he might have done them.

 

When the Bible says ‘God did this’ or ‘God created that’, it does not mean that he must have done so instantaneously or ‘magically’. We pray, ‘Give us this day our daily bread’ (Matt 6:11), but we do not expect God to work instantaneously and drop food from heaven on to our plates. We expect him to work through the normal processes of nature in producing the crops from which we get our food by hard work. Yet we still thank God, for we know that he is the provider of all things. Believers and unbelievers might agree on how nature provides humankind with food, but believers add something extra, because they see God working through nature. The ‘laws of nature’ are God’s laws. Science may investigate the physical world and suggest how something happened, but it cannot say who made it happen. Believers can, for ‘by faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God’ (Heb 11:3).

 

Believers may therefore hesitate to dismiss a scientific theory simply by saying, ‘But I believe God did it’, because the theory may have been the way God has done it (or not, because sometimes this explanation will affirm God wasn’t there and sometimes it is only a theory. When the scientist tells us how rains falls or how grass grows, we do not contradict him by saying, ‘But the Bible says God makes the rain fall, God makes the grass grow’ (Matt 5:45; 6:30). We accept both as true.

 

Plan of the Genesis account

 

As we might have expected, the Genesis account of creation is from the viewpoint of the ordinary person. The story is recorded as if someone were describing creation, not from somewhere in outer space, but from his dwelling place on earth. The earth is only a very small part of God’s creation, but the creation story in the Bible is concerned mainly with the earth and mentions other features only in relation to the earth. 

The Genesis account is concerned with showing that God made everything out of nothing, that he worked from the formless to the formed, from the simple to the complex. It outlines how he brought the universe through various stages till his creative activity reached its climax in Adam and Eve. Its basic design is to divide the creation story into two groups of three days each. The first group shows how God created the basic spheres of operation (light and dark; sea and sky; fertile land), the second how he created the features within each of those spheres (lights of day and night; creatures of sea and sky; creatures of the land). 

This simple creation story, though not intended to be a scientific account, is not in conflict with science. The following notes suggest one way in which scientific knowledge, far from causing us to doubt the Genesis creation story, may in fact give us a more meaningful view of it.

 

The creation (1:1-2:3)

 

Countless years ago God, by his sovereign power and will, created the universe. At first the earth was featureless and in darkness because of the mass of surrounding water, but as the thick clouds of water vapour began to lose their density, a hazy light came by day from the invisible sun (1:1-5; first day). As they lost further density, the surrounding clouds of vapour gradually rose from the earth, producing a clear distinction between the ocean’s surface below and the ceiling of heavy cloud overhead (6-8; second day). Meanwhile the earth was drying and land became visible. Simpler forms of life then began to appear. Various kinds of soils and climatic conditions produced various kinds of plants, which were so created as to continue producing further plants of their own kind (9-13; third day). 

The heavy cloud overhead, which had been becoming thinner and thinner, finally broke. The sun, moon and stars, previously hidden, now became clearly visible. Their effect upon the earth helped to produce a variety of weather and a pattern of annual seasons (14-19; fourth day). 

As God’s creative activity moved on, animal life began to appear, with creatures in the sea and creatures in the air, all of them suited to their environment (20-23; fifth day). The land also experienced this development of animal life, till it too became full of all kinds of creatures. Finally came the first human couple, who together represented the peak of God’s creation. Like the other animals, they were so made that they could feed themselves from what grew on the earth and reproduce their own kind. But they were different from all other animals and were given power over them; for they alone, of all God’s creatures, were made in God’s image (24-31; sixth day). (See ‘The image of God’ below.) 

God’s rest after the creation of the first human couple signified not that he had become tired or inactive (for he continues to care for what he has created), but that he had brought his work to its goal. Having prepared the natural creation for human life, God now desired humankind to enjoy that creation with him (2:1-3; seventh day).

 

The image of God

 

Being made in God’s image, human beings are unique in God’s creation. Somehow they are like God in a way that nothing else is. This does not mean simply that certain ‘parts’ of human beings such as their spiritual, moral or mental capacities reflect the divine nature. The whole person is in God’s image. Because of this expression of God within them, men and women are in a sense God’s representatives upon earth. He has appointed them rulers over the earthly creation (see 1:27-28). 

Without the image of God within them, people would not (according to the biblical definition) be human. Even if they had the physical appearance of human beings, they would be no more than creatures of the animal world. 

An animal’s ‘animality’ is in itself; a person’s humanity is not. It depends for its existence upon God. That is why human beings, in spite of the dignity and status given them by God, cannot exist independently of God. They may want to, and may bring disaster upon themselves as a result (as seen in the story of their original disobedience; see notes on 2:8-17, 3:1-24 below), but they cannot destroy the image of God. The image of God within them is what makes them human. 

INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHEPHERD AND SHEEP

When we learn of the intimate relationship that exists between the shepherd and his sheep, the figure of the Lord as a Shepherd of His people takes on new meaning.

Giving names to the sheep. Jesus said concerning the shepherd of his day: “He calleth his own sheep by name” (Joh 10:3). Today, the eastern shepherd delights to give names to certain of his sheep, and if his flock is not too large, all of his sheep may be given names. He knows them by means of certain individual characteristics. He names one: “Pure White”; another, “Striped”; another, “Black”; another, “Brown”; and still another, “Gray-eared.” All this indicates the tender affection which he has for every one of his flock.22

Guidance for the sheep. The Eastern shepherd never drives his sheep as does the Western shepherd. He always leads them, often going before them. “And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them” (Joh 10:4). This does not mean that the shepherd is always in front of his sheep. Although he may be usually in that position when traveling, he often walks by their side, and sometimes follows behind, especially if the flock is headed for the fold in the evening. From the rear he can gather any stragglers, and protect such from a sly attack from a wild animal. If the flock is a large one, the shepherd will be in front, and a heifer will follow behind.23 Isaiah speaks of the omnipresent Lord in a double relationship to His people: “For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the Lord will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rereward [rear guard]” (Isa 52:12).

The skill of the shepherd, and personal relationship to them is clearly seen when he guides his sheep along narrow paths. The Shepherd Psalm says: “He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness” (Psa 23:3). The grain fields are seldom fenced or hedged in Bible lands, and sometimes only a narrow path runs between the pasture and these fields. The sheep are forbidden to eat in the fields where crops are growing. Thus in guiding the sheep along such a path, the shepherd must not allow any of the animals to get into the forbidden area, because if he does, he must pay damages to the owner of the grain. One Syrian shepherd has been known to guide a flock of one hundred fifty sheep without any help, along such a narrow path for quite a distance, without letting a single sheep go where he was not allowed to go.24

Straying sheep restored. It is very important that sheep should not be allowed to stray away from the flock, because when by themselves they are utterly helpless. In such a condition, they become bewildered, for they have no sense at all of locality. And if they do stray away, they must be brought back.25 The Psalmist prayed the prayer: “I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant” (Psa 119:176). The prophet Isaiah compared man’s waywardness to that of sheep: “All we like sheep have gone astray” (Isa 53:6). David sang of his divine Shepherd: “He restoreth my soul” (Psa 23:3, cf. John 10).

Playing with the sheep. The shepherd is so constantly with his sheep that sometimes his life with them becomes monotonous. Therefore he will occasionally play with them. He does this by pretending to run away from his sheep, and they will soon overtake him, and completely surround him, gamboling with great delight.26 Sometimes God’s people think He forsakes them when trouble comes their way. They say: “the Lord hath forsaken me” (Isa 49:14). But actually their divine Shepherd says to them: “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Heb 13:5).

Intimate knowledge of the sheep. The shepherd is deeply interested in every single one of his flock. Some of them may be given pet names because of incidents connected with them. They are usually counted each evening as they enter the fold, but sometimes the shepherd dispenses with the counting, for he is able to feel the absence of anyone of his sheep. With one sheep gone, something is felt to be missing from the appearance of the entire flock. One shepherd in the Lebanon district was asked if he always counted his sheep each evening. He replied in the negative, and then was asked how then he knew if all his sheep were present. This was his reply: “Master, if you were to put a cloth over my eyes, and bring me any sheep and only let me put hands on its face, I could tell in a moment if it was mine or not.”27

When H. R. P. Dickson visited the desert Arabs, he witnessed an event that revealed the amazing knowledge which some of them have of their sheep. One evening, shortly after dark, an Arab shepherd began to call out one by one the names of his fifty-one mother sheep, and was able to pick out each one’s lamb, and restore it to its mother to suckle. To do this in the light would be a feat for many shepherds, but this was done in complete darkness, and in the midst of the noise coming from the ewes crying for their lambs, and the lambs crying for their mothers.28 But no Oriental shepherd ever had a more intimate knowledge of his sheep than Jesus our great Shepherd has of those who belong to His flock. He once said of Himself: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep” (Joh 10:14).

The difference between the shepherd and the hireling. Concerning the hireling, Jesus said: “The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep” (Joh 10:13). When the flock is small, the shepherd handles his sheep without any help, but if the flock becomes too large, then it becomes necessary for him to hire someone to help him with the sheep. One man can usually handle from fifty to one hundred sheep, but when he has more than one hundred, he usually seeks a helper. The hireling does not usually have the personal interest in the sheep that the shepherd has, and so cannot always be trusted to defend the flock in the way the shepherd himself would do.29 “He that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep” (Joh 10:12).

CARING FOR THE SHEEP IN SPECIAL TIMES OF NEED

The love of the shepherd for his sheep is best seen when times of special need call forth unusual acts of care for members of the flock.

Crossing a stream of water. This process is most interesting. The shepherd leads the way into the water and across the stream. Those favored sheep who always keep hard by the shepherd, plunge boldly into the water, and are soon across. Others of the flock enter the stream with hesitation and alarm. Not being close to their guide, they may miss the fording place and be carried down the river a distance, but will probably be able to clamber ashore. The little lambs may be driven into the water by the dogs, and they are heard to bleat pitifully as they leap and plunge. Some manage to get across, but if one is swept away, then the shepherd leaps quickly into the stream and rescues it, carrying it in his bosom to the shore. When they all arrive over the stream, the lambs will gambol about with joy, and the sheep will gather around their shepherd as if to express their thankfulness to him.30 Our divine Shepherd has a word of encouragement for all His sheep who must pass through streams of affliction: “When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee” (Isa 43:2).

Special care of baby lambs, and sheep with young ones. When lambing time comes, the shepherd must take great care of his flock. The task is made more difficult because it so often becomes necessary to move to a new location to find pasturage. The sheep that are soon to become mothers, as well as those with their young ones, must be kept close to the shepherd while in transit. Little helpless lambs that cannot keep up with the rest of the flock, are carried in the bosom of his undergarment, the girdle turning it into a pocket.31 Isaiah pictures this activity in his famous passage: “He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young” (Isa 40:11).

Care of sick or wounded sheep. The shepherd is always on the lookout for members of his flock that need personal attention. Sometimes a lamb suffers from the rays of the sun, or its body may have been badly scratched by some thornbush. The most common remedy he uses with these sheep is olive oil, a supply of which he carries in a ram’s horn.32 Perhaps David was thinking of such an experience when he wrote of the Lord, “Thou anointest my head with oil” (Psa 23:5).

Watching sheep at night. In weather that permits, the shepherds often keep their flocks in the open country. One group of shepherds provided simple sleeping places for themselves by placing “a number of oblong circles of stones, inside of which rushes were collected for bedding, according to the Bedouin fashion in the desert. These simple beds were arranged in a circle, and sticks and roots were collected at the center for a fire.”33 With this arrangement they were able to keep watch over their sheep by night. It was in such a way as this that the Bethlehem shepherds took turns watching and sleeping on the hills outside Bethlehem, when the angels visited them announcing the Saviour’s birth. “And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night” (Luk 2:8). When Jacob cared for Laban’s sheep, he spent many a night in the out-of-doors, looking after the flock. “Thus I was; in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep departed from mine eyes” (Gen 31:40).

Protection of sheep from robbers and wild animals. The sheep need to be guarded against robbers not only when they are in the open country, but also when they are in the fold. The bandits of Palestine are not apt to pick locks, but some of them may manage to climb up over the wall, and get into the fold, where they cut the throats of as many of the animals as possible and then sling them over the wall to others of their band, and all of them attempt to escape without being caught.34 Jesus described just such operations: “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy” (Joh 10:10). The shepherd must be on guard constantly for such an emergency, and must be ready for quick action to protect his rights in the flock.

The wild animals of Palestine today include wolves, panthers, hyenas, and jackals. The lion has not lived in the land since the days of the Crusaders. The last bear was killed over half a century ago. David as a shepherd lad experienced the coming of a lion and of a bear against his flock, and by the Lord’s help, he was able to slay both of them (1Sa 17:34-37). Amos tells of a shepherd attempting to rescue one of the flock from the lion’s mouth: “As the shepherd taketh out of the mouth of the lion two legs, or a piece of an ear” (Amo 3:12). One experienced Syrian shepherd is reported to have followed a hyena to his lair and compelled the animal to give up his prey. He won his victory over the wild beast by himself howling in characteristic fashion, striking on rocks with his heavy staff, and flinging deadly stones with his slingshot. The sheep was then carried in his arms back to the fold.35 The faithful shepherd must be willing to risk his life for the sake of the flock, and perhaps give his life for them. As our Good Shepherd Jesus not only risked his life for us, He actually gave Himself on our behalf. He said: “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep” (Joh 10:11).

Seeking and finding lost sheep. Being responsible for anything that happens to one of his flock, the Eastern shepherd will spend hours if necessary in traversing the wilderness or mountain side, in search of a sheep that has strayed away and is lost. After weary hours of hunting for it, it will usually be found in some waterless hollow in the wilderness, or in some desolate mountain ravine. The exhausted creature will be borne home on the shoulders of the sturdy shepherd.36 And what happens then is best described by the Parable of Jesus: “And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost” (Luk 15:6).

GOATS

Care of goats – leadership ability. There are many goats being cared for by Bible land shepherds. A shepherd looks after them much as he would care for a flock of sheep. Sometimes the goats belong to one flock along with the sheep, and in this case:

It is usually a he-goat that is the special leader of the whole (Jer 50:8; Pro 30:31), walking before it as gravely as a sexton before the white flock of a church choir. It is from this custom that Isaiah speaks of kings as “the he-goats of the earth” (Isa 14:9, Margin), a name applied to them by Zechariah also (Zec 10:3), and to Alexander the Great by Daniel, who describes him as a he-goat from the west, with a notable horn between his eyes (Dan 8:5): a fitting symbol of his irresistible power at the head of the Macedonian army.43

How goats differ from sheep. Most of the Palestinian and Syrian sheep are white, whereas most of the goats are black. The goats like the slopes of the rocky mountains, whereas the sheep prefer the plains or mountain valleys. The goats are especially fond of young leaves of trees, but the sheep would rather have grass. Goats will feed during all the day without the heat of summer affecting them; but when the sunshine is hot, the sheep will lie down under a tree, or in the shade of a rock, or in a rude shelter prepared by the shepherd for that purpose. Song of Solomon makes mention of this rest time for the sheep: “Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon” (Song of Son 1:7). The goats are bolder, more venturesome, more playful, more apt to clamber to dangerous places, more apt to break into the grainfields, more headstrong, more vigorous, and more difficult to control than are the sheep.44

Separating goats from sheep. At certain times it becomes necessary to separate the goats from the sheep, although they may be cared for by the same shepherd that cares for the sheep. They do not graze well together, and so it frequently becomes necessary to keep them apart from the sheep while they are grazing. Dr. John A. Broadus, when visiting Palestine, reported seeing a shepherd leading his flock of white sheep and black goats all mingled together. When he turned into a valley, having led them across the Plain of Sharon, he turned around and faced his flock: “When a sheep came up, he tapped it with his long staff on the right side of the head, and it quickly moved off to his right; a goat he tapped on the other side, and it went to his left.”45 This is the picture the Saviour had in mind when he spoke the solemn words: “And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left” (Mat 25:32-33).
From the book Manners of Wight.

Several flocks sometimes allowed to mix. More than one flock may be kept in the same fold, and often flocks are mixed while being watered at a well. For the time being, no attempt is made to separate them. Jacob saw such a mixture of flocks: “Then Jacob went on his journey, and came into the land of the people of the East. And he looked, and behold, a well in the field, and lo, there were three flocks of sheep lying by it” (Gen 29:1-3).18

Ability to separate the sheep. When it becomes necessary to separate several flocks of sheep, one shepherd after another will stand up and call out: “Tahhoo! Tahhoo!” or a similar call of his own choosing. The sheep lift up their heads, and after a general scramble, begin following each one his own shepherd. They are thoroughly familiar with their own shepherd’s tone of voice. Strangers have often used the same call, but their attempts to get the sheep to follow them always fail.19 The words of Jesus are indeed true to Eastern shepherd life when he said: “The sheep follow him, for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers” (Joh 10:4,5).

INTRODUCTORY

1. The Phrase “His Name”

2. Classification.

II. PERSONAL NAMES OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

1. ‘Elohim

2. ‘El

3. ‘Eloah

4. ‘Adhon, ‘Adhonay

5. Yahweh (Yahweh)

6. Tsur (Rock)

7. Ka`dhosh

8. Shadday

III. DESCRIPTIVE NAMES OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

1. ‘Abhir

2. ‘El-‘Elohe-Yisra’el

3. `Elyon

4. Gibbor

5. ‘El-ro’i

6. Tsaddiq

7. Qanna’

8. Yahweh Tsebha’oth

9. “I Am That I Am”

IV. New Testament NAMES OF GOD

1. God

2. Lord

3. Descriptive and Figurative Names

LITERATURE

I. Introduction:

To an extent beyond the appreciation of modern and western minds the people of Biblical times and lands valued the name of the person. They always gave to it symbolical or character meaning.

While our modern names are almost exclusively designatory, and intended merely for identification, the Biblical names were also descriptive, and often prophetic. Religious significance nearly always inhered in the name, a parent relating his child to the Deity, or declaring its consecration to the Deity, by joining the name of the Deity with the service which the child should render, or perhaps commemorating in a name the favor of God in the gracious gift of the child, e.g. Nathaniel (“gift of God”); Samuel (“heard of God”); Adonijah (“Yahweh is my Lord”), etc. It seems to us strange that at its birth, the life and character of a child should be forecast by its parents in a name; and this unique custom has been regarded by an unsympathetic criticism as evidence of the origin of such names and their attendant narratives long subsequent to the completed life itself; such names, for example, as Abraham, Sarah, etc. But that this was actually done, and that it was regarded as a matter of course, is proved by the name given to Our Lord at His birth: “Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for it is he that shall save his people” (Mt 1:21). It is not unlikely that the giving of a character name represented the parents’ purpose and fidelity in the child’s training, resulting necessarily in giving to the child’s life that very direction, which the name indicated. A child’s name, therefore, became both a prayer and a consecration, and its realization in character became often a necessary psychological effect. Great honor or dishonor was attached to a name. The Old Testament writings contain many and varied instances of this. Sometimes contempt for certain reprobate men would be most expressively indicated by a change of name, e.g. the change of Esh-baal, “man of Baal,” to Ish-bosheth, “man of shame” (2Sa 2:8), and the omission of Yahweh from the name of the apostate king, Ahaz (2Ki 15:38, etc.). The name of the last king of Judah was most expressively changed by Nebuchadnezzar from Mattaniah to Zedekiah, to assure his fidelity to his overlord who made him king (2Ki 24:17).

See NAMES, PROPER.

1. The Phrase “His Name”:

Since the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament are essentially for purposes of revelation, and since the Hebrews laid such store by names, we should confidently expect them to make the Divine name a medium of revelation of the first importance. People accustomed by long usage to significant character indications in their own names, necessarily would regard the names of the Deity as expressive of His nature. The very phrase “name of Yahweh,” or “His name,” as applied to the Deity in Biblical usage, is most interesting and suggestive, sometimes expressing comprehensively His revelation in Nature (Ps 8:1; compare 138:2); or marking the place of His worship, where men will call upon His name (De 12:5); or used as a synonym of His various attributes, e.g. faithfulness (Isa 48:9), grace (Ps 23:3), His honor (Ps 79:9), etc. “Accordingly, since the name of God denotes this God Himself as He is revealed, and as He desires to be known by His creatures, when it is said that God will make a name for Himself by His mighty deeds, or that the new world of the future shall be unto Him for a name, we can easily understand that the name of God is often synonymous with the glory of God, and that the expressions for both are combined in the utmost variety of ways, or used alternately” (Schultz, Old Testament Theology, English translation, I, 124-25; compare Ps 72:19; Isa 63:14; also Davidson, Old Testament Theol., 37-38).

2. Classification:

From the important place which the Divine name occupies in revelation, we would expect frequency of occurrence and diversity of form; and this is just that which we find to be true. The many forms or varieties of the name will be considered under the following heads:

(1) Absolute or Personal Names,

(2) Attributive, or Qualifying Names, and

(3) Names of God in the New Testament. Naturally and in course of time attributive names tend to crystallize through frequent use and devotional regard into personal names; e.g. the attributive adjective qadhosh, “holy,” becomes the personal, transcendental name for Deity in Job and Isa. For fuller details of each name reference may be made to separate articles.

II. Absolute or Personal Names of God in the Old Testament:

1. ‘Elohim:

The first form of the Divine name in the Bible is ‘Elohim, ordinarily translated “God” (Ge 1:1). This is the most frequently used name in the Old Testament, as its equivalent theos, is in the New Testament, occurring in Ge alone approximately 200 t. It is one of a group of kindred words, to which belong also ‘El and ‘Eloah. (1) Its form is plural, but the construction is uniformly singular, i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective, unless used of heathen divinities (Ps 96:5; Ps 97:7). It is characteristic of Hebrew that extension, magnitude and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the plural. It is not reasonable, therefore, to assume that plurality of form indicates primitive Semitic polytheism. On the contrary, historic Hebrew is unquestionably and uniformly monotheistic.

(2) The derivation is quite uncertain. Gesenius, Ewald and others find its origin in ‘ul, “to be strong,” from which also are derived ‘ayil, “ram,” and ‘elah, “terebinth”; it is then an expanded plural form of ‘el; others trace it to ‘alah, “to terrify,” and the singular form is found in the infrequent ‘eloah, which occurs chiefly in poetical books; BDB inclines to the derivation from ‘alah, “to be strong,” as the root of the three forms, ‘El, `Eloah and ‘Elohim, although admitting that the whole question is involved in uncertainty (for full statement see BDB, under the word …); a somewhat fanciful suggestion is the Arabic root ‘ul, “to be in front,” from which comes the meaning “leader”; and still more fanciful is the suggested connection with the preposition ‘el, signifying God as the “goal” of man’s life and aspiration. The origin must always lie in doubt, since the derivation is prehistoric, and the name, with its kindred words ‘El and ‘Eloah, is common to Semitic languages and religions and beyond the range of Hebrew records.

(3) It is the reasonable conclusion that the meaning is “might” or “power”; that it is common to Semitic language; that the form is plural to express majesty or “all-mightiness,” and that it is a generic, rather than a specific personal, name for Deity, as is indicated by its application to those who represent the Deity (Judg 5:8; Ps 82:1) or who are in His presence (1Sa 28:13).

2. ‘Eloah:

The singular form of the preceding name, ‘Eloah, is confined in its use almost exclusively to poetry, or to poetic expression, being characteristic of the Book of Job, occurring oftener in that book than in all other parts of the Old Testament. It is, in fact, found in Job oftener than the elsewhere more ordinary plural ‘Elohim. For derivation and meaning see above under 1 (2). Compare also the Aramaic form, ‘elah, found frequently in Ezra and Daniel.

3. ‘El:

In the group of Semitic languages, the most common word for Deity is El (‘el), represented by the Babylonian ilu and the Arabic ‘Allah. It is found throughout the Old Testament, but oftener in Job and Psalms than in all the other books. It occurs seldom in the historical books, and not at all in Lev. The same variety of derivations is attributed to it as to ELOHIM (which see), most probable of which is ‘ul, “to be strong.” BDB interprets ‘ul as meaning “to be in front,” from which came ‘ayil, “ram” the one in front of the flock, and ‘elah, the prominent “terebinth,” deriving [‘El] from ‘alah, “to be strong.” It occurs in many of the more ancient names; and, like [‘Elohim], it is used of pagan gods. It is frequently combined with nouns or adjectives to express the Divine name with reference to particular attributes or phases of His being, as ‘El `Elyon, ‘El-Ro’i, etc. (see below under III, “Attributive Names”).

4. ‘Adhon, ‘Adhonay:

An attributive name, which in prehistoric Hebrew had already passed over into a generic name of God, is ‘Adhon, ‘Adhonay, the latter formed from the former, being the construct plural, ‘adhone, with the 1st person ending -ay, which has been lengthened to ay and so retained as characteristic of the proper name and distinguishing it from the possessive “my Lord.” the King James Version does not distinguish, but renders both as possessive, “my Lord” (Judg 6:15; Judg 13:8), and as personal name (Ps 2:4); the Revised Version (British and American) also, in Ps 16:2, is in doubt, giving “my Lord,” possessive, in text and “the Lord” in the margin. ‘Adhonay, as a name of Deity, emphasizes His sovereignty (Ps 2:4; Isa 7:7), and corresponds closely to Kurios of the New Testament. It is frequently combined with Yahweh (Gen 15:8; Isa 7:7, etc.) and with ‘Elohim (Ps 86:12). Its most significant service in Massoretic Text is the use of its vowels to point the unpronounceable tetragrammaton YHWH, indicating that the word “‘Adhonay” should be spoken aloud instead of “Yah-weh.” This combination of vowels and consonants gives the transliteration “Yahweh,” adopted by the American Standard Revised Version, while the other English Versions of the Bible, since Coverdale, represents the combination by the capitals LORD. Septuagint represents it by Kurios.

5. Yahweh (Yahweh):

The name most distinctive of God as the God of Israel is (Yahweh, a combination of the tetragrammaton (YHWH) with the vowels of ‘Adhonay, transliterated as Yehowah, but read aloud by the Hebrews ‘adhonay). While both derivation and meaning are lost to us in the uncertainties of its ante-Biblical origin, the following inferences seem to be justified by the facts:

(1) This name was common to religions other than Israel’s, according to Friedr. Delitzsch, Hommel, Winckler, and Guthe (EB, under the word), having been found in Babylonian inscriptions. Ammonite, Arabic and Egyptian names appear also to contain it (compare Davidson, Old Testament Theol., 52 f); but while, like ‘Elohim, it was common to primitive Semitic religion, it became Israel’s distinctive name for the Deity.

(2) It was, therefore, not first made known at the call of Moses (Exod 3:13-16; Exod 6:2-8), but, being already known, was at that time given a larger revelation and interpretation: God, to be known to Israel henceforth under the name “Yahweh” and in its fuller significance, was the One sending Moses to deliver Israel; “when I 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 …. I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE …. say …. I WILL BE hath sent me” (Exod 3:13; Exod 3:14 margin). The name is assumed as known in the narrative of Genesis; it also occurs in pre-Mosaic names (Exod 6:20; 1Chr 2:25; 1Chr 7:8).

(3) The derivation is from the archaic chawah, “to be,” better “to become,” in Biblical Hebrew hayah; this archaic use of w for y appears also in derivatives of the similar chayah, “to live,” e.g. chawwah in Ge 3:20.

(4) It is evident from the interpretative passages (; ) that the form is the fut. of the simple stem (Qal) and not future of the causative (Hiph`il) stem in the sense “giver of life”–an idea not borne out by any of the occurrences of the word. The fanciful theory that the word is a combination of the future, present and perfect tenses of the verb, signifying “the One who will be, is, and was,” is not to be taken seriously (Stier, etc., in Oehler’s Old Testament Theology, in the place cited.).

(5) The meaning may with some confidence be inferred from Origen’s transliteration, Iao, the form in Samaritan, Iabe, the form as combined in Old Testament names, and the evident signification in Ex 3 and other passages, to be that of the simple future, yahweh, “he will be.” It does not express causation, nor existence in a metaphysical sense, but the covenant promise of the Divine presence, both at the immediate time and in the Messianic age of the future. And thus it became bound up with the Messianic hope, as in the phrase, “the Day of Yahweh,” and consequently both it and the Septuagint translation Kurios were applied by the New Testament as titles of Christ.

(6) It is the personal name of God, as distinguished from such generic or essential names as ‘El, ‘Elohim, Shadday, etc. Characteristic of the Old Testament is its insistence on the possible knowledge of God as a person; and Yahweh is His name as a person. It is illogical, certainly, that the later Hebrews should have shrunk from its pronunciation, in view of the appropriateness of the name and of the Old Testament insistence on the personality of God, who as a person has this name. the American Standard Revised Version quite correctly adopts the transliteration “Yahweh” to emphasize its significance and purpose as a personal name of God revealed.

6. Tsur (Rock):

Five times in the “Song” of Moses (Deut 32:4; Deut 32:15; Deut 32:18; Deut 32:30; Deut 32:31) the word tsur, “Rock,” is used as a title of God. It occurs also in the Psalms, Isa and poetical passages of other books, and also in proper names, Elizur, Zuriel, etc. Once in the King James Version (Isa 44:8) it is translated “God,” but “Rock” in the American Standard Revised Version and the American Revised Version, margin. The effort to interpret this title as indicating the animistic origin of Old Testament religion is unnecessary and a pure product of the imagination. It is customary for both Old Testament and New Testament writers to use descriptive names of God: “rock,” “fortress,” “shield,” “light,” “bread,” etc., and is in harmony with all the rich figurativeness of the Scriptures; the use of the article in many of the cases cited further corroborates the view that the word is intended to be a descriptive title, not the name of a Nature-deity. It presents the idea of God as steadfast: “The appellation of God as tsur, `rock,’ `safe retreat,’ in Deuteronomy refers to this” (Oehler, Old Testament Theology). It often occurs, in a most striking figure, with the pers. suffix as “my rock,” “their rock,” to express confidence (Ps 28:1).

7. Kadhosh:

The name (qadhosh, “holy”) is found frequently in Isaiah and Psalms, and occasionally in the other prophets. It is characteristic of Isaiah, being found 32 times in that book. It occurs often in the phrase qedhosh yisra’el, “Holy One of Israel.” The derivation and meaning remain in doubt, but the customary and most probable derivation is from qadhash, “to be separate,” which best explains its use both of man and of the Deity. When used of God it signifies: (1) His transcendence, His separateness above all other beings, His aloneness as compared to other gods; (2) His peculiar relation to His people Israel unto whom He separated Himself, as He did not unto other nations. In the former sense Isaiah used it of His sole deity (40:25), in the latter of His peculiar and unchanging covenant-relation to Israel (43:3; 48:17), strikingly, expressed in the phrase “Holy One of Israel.” Qadhosh was rather attributive than personal, but became personal in the use of such absolute theists as Job and Isaiah. It expresses essential Deity, rather than personal revelation.

8. Shadday:

In the patriarchal literature, and in Job particularly, where it is put into the mouths of the patriarchs, this name appears sometimes in the compound ‘el shadday, sometimes alone. While its root meaning also is uncertain, the suggested derivation from shadhadh, “to destroy,” “to terrify,” seems most probable, signifying the God who is manifested by the terribleness of His mighty acts. “The Storm God,” from shadha’, “to pour out,” has been suggested, but is improbable; and even more so the fanciful she, and day, meaning “who is sufficient.” Its use in patriarchal days marks an advance over looser Semitic conceptions to the stricter monotheistic idea of almightiness, and is in accord with the early consciousness of Deity in race or individual as a God of awe, or even terror. Its monotheistic character is in harmony with its use in the Abrahamic times, and is further corroborated by its parallel in Septuagint and New Testament, pantokrator, “all-powerful.”

III. Descriptive Names of God in the Old Testament:

It is often difficult to distinguish between the personal and the attributive names of God, the two divisions necessarily shading into each other. Some of the preceding are really attributive, made personal by usage. The following are the most prominent descriptive or attributive names.

1. ‘Abhir:

This name (‘abhir), translated in English Versions of the Bible “Mighty One,” is always combined with Israel or Jacob; its root is ‘abhar, “to be strong” from which is derived the word ‘ebher, “pinion,” used of the strong wing of the eagle (Isa 40:31), figuratively of God in De 32:11. It occurs in Jacob’s blessing (Ge 49:24), in a prayer for the sanctuary (Ps 132:2; Ps 132:5), and in Isa (1:24; 49:26; 60:16), to express the assurance of the Divine strength in behalf of the oppressed in Israel (Isa 1:24), or in behalf of Israel against his oppressors; it is interesting to note that this name was first used by Jacob himself.

2. ‘El-‘Elohe-Israel:

The name ‘El is combined with a number of descriptive adjectives to represent God in His various attributes; and these by usage have become names or titles of God. For the remarkable phrase ‘EL-‘ELOHE-ISRAEL (Ge 33:20), see separate article

3. `Elyon:

This name (`elyon, “highest”) is a derivative of `alah, “to go up.” It is used of persons or things to indicate their elevation or exaltation: of Israel, favored above other nations (De 26:19), of the aqueduct of “the upper pool” (Isa 7:3), etc. This indicates that its meaning when applied to God is the “Exalted One,” who is lifted far above all gods and men. It occurs alone (Deut 32:8; Ps 18:13), or in combination with other names of God, most frequently with El (Gen 14:18; Ps 78:35), but also with Yahweh (Ps 7:17; Ps 97:9), or with Elohim (Ps 56:2 the King James Version; Ps 78:56). Its early use (Ge 14:18 f) points to a high conception of Deity, an unquestioned monotheism in the beginnings of Hebrew history.

4. Gibbor:

The ancient Hebrews were in constant struggle for their land and their liberties, a struggle most intense and patriotic in the heroic days of Saul and David, and in which there was developed a band of men whose great deeds entitled them to the honorable title “mighty men” of valor (gibborim). These were the knights of David’s “Round Table.” In like manner the Hebrew thought of his God as fighting for him, and easily then this title was applied to God as the Mighty Man of war, occurring in David’s psalm of the Ark’s Triumphant Entry (Ps 24:8), in the allegory of the Messiah-King (Ps 45:3), either alone or combined with El (Isa 9:6; Jer 32:18), and sometimes with Yahweh (Isa 42:13).

5. ‘El-Ro’i:

When Hagar was fleeing from Sarah’s persecutions, Yahweh spoke to her in the wilderness of Shur, words of promise and cheer. Whereupon “she called the name of Yahweh that spake unto her, Thou art El roi” (Ge 16:13 margin). In the text the word ro’i, deriv. of ra’ah, “to see,” is translated “that seeth,” literally, “of sight.” This is the only occurrence of this title in the Old Testament.

6. Tsaddiq:

One of the covenant attributes of God, His righteousness, is spoken of so often that it passes from adjective to substantive, from attribute to name, and He is called “Righteous” (tsaddiq), or “the Righteous One.” The word is never transliterated but always translated in English Versions of the Bible, although it might just as properly be considered a Divine name as `Elyon or Qadhosh. The root tsadhaq, “to be straight” or “right,” signifies fidelity to a standard, and is used of God’s fidelity to His own nature and to His covenant-promise (Isa 41:10; Isa 42:6; compare Ho 2:19); it occurs alone (Ps 34:17), with El (De 32:4), with Elohim (Ezra 9:15; Ps 7:9; Ps 116:5), but most frequently with Yahweh (Ps 129:4, etc.). In Ex 9:27 Pharaoh, in acknowledging his sin against Yahweh, calls Him `Yahweh the Righteous,’ using the article. The suggestive combination, “Yahweh our Righteousness,” is the name given to David’s “righteous Branch” (Jer 23:6) and properly should be taken as a proper noun–the name of the Messiah-King.

7. Kanna:

Frequently in the Pentateuch, most often in the 3 versions of the Commandments (Exod 20:5; Exod 34:14; Deut 5:9), God is given the title “Jealous” (qanna’), most specifically in the phrase “Yahweh, whose name is Jealous” (Ex 34:14). This word, however, did not bear the evil meaning now associated with it in our usage, but rather signified “righteous zeal,” Yahweh’s zeal for His own name or glory (compare Isa 9:7, “the zeal of Yahweh,” qin’ah; also Zech 1:14; Zech 8:2).

8. Yahweh Tsebha’-oth:

Connected with the personal and covenant name Yahweh, there is found frequently the word Sabaoth (tsebha’oth, “hosts”). Invariably in the Old Testament it is translated “hosts” (Isa 1:9; Ps 46:7; Ps 46:11, etc.), but in the New Testament it is transliterated twice, both in the Greek and English (Rom 9:29; Jas 5:4). The passage in Roman is a quotation from Isa 1:9 through Septuagint, which does not translate, but transliterates the Hebrew. Origin and meaning are uncertain. It is used of heavenly bodies and earthly forces (Ge 2:1); of the army of Israel (2Sa 8:16); of the Heavenly beings (Ps 103:21; Ps 148:2; Dan 4:35). It is probable that the title is intended to include all created agencies and beings, of which Yahweh is maker and leader.

9. “I Am That I Am”:

When God appeared to Moses at Sinai, commissioning him to deliver Israel; Moses, being well aware of the difficulty of impressing the people, asked by what name of God he should speak to them: “They shall say to me, What is his name?” Then “God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM …. say …. I AM hath sent me unto you” (Ex 3:14). The name of the Deity given here is similar to Yahweh except that the form is not 3rd person future, as in the usual form, but the 1st person (‘ehyeh), since God is here speaking of Himself. The optional reading in the American Revised Version, margin is much to be preferred: “I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE,” indicating His covenant pledge to be with and for Israel in all the ages to follow. For further explanation see above, II, 5.

IV. New Testament Names of God.

The variety of names which characterizes the Old Testament is lacking in the New Testament, where we are all but limited to two names, each of which corresponds to several in the Old Testament. The most frequent is the name “God” (Theos) occurring over 1,000 t, and corresponding to El, Elohim, etc., of the Old Testament.

1. God:

It may, as [‘Elohim], be used by accommodation of heathen gods; but in its true sense it expresses essential Deity, and as expressive of such it is applied to Christ as to the Father (John 20:28; Rom 9:5).

2. Lord:

Five times “Lord” is a translation of despotes (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2Pet 2:1 the King James Version; Judg 1:4; Rev 6:10 the King James Version). In each case there is evident emphasis on sovereignty and correspondence to the ‘Adhon of the Old Testament. The most common Greek word for Lord is Kurios, representing both Yahweh and ‘Adhonai of the Old Testament, and occurring upwards of 600 times. Its use for Yahweh was in the spirit of both the Hebrew scribes, who pointed the consonants of the covenant name with the vowels of Adhonay, the title of dominion, and of the Septuagint, which rendered this combination as Kurios. Consequently quotations from the Old Testament in which Yahweh occurs are rendered by Kurios. It is applied to Christ equally with the Father and the Spirit, showing that the Messianic hopes conveyed by the name Yahweh were for New Testament writers fulfilled in Jesus Christ; and that in Him the long hoped for appearance of Yahweh was realized.

3. Descriptive and Figurative Names:

As in the Old Testament, so in the New Testament various attributive, descriptive or figurative names are found, often corresponding to those in the Old Testament. Some of these are: The “Highest” or “Most High” hupsistos), found in this sense only in Lu (1:32,35,76; 2:14, etc.), and Equivalent to ‘Elyon (see III, 3, above); “Almighty,” Pantokrator (2Cor 6:18; Rev 1:8, etc.), corresponding to Shadday (see II, 8 above; see also ALMIGHTY); “Father,” as in the Lord’s Prayer, and elsewhere (Matt 6:9; Matt 11:25; John 17:25; 2Cor 6:18); “King” (1Ti 1:17); “King of kings” (1Ti 6:15); “King of kings,” “Lord of lords” (Rev 17:14; Rev 19:16); “Potentate” (1Ti 6:15); “Master” (Kurios, Eph 6:9; 2Pet 2:1; Re 6:10); “Shepherd,” “Bishop” (1Pe 2:25).

LITERATURE.

Theology of Old Testament by various authors: Oehler, Schultz, Davidson; Delitzsch, Psychology of the Old Testament; H.P. Smith, “Theophorous Names of OT” in Old Testament and Semitic Studies; Gray, HPN; “God” in HDB and EB.

Edward Mack

GOD’S BOWELS FOR US

 

Being moved by deep compassion as it is written in Matthew 9;36¹: When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd¹, literally means from Hebrew to have the bowels yearn or to have the bowels become hot towards someone. The bowels were regarded as the seat of the most violent passions, such as anger and love; but by the Hebrews as the seat of tender affections, especially kindness, benevolence, compassion.² It would be like the heart for most of the occidental cultures nowadays. It is the centre of our emotions and from where the most intense passions and feelings come.

This expression being moved with deep compassion is the equivalent in the Old Testament for when Joseph saw his brother Benjamin (Genesis 43;30). His bowels yearned towards him; for when the two women brought before the King Solomon the living child, for him to decide which mother was the real mother (1 Kings 3,26). The one that was the real mother was deeply moved out of love (NIV Translation) or had her bowels yearned (King James Version) on her son; for when God spoke about Ephraim as a son that was reconciling with Him, and how the father felt (the father’s heart for us nowadays and the bowels in the bible and for the Jews). in Jeremiah 31,20 the words my heart yearns mean literally sound or are troubled for him, I have great compassion for him (NIV Translation) or my bowels are troubled (King James Version); for the lovers in Song of Solomon 5,5 – My beloved thrust his hand through the latch-opening, my heart began to pound for him (NIV Translation) or King James Version – My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved (or sound in the literal) for him; and in the New Testament when Paul writes in Philippians 1;8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ (KJV) or in the affection of Jesus Christ (NIV).

We can see some of the great commentaries of the bible say about these verses:

Poole commentary says: His bowels did yearn; his heart and inward parts were vehemently moved, as they commonly are upon occasion of any excessive passion, of love, pity, grief or joy (about Joseph and Benjamin).

Gill commentary says: For his bowels did yearn upon his brother: his passion grew strong, his affections were raised, his heart was full of tenderness, and there was such a flow of love and joy at the sight of his brother, and the little conversation he had with him, that he was ready to burst out, and must have discovered himself if he had not immediately turned and got out of the room, and sought (where) to weep: a proper place to vent his passion in tears of joy, and relieve himself  (Joseph and Benjamin).

Now began to kindle and appear in flames; her heart, and the desires of it, were in motion towards him (The lovers in Song of Solomon).

Sound for him, or yearn toward him; so that he did not do what he threatened, or was seemingly about to do. The phrase is expressive of great relenting, strong and melting pity in his heart, towards his dear and delightful children (Ephraim and God’s bowels or heart toward them).

His bowels yearned for them, he was touched with a feeling of their infirmities, as the merciful high priest, the good shepherd, and faithful prophet, being heartily concerned for the souls of men, their comfort here, and everlasting happiness hereafter (Jesus and the crowds).

Barnes commentary says: The metaphor expresses the most tender internal emotion (Ephraim and God’s bowels or heart towards them).

Clarke commentary says: God feels a yearning desire towards him; hamu meai lo, “my bowels are agitated for him”. I feel nothing towards him but pity and love. When a sinner turns to God, God ceases to be angry with him. God expresses his determination to save him; rachem arachamennu, “ I will be affectionately merciful to him, with tender mercy, says The Lord. He shall find that I treat him as a father does a returning prodigal son. So every penitent is sure to find mercy at the hand of God (Ephraim and God’s bowels or heart towards them).

Moved with compassion means a bowel. The Jews esteemed the bowels to be the seat sympathy and the tender passions, and so applied the organ to the sense. It signifies according to Minert, to be moved with pity from the very inmost bowels. It is an emphatic word, signifying a vehement affection of commiseration, by which the bowels and especially the heart is moved. Both this verb and the noun seem to derived from the Greek verb to draw, the whole intestinal canal, in the peristaltic motion of the bowels, being drawn, affected and agitated with the sight of a distressed or miserable object. Pity increases this motion of the bowels, and produces considerable pain. Hence, to have the bowels moved signifies to feel pity or compassion at seeing the miseries of others (Jesus and the crowds).

DTN commentary says: Troubled literally means sound – yearned³.

JFB commentary says: Namely, with the yearnings of compassionate love. The bowels include the region of the heart, the seat of the affections.

MHWBC commentary says: … My bowels were moved for him, as those of the two disciples were when Christ made their hearts burn within them.

My understanding:

On the way to understand what the words “being moved in deep compassion” mean I would describe this feeling as an intense flame of passion between two lovers, combined with the feeling of the father that reconciles himself with the distant son and the brothers that didn’t see each other for a long time and couldn’t keep the tears when they finally met.

Also on the way to understand what the words “being moved in deep compassion” mean I would describe the human reaction to this feeling as they would be making a great sound, as they would be shouting, an uproar, a stir, a feeling of being troubled, to be in a turbulent commotion incapable of keeping the abundant tears.

So that is what being moved with deep compassion means and it is how God feels about us, how Jesus unveiled this feeling to us through his example, how the disciples saw that he was being moved by deep compassion in many times in the scriptures³ ¹¹ and how God expects us to move in deep compassion towards one another and the lost people around us¹².

Yury Gaudard.

REFERENCES

Matthew 9,36: When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd¹.

Thayer commentary².

Verses relating multitude, increasing (yearn) with sound, uproar³.

HÂMÂH: to murmur(figuratively of a soul in prayer), growl, roar, cry aloud, mourn, rage, sound, make noise, tumult, to be clamorous, to be disquieted, to be loud, to be moved, to be troubled, to be in an uproar, to be in a stir, to be in a commotion, to be boisterous, to be turbulent. BDB Definition H1993

To make a loud sound (like English “hum”), by implication to be in great commotion or tumult, to rage, war, moan, clamor, clamorous, concourse, cry aloud, be disquiet, loud, mourn, be moved, make a noise, rage, roar, sound, be troubled, make in tumult, tumultuous, be in an uproar. Strong’s Definition.

Part of speech: verb

A primitive root to compare is: H1949

HÛM: to distract, ring again, make a great noise, murmur, roar, discomfit, to be moved, to be in a stir, to show disquietude. BDB Definition H1949

To make an uproar, or agitate greatly, destroy, move, make a noise, put, ring again. Strong’s Definition.

Part of speech: verb

Another primitive root to compare is: H2000

HÂMAM: to move noisily, confuse, make a noise, discomfit, break, consume, crush, destroy, trouble, vex. BDB Definition H2000

Properly to put in commotion, by implication to disturb, drive, destroy, break, consume crush, destroy, discomfit, trouble, vex. Strong’s Definition

Part of speech: verb

Another primitive root to compare is: H1995

HÂMÔN HÂMÔN: Murmur, roar, crowd, abundance, tumult, sound. BDB Definition H1995

A noise, tumult, crowd, also disquietude, wealth, abundance, company, many, multitude, multiply, noise, riches, rumbling, sounding, store, tumult. Strong’s Definition.

Part of speech: noun masculine.

Verses to compare relating sound with being profoundly moved or grow hot, in a sense of increasing (in this case the compassion) and expressing this emotion with a sound, an uproar, a great noise:

 Jeremiah 48;36 – Therefore my heart shall sound ( H1993) for Moab like pipes, and my heart shall sound like pipes for the men of Kir-heres; because the abundance that he has gotten is perished.

Isaiah 16;11 – Therefore my bowels sound  like a harp for Moab, and my inward parts for Kirheres.

Isaiah 63;15 – Look down from heaven, and see from Your habitation, holy and glorious. Where are your zeal and your strength, the yearning of your heart and your mercy toward me? Are they restrained? New king James Version

Look down from heaven, and behold from the habitation of thy holiness and of thy glory: where is thy zeal and thy strength the sounding of thy bowels and thy mercies toward me? Are they restrained? King James Version

Look down from heaven and see, from your lofty throne, holy and glorious. Where are your zeal and your mighty? Your tenderness¹ and compassion² are withheld from us. New International Version

Look down from heaven, look at us! Look out the window of your holy magnificent house! Whatever happened to your passion, your famous mighty acts, Your heartfelt pity, your compassion? Why are you holding back? The Message

Look down from heavens, and behold from the habitation of thy holiness and of thy glory! Where is the zeal and thy strength, the sounding of thy bowels and of thy tender mercies? Are they restrained toward me? Darby 1890

Look down from heaven, and behold from thy holy habitation and the place of thy glory: where is thy zeal, and thy strength, the multitude of thy bowels, and of thy mercies? They have held back themselves from me. Douay Rheims

Look down from heaven and see from Your lofty home – holy and beautiful. Where is Your Zeal and Your might? Your yearning (the agitation of your inward parts – according to the translation’s notes) and Your compassion² are withheld from me. Holman Christian Standard Bible

Verses in the bible Jesus was moved with deep compassion¹¹: Matthew 9;36 -14;14 – 15;32 – 20;34 Mark 1;42 – 6;34 -8;2 Luke 15;20.

Verses in the bible the word says we should act in compassion towards one another¹²: Luke 10;25-37, Philippians 2;1 and Colossians 3;12.

 

 

Moved with deep compassion Hebrew and Greek original words and its interpretation.

HEBREW:

RACHAM  (H7356): Compassion (in the plural), by extension the womb (as cherishing the fetus), by implication a maiden – bowels, compassion, damsel, tender love, mercy, pity, womb. Strong Definition.

From RÂCHAM(H7355): To love, love deeply, have mercy, be compassionate, have tender affection, have compassion. BDB Definition.

KÂMAR (H3648): To yearn, be kindled, be black (hot), grow warm and tender, be or grow hot, become hot, become emotionally agitated – to grow warm and tender, to be or grow hot. BDB Definition.

A primitive root; properly to intertwine or contract, that is, by implication to shrivel(as with heat), figuratively to be deeply affected with passion, love or pity. Be black, be kindled, yearn. Strong Definition.

MÊ’EH (H4578): Internal organs, inward parts, bowels, intestines, belly. BDB Definition – (H4578 the meaning of this word is the inward parts, bowels and from the point of view of a cultural understanding it means the place of emotions or distress or love in the human being, what could be for us nowadays the heart).

Now the Greek words for the same expression.

G4698 – splagchnon: bowels, intestines. The bowels were regarded as the seat of the more violent passions, such as anger and love; but by the Hebrews as the seat of tender affections, especially kindness, benevolence, compassion. A heart in which mercy resides. Thayer Definition.

G4697 – splagchnizomai: to be moved as to one’s bowels, hence to be moved with compassion, have compassion (for the bowels were thought to be the seat of love and pity. Thayer Definition.

Strong’s Definition: Have the bowels yearn, that is figuratively feel sympathy, to pity, be moved with compassion.

The name of God, the God of Israel, that has been kept in secret for the Jewish people since the beginning is about to be revealed. Since God revealed His name to Moses in Exodus 3;14, this name is being kept hidden for a reason. The meaning of the name is so powerful and incredibly beautiful that can’t be said in vain for the Jewish, and in history, there has been a burglar that stole the meaning of the Eternal and used it for his own sake. He is one of the most famous Greek philosophers of all times.

The name that today is read in our bibles as the Lord and very well known among all Christians around the world is the direct translation of the name of Jehovah to the Greek Kurios, Lord. Lord in English and in Greek means sir, master, the possessor, the owner. Jehovah in Hebrew means the Existing One. Jehovah is the combination of the name Adonai and Yahweh with the purpose of creating a different word to call God and show respect to His name. The name that came from this is Jehovah. Even the name Yahweh, the name of God that is read for us from the bible is not the original.

“When the Hebrew bible added vowels to the consonants for the first time (about 300 BC), it put the vowels of adonai to the consonants YHWH. This produced a new word, Jehovah, though Jews continued to substitute adonai for YHWH when speaking.”

This name, YHWH, would not be spoken openly since then as a way of respect from the Jews and also to keep His name, The Holy Name, apart and protected from comparison with other gods from other nations.

The true meaning of God’s name spoken in Exodus 3;14 (God said to Moses: IAM WHO I AM – YHWH -…)from different and famous people is:

“I AM THAT I AM – EHEYEH asher EHEYEH. These words have been understood in different ways from different translations and languages. The Vulgate (from Latin) translates EGO SUM QUI SUM, I am who am. The Septuagint (Greek translation), I am he who exists. The Syriac, the Persic, and the Chaldee preserve the original words without any gloss. The Arabic paraphrases them: The Eternal, who doesn’t pass away, which is the same interpretation given by Abul Faraijus (a famous and well known interpreter and priest that wrote a bible dictionary), who also preserves the original words, and gives the above as their interpretation. The Targum of Jonathan, and the Jerusalem Targum paraphrase the words as: He who spoke, and the world was; He who spoke, and all things existed. God wasn’t only telling Moses about His deeds in the past with his ancestors, but He was also saying I am what or who I am and I will be what or who I will be. The words seem to point out to the eternity and self-existence of God. Plato, (a well known Greek philosopher) in his Parmenides, where he treats sublimely of the nature of God, says: “nothing can express His nature; therefore no name can be attributed to him.”

“This signifies the real being of God, his self existence, and that He is the Being of being; as also it denotes his eternity and immutability, and his constancy and faithfulness in fulfilling his promises, for it includes all time, past, present and to come; and the sense is, not only I am what I am at present, but I am what I have been, and I am what I shall be, and shall be what I am.”

There has been a very famous thief in history and in the name of knowledge he stole the meaning of the name of The Eternal, The Creator and Everlasting God. His name was Plutarch, one of the most famous Greek philosophers of all.

“To this divine discovery the ancient Greeks owed the inscription which they placed above the door of the temple of Apollo at Delphi; the whole of the inscription considered in the simple monosyllable EI, THOU ART, the second person of the Greek substantive verb I AM. On this inscription Plutarch, one of the most intelligent of all gentile philosophers, made an express treatise, having received the true interpretation in his travels in Egypt, where he had gone for the express purpose of inquiring into their ancient learning, and where he had doubtless seen these words of God to Moses in the Greek version of the Septuagint, which had been current among the Egyptians (for whose sake it was first made) about four hundred years previously to the death of Plutarch. This philosopher observes that this title is not only proper, but peculiar to God, because He alone is being, for mortals have no participation of true being, because that which begins and ends, and is continually changing, is never one nor the same, nor in the same state. He informs us that the ancient mode of addressing God was: “EI’EN, Thou are One (you are one), for many cannot be attributed to the divine nature, in which there is neither first nor last, future nor past, old nor young, but as being one, fills up in one now an eternal duration”. And he concludes with observing that “this word corresponds to certain others on the same temple – Know thyself, as if, under the name EL, THOU ART, the deity designed to excite man to venerate HIM as eternally existing, and to put them in mind of the frailty and morality of their own nature”.

“The Platonists and Pythagoreans seem to have borrowed this meaning, which expresses with them the eternal and invariable Being. It is also said that the temple of Minerva at Sais, a city of Egypt, had this inscription on it: “I am all that exists, is, and shall be”.

“What beautiful things have the ancient Greek philosophers stolen from the testimonies of God to enrich their own works, without any kind of acknowledgment? And strange perversity of man! These are the very things which we so highly applaud in the heathen copies, while we neglect or pass them by in the Divine originals!”

We can also see, through the bible, how different writers called God through the same interpretation. How strong it is!

Exodus 6;3 – I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty (EL), but by my name The Lord (JEHOVAH) I didn’t make myself known to them.

Psalms 90;2 – Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

Isaiah 44;6 – This is what the Yahweh, the king of Israel, and his Redeemer, Yahweh of Armies says: “I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.

Matthew 28;20b – “Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age”, Amen.

John 8;58 – Jesus said to them, “Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM (from the Greek EIMI: to be, to exist, to happen, to be present).

Hebrews 13;8 – Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Revelation 1;4 – John to the seven assemblies that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from God, who is and who was and who is to come;… 1;8 – I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, The Almighty. 1;17 –When I saw him, I fell at his feet like a dead man. He laid his right hand on me saying, Don’t be afraid, I am the first and the last, and the Living One. I was dead, and behold, I am alive forever more… 4;8 – The four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within. They have no rest day and night, saying, “ Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God, The Almighty, who was, who is and who is to come!

Glory and honor to The One who created all things. “For of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever! Amen.” Romans 11;36.

Knowing that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning . Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. – The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1,1-4 and 1;14.

His name is Jesus, he is the Lord, he is YHWH, he is fully God. He was sent in flesh to redeem us and now His name is above all names in earth. Honor and glory to Jesus forever.