Handbook for Bible Students

6. God Revealed in His Names

Such are the primary materials for estimating Old Testament theology. The names of God suggest varied and sublime aspects of his Being. They appeal alike to our reason, our affection, and our conscience. The whole Hebrew Scriptures are thus steeped in theology of the truest and most practical kind. It is not that we have a bare repetition of words and phrases such as we meet with in Mohammedan writings, nor a series of esoteric and mystical formula as in ancient Egyptian religion; but we have God in nature, God in history, and God in redemption, God inhabiting the spirit world and supreme over the stellar world, these two worlds being harmonious but distinct, as the human mind and the body are distinct. HBS 214.3

The names conserve the ideas; and the history illustrates them. Thus right thoughts of the Infinite were built up in the mind of the finite. Enough was revealed to encourage men to obey, but not enough to make them giddy with the conviction that they had found out all. God was revealed, yet he hid himself. “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Deuteronomy 29:29.—“Old Testament Theology and Modern Ideas,” R. B. Girdlestone, M. A., pp. 38-43. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1909. HBS 214.4

If we may take a suggestion from Exodus 6:3, it implies that different names of God have each their distinct and proper signification; and this inherent signification of the terms must be taken into the account if any successful attempt is to be made to explain their usage. The mechanical and superficial solution of two blended documents offered by the critics will not answer. Exodus 6:3, instead of contradicting the book of Genesis, affords the key to the phenomena which it presents. HBS 214.5

The derivation and primary signification of Elohim are in dispute; according to some authorities the radical meaning is that of power, according to others it denotes one who is the object of fear and adoration. It is the general name for God, and is applied both to the true God and to pagan deities. Jehovah is not a common but a proper noun. It belongs to the true God alone, and is his characteristic name, by which he is distinguished from all others, and by which he made himself known to Israel his chosen people. Accordingly Jehovah denotes specifically what God is in and to Israel; Elohim, what he is to other nations as well. That universal agency which is exercised in the world at large, and which is directed upon Israel and Gentiles alike, is, by Elohim, the God of creation and of providence. That special manifestation of himself which is made to his own people is by Jehovah, the God of revelation and of redemption. The sacred writer uses one name or the other according as he contemplates God under one or the other point of view. Where others than those of the chosen race are the speakers, as Abimelech (Genesis 21:22, 23) or Pharoah (41:38, 39), it is natural that they should say Elohim, unless they specifically refer to the God of the patriarchs (Genesis 26:28), or of Israel (Exodus 5:2), when they will say Jehovah. In transactions between Abraham or his descendants and those of another race, God may be spoken of under aspects common to them both, and the name Elohim be employed; or he may be regarded under aspects specifically Israelitish, and the name Jehovah be used. Again, as Elohim is the generic name for God as distinguished from beings of a different grade, it is the term proper to be used when God and man, the divine and the human, are contrasted, as Genesis 30:2; 32:28; 45:5, 7, 8; 50:19, 20. HBS 214.6

Hengstenberg maintained that Elohim denotes a lower and Jehovah a higher stage of the knowledge and apprehension of God. The revelation of God advances from his disclosure as Elohim in the creation (Genesis 1) to his disclosure as Jehovah in his covenant with Israel at Sinai; and in the interval between these two extremes he may be designated by one name or the other, according to the conception which is before the mind of the writer at the time. In any manifestation surpassing those which have preceded he may be called Jehovah; or if respect is had to more glorious manifestations that are to follow, he may be called Elohim. The names, according to this view, are relatively employed to indicate higher or lower grades of God’s manifestation of himself. There seems to be a measure of truth in this representation of the matter, at least in its general outlines. The name Jehovah shines out conspicuously at three marked epochs, while in the intervals between them it is dimmed and but rarely appears. Jehovah is almost exclusively used in the account of our first parents, recording the initiating of God’s kingdom on earth (Genesis 2:4 to 4:16), in its contrast with the material creation described in chapter 1; in the lives of Abraham and Isaac, recording the setting apart of one among the families of mankind to found the chosen people of God in its contrast with the preceding universal degeneracy (Genesis 12 to 17:1; 26); and God’s revelation of himself to Moses as the deliverer and God of Israel, fulfilling the promises made to their fathers, in contrast with the antecedent period of waiting and foreign residence and oppression. From this time onward Jehovah is the dominant name, since the theocratic relation was then fully established.—“The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch,” William Henry Green, D. D., LL. D., pp. 102-104. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895. HBS 215.1

God, Names of.—Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures two chief names are used for the one true divine Being-Elohim, commonly translated “God” in our version, and Jehovah, translated “Lord.” Elohim is the plural of Eloah (in Arabic, Allah); it is often used in the short form El (a word signifying strength), as in El-Shaddai, God Almighty, the name by which God was specially known to the patriarchs. Genesis 17:1; 28:3; Exodus 6:3. The etymology is uncertain, but it is generally agreed that the primary idea is that of strength, power of effect, and that it properly describes God in that character in which he is exhibited to all men in his works, as the creator, sustainer, and supreme governor of the world. HBS 215.2

The plural form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fulness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God. Jehovah denotes specifically the one true God, whose people the Jews were, and who made them the guardians of his truth. The name is never applied to a false god, nor to any other being except one, the Angel-Jehovah, who is thereby marked as one with God, and who appears again in the New Covenant as “God manifested in the flesh.” Thus much is clear; but all else is beset with difficulties. HBS 216.1

At a time too early to be traced, the Jews abstained from pronouncing the name, for fear of its irreverent use. The custom is said to have been founded on a strained interpretation of Leviticus 24:16; and the phrase there used, “The Name” (Shema), is substituted by the rabbis for the unutterable word. In reading the Scriptures they substituted for it the word Adonai (Lord), from the translation of which by [Greek word] [kurios] in the Septuagint, followed by the Vulgate, which uses Dominus, we have the Lord of our version. The substitution of the word “Lord” is most unhappy, for it in no way represents the meaning of the sacred name. The key to the meaning of the name is unquestionably given in God’s revelation of himself to Moses by the phrase “I AM THAT I AM.” Exodus 3:14; 6:3. We must connect the name “Jehovah” with the Hebrew substantive verb to be, with the inference that it expresses the essential, eternal, unchangeable being of Jehovah. But more, it is not the expression only, or chiefly, of an absolute truth; it is a practical revelation of God, in his essential, unchangeable relation to his chosen people, the basis of his covenant.—“A Dictionary of the Bible,” William Smith, LL. D., p. 220, Teacher’s edition. Philadelphia: Porter and Coates, copyright 1884. HBS 216.2

While Elohim exhibits God displayed in his power as the creator and governor of the physical universe, the name Jehovah designates his nature as he stands in relation to man, as the only almighty, true, personal, holy Being, a spirit and “the Father of spirits” (Numbers 16:22; comp. John 4:24), who revealed himself to his people, made a covenant with them, and became their lawgiver, and to whom all honor and worship are due.—Id., p. 284. HBS 216.3

God, Names of, Elohim.—This is the name, and the only name, by which God is set before us in the first chapter of the book of Genesis. Here we find it repeated in almost every verse. Under this name we see God, according to his own will, working on a dark and ruined creature, till by his word all is set in order and made “very good.” This is the name which we need to know before all others. This, therefore, is the first revealed in Holy Scripture; for it shows us one, who, when all is lost in darkness and confusion, brings back, first his light and life, and then his image, into the creature, and so makes all things new and very good. HBS 216.4

Now there are certain peculiarities connected with this name, which must be considered, if we would understand even in measure all that is divinely taught under it. HBS 216.5

This name, then (in Hebrew, “Elohim” or “Alehim”), is a plural noun, which, though first and primarily used in Holy Scripture to describe the one true God, our Creator and Redeemer, is used also in a lower sense in reference to the “gods many and lords many” whom the ancient heathen feared and worshiped. Let us first look at the primary use of this name, in which we learn its highest significance. We shall then better understand how it could be applied to the gods of the heathen or to the idols which represented them. HBS 216.6

First, then, this name, though a plural noun, when used of the one true God is constantly joined with verbs and adjectives in the singular. We are thus prepared, even from the beginning, for the mystery of a plurality in God, who, though he says, “There is no God beside me,” and, “I am God, and there is none else,” says also, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;” and again, “The man is become like one of us;” and again at Babel, “Go to, let us go down and confound their language;” and again, in the vision granted to the prophet Isaiah, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” And this same mystery, though hidden from an English reader, comes out again and again in many other texts of Holy Scripture. For, “Remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth,” is literally, “Remember thy Creators.” Again, “None saith, Where is God my Maker?” is in the Hebrew, “God my Makers.” So again, “Let Israel rejoice in him that made him,” is, in the Hebrew, “in his Makers.” And so again in the Proverbs, “The knowledge of the Holy Ones is understanding.” So again where the prophet says, “Thy Maker is thy husband,” both words are plural in the Hebrew. Many other passages of Scripture have precisely the same peculiarity. Therefore in heaven “cherubim and seraphim continually do cry, Holy, holy, holy, Lord of hosts,” while on earth, taught by the Spirit of our Lord, we say, “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” The plural form of the first name of God, that is “Elohim,” shadows forth the same mystery; while the verb, and even the adjective, joined with it in the singular, as when we read, “the living,” or “the righteous,” or “the most high God,” show that this “Elohim,” though plural, is but one God.—“The Names of God in Holy Scripture,” Andrew Jukes, pp. 15-17. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1892. HBS 217.1

Greece, Alexander Fulfilling Prophecy.—Alexander collected his army at Pella to cross the Hellespont, that he might exact the vengeance of Greece on Persia for indignities suffered at the hands of Xerxes, who “by his strength through his riches” had stirred up “all against the realm of Grecia.” Daniel 11:2, A. V.... It may be noted how exactly the point of Alexander’s invasion is indicated in Daniel’s prophecy. Daniel 8:5. From Troy he advanced southward, and encountered the Persian forces at the Granicus. While in the conflict, Alexander exhibited all the reckless bravery of a Homeric hero. He at the same time showed the skill of a consummate general. The Persian army was dispersed with great slaughter. Before proceeding farther into Persia, by rapid marches and vigorously pressed sieges, he completed the conquest of Asia Minor. Here, too, he showed his knowledge of the sensitiveness of Asiatic peoples to omens, by visiting Gordium and cutting the knot on which, according to legend, depended the empire of Asia. HBS 217.2

What he had done in symbol he had to make a reality; he had to settle the question of supremacy in Asia by the sword. He learned that Darius had collected an immense army and was coming to meet him. Although the Persian host was estimated at a half-million men, Alexander hastened to encounter it. Rapidity of motion, as symbolized in Daniel by the “he-goat” that “came from the west ... and touched not the ground” (Daniel 8:5), was Alexander’s great characteristic. The two armies met in the relatively narrow plain of Issus, where the Persians lost, to a great extent, the advantage of their numbers; they were defeated with tremendous slaughter, Darius himself setting the example of flight.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. “Alexander, the Great,” p. 92. HBS 217.3

Greek Church, Separation of, from Rome.—It [the separation between the Greek and the Roman Churches] is due chiefly to three causes. The first cause is the politico-ecclesiastical rivalry of the Patriarch of Constantinople backed by the Byzantine Empire, and the Bishop of Rome in connection with the new German Empire. The second cause is the growing centralization and overbearing conduct of the Latin Church in and through the Papacy. The third cause is the stationary character of the Greek and the progressive character of the Latin Church during the Middle Ages. [p. 311] ... HBS 218.1

The first serious outbreak of this conflict took place after the middle of the ninth century, when Photius and Nicolas, two of the ablest representatives of the rival churches, came into collision. Photius is one of the greatest of patriarchs, as Nicolas is one of the greatest of popes. The former was superior in learning, the latter in statesmanship; while in moral integrity, official pride, and obstinacy both were fairly matched, except that the papal ambition towered above the patriarchal dignity. Photius would tolerate no superior, Nicolas no equal; the one stood on the Council of Chalcedon, the other on Pseudo-Isidor. HBS 218.2

The contest between them was at first personal. The deposition of Ignatius as Patriarch of Constantinople, for rebuking the immorality of Casar Bardas, and the election of Photius, then a mere layman, in his place (858), were arbitrary and uncanonical acts which created a temporary schism in the East, and prepared the way for a permanent schism between the East and the West. Nicolas, being appealed to as mediator by both parties (first by Photius), assumed the haughty air of supreme judge on the basis of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, but was at first deceived by his own legates. The controversy was complicated by the Bulgarian quarrel. King Bogoris had been converted to Christianity by missionaries from Constantinople (861), but soon after applied to Rome for teachers, and the Pope eagerly seized this opportunity to extend his jurisdiction (866). HBS 218.3

Nicolas, in a Roman synod (863), decided in favor of the innocent Ignatius, and pronounced sentence of deposition against Photius with a threat of excommunication in case of disobedience. Photius, enraged by this conduct and the Bulgarian interference, held a countersynod, and deposed in turn the successor of St. Peter (867). In his famous encyclical letter of invitation to the Eastern patriarchs, he charged the whole Western Church with heresy and schism for interfering with the jurisdiction over the Bulgarians, for fasting on Saturday, for abridging the time of Lent by a week, for taking milk-food (milk, cheese, and butter) during the quadragesimal fast, for enforcing clerical celibacy, and despising priests who lived in virtuous matrimony, and, most of all, for corrupting the Nicene Creed by the insertion of the Filioque, and thereby introducing two principles into the Holy Trinity. HBS 218.4

This letter clearly indicates all the doctrinal and ritual differences which caused and perpetuated the schism to this day. The subsequent history is only a renewal of the same charges aggravated by the misfortunes of the Greek Church, and the arrogance and intolerance of old Rome. [pp. 312-314]-“History of the Christian Church,” Philip Schaff, (7 vol. ed.) Vol. IV, pp. 311-314. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893. HBS 218.5

Greek Church, Date of Final Separation of.—Leo [IX, 1049-1055] sent an embassy to Constantinople, at the head of which stood the masterful and passionate Cardinal Humbert. Leo’s letters censured the assumption of Michael Carularius, in calling himself the ecumenical patriarch, and desiring thereby to subordinate to himself the Eastern patriarchs; so also his procedure against the Roman custom in the Supper. Plainly under the pressure of the imperial wish, Nicetas Pectoratus, a monk of the monastery of Studion, agreed to repudiate his treatise against the Latins in the presence of the court and the Roman ambassadors, and the emperor caused it to be burned. But Michael Carularius [Patriarch of Constantinople] proved unapproachable, and broke off all intercourse with the Roman legates. They then deposited a bull of excommunication against him on the altar of St. Sophia, on the 16th July, 1054, in which he was accused of all possible heresies, and every one who received the Supper from a Greek who blamed the Roman sacrifice was threatened with the ban. Once more the emperor induced the already departed legates to return; but the populace took the side of their Patriarch, the legates were obliged to take flight, and were placed under the ban by Michael at a synod, which the Oriental patriarchs also approved. The popular disposition, which was fostered by the Greek clergy, annulled the plans of the emperor. Although the council represented the matter as though Humbert and his companions were not really legates of the Bishop of Rome, as a matter of fact the decisive and momentous schism was thus completed.—“History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,” Dr. Wilhelm Moeller, p. 230, 2nd edition, translated by Andrew Rutherfurd, B. D. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1910. HBS 219.1

Greek Catholic Church, Name and Creed of.—Various names are used to designate the great division of Christendom which is considered in this article. The full official title is “The Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Eastern Church” ([Greek words transliterated as follows] [haa hagia orthodoxos katholikaa apostolikaa anatolikaa ekklaasia]). The Roman Church claims all these titles, except “Oriental,” for which it substitutes “Roman,” and claims them exclusively. The name “Eastern (or Oriental) Church” designates its origin and geographical territory. The “Orthodox Church” expresses its close adherence to the ecumenical system of doctrine and discipline as settled by the seven ecumenical councils before the separation from the Western or Latin Church. On this title the chief stress is laid, and it is celebrated on a special day called “Orthodoxy Sunday,” in the beginning of Lent, when a dramatic representation of the old ecumenical councils is given in the churches, and anathemas are pronounced on all heresies. The common designation “Greek Church” is not strictly correct, but indicates the national origin of the church and the language in which most of its creeds, liturgies, canons, and theological and ascetic literature are composed, and its worship mainly conducted. [p. 48] ... HBS 219.2

The Eastern Church holds fast to the decrees and canons of the seven ecumenical councils. Its proper creed is that adopted at Nicaa in 325, enlarged at Constantinople 381, and indorsed at Chalcedon 451, without the Latin filioque. This creed is the basis of all Greek catechisms and systems of theology, and a regular part of worship. The Greeks have never acknowledged in form the Apostles’ Creed, which is of Western origin, nor the Athanasian Creed, which teaches the double procession, and is likewise of Western origin. Besides this ecumenical creed, the Eastern Church acknowledges three subordinate confessions, which define her position against Romanism and Protestantism; namely, (1) The “Orthodox Confession” of Petrus Mogilas, metro-politan of Kief (1643), a catechetical exposition of the Nicene Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the beatitudes, and the decalogue; (2) the “Confession of Dositheos or Eighteen Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem” (1672); and (3) the “Longer Catechism” of Philaret, metropolitan of Moscow, adopted by the Holy Synod of St. Petersburg in 1839 and published in all the languages of Russia. [p. 50]-The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IV, art. “Eastern Church,” pp. 48-50. HBS 219.3

Greek Church, Creed of.—Neither before nor after the Great Schism has the Greek or “Holy Oriental Orthodox Catholic Apostolic” Church found it necessary or desirable to draw up a new creed. It recognizes still, as its ultimate standards, the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed with the addition of Chalcedon, assigning to the Apostolicum and the Quicunque (of course without the words “and from the Son”) no higher status than that of devotional and private utility. It adheres faithfully to the “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” in which John of Damascus harmonized the theological work of the Greek Fathers and councils of the first seven centuries (c. a. d. 750). While proud of the doctrinal immutability thus evidenced, it has not, however, altogether eluded the necessity of producing or adopting or condemning particular confessions and catechisms, and in some sense defining its relation to modern movements of thought both in the Protestant and in the Roman Catholic world.—“A History of Creeds and Confessions of Faith,” William A. Curtis, B. D., D. Litt., pp. 90, 91. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912. HBS 220.1

Greek Church and Roman Compared.—No two churches are so much alike in their creed, polity, and cultus, as the Greek and Roman; and yet no two are such irreconcilable rivals, perhaps for the very reason of their affinity. They agree much more than either agrees with any Protestant church. They were never organically united. They differed from the beginning in nationality, language, and genius, as the ancient Greeks differed from the Romans; yet they grew up together, and stood shoulder to shoulder in the ancient conflict with paganism and heresy. They co-operated in the early ecumenical councils, and adopted their doctrinal and ritual decisions. But the removal of the seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople by Diocletian and Constantine, the development of the papal monarchy in the West, and the establishment of a Western empire in connection with it, laid the foundation of a schism which has never been healed. The controversy culminated in the rivalry between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IV, art. “Eastern Church,” p. 49. HBS 220.2

Greek Church, Efforts for Union with the Latin Church.—Deep-rooted as was the antipathy of the Greeks against the Latins, still the continual approach of destruction with the advance of the Turks compelled the Grecian emperor, John VII, Palaologus, from the year 1430, to try again every means to win assistance from the Latins by means of a union of the churches. The differences between the Pope and the Synod of Basle delayed the arrangement. The emperor at length threw himself into the arms of the Pope, and in 1438 came in person with a great body of bishops into Italy. At the synod, which was opened at Ferrara, but moved in February, 1439, to Florence, for a long time all seemed likely to be lost in an endless controversy; but necessity made the Greeks yielding, and on the 6th July, 1439, they signed the form of union prescribed by the Pope. On the other hand, they now brought back with them disunion into their fatherland: the general indignation caused many of the bishops to revoke their subscription. The great majority of the Greeks who were already living under the Turkish dominion, pronounced decisively against any Latinization. The ill-fated emperor sought so far as he could to maintain the union inviolate, in the vain hope of supporting thereby his tottering throne. But it served rather to hasten than to ward off the inbreak of destruction. HBS 220.3

After the Act of Union with the Greeks there followed at Florence the empty show of a renewed union with the Armenians (1440), the inefficacy of which it was easy to foresee. Then appeared at the Council, which in 1442 was removed to the Lateran, a succession of ambassadors from all the other Oriental churches, in order to obtain for them reconciliation with the Church of Rome by a papal decree. This frivolous scene was evidently intended to win back the public opinion of the Western world to the Pope, by the appearance of a general union of all Christendom under the papal obedience, and to overawe and bring to submission the steadfast adherents of the Council of Basle.—“A Compendium of Ecclesiastical History,” Dr. John C. L. Gieseler, Vol. V, pp. 205-209. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1855. HBS 221.1