Divine Names and Titles

Some of our readers may be aware of the fact that the God of the Hebrew Canon had many names that were used to describe God according to the context of the particular passage in question. From Appendix 4 - "The Divine Names and Titles" of The Companion Bible by Kregel Publishing we find that:

I. Elohim occurs 2,700 times. Its first occurrence connects it with creation, and give it its essential meaning as the Creator. It indicates His relation to mankind as His creatures (see note on 2 Chron. 18:31, where it stands in contrast with Jehovah as indicating covenant relationship). Elohim is God the Son, the living "WORD" with creature form to create (John 1:1. Col. 1:15-17. Rev. 3:14); and later, with human form to redeem (John 1:14). "Begotten of His Father before all worlds; born of His mother, in the world." In this creature form He appeared to the Patriarchs, a form not temporarily assumed. Elohim is indicated (as in A.V.) by ordinary small type, "God". See table on page 7.

II. Jehovah. While Elohim is God as the Creator of all things, Jehovah is the same God in covenant relation to those whom He has created (Cp. 2Chron. 18:31). Jehovah means the Eternal, the Immutable One, He Who WAS, and IS, and IS TO COME. The Divine definition is given in Gen. 21:33. He is especially, therefore, the God of Israel; and the God of those who are redeemed, and are thus now "in Christ". We can say "My God," but not "My Jehovah", for Jehovah is "MY God."

III [my note: other Divine Names are examined in detail in the appendix but I have not included them here due to size considerations.]

Jehovah is indicated (as in A.V.) by small capital letters, "LORD" and by "GOD" when it occurs in combination with Adonai, in which case LORD GOD = Adonai Jehovah. The name Jehovah is combined with ten other words, which form what are known as "the Jehovah Titles." in the Hebrew Canon (Ap. 1). All are noted in the margin, in all their occurrences:--

1. JEHOVAH-JIREH = Jehovah will see, or provide. Gen. 22:14.
2. JEHOVAH-ROPHEKA = Jehovah that healeth thee. Ex. 15:26.
3. JEHOVAH-NISSI = Jehovah my banner. Ex. 17:15.
4. JEHOVAH-MeKADDISHKEM = Jehovah that doth sanctify you. Ex. 31:13. Lev. 20:8; 21:8; 22:32. Ezek. 20:12.
5. JEHOVAH-SHALOM = Jehovah [send] peace. Judg. 6:24.
6. JEHOVAH-ZeBA'OTH = Jehovah of hosts. 1Sam. 1:3, and frequently.
7. JEHOVAH-ZIDKENU = Jehovah our righteousness. Jer. 23:6; 33:16.
8. JEHOVAH-SHAMMAH = Jehovah is there. Ezek. 48:35.
9. JEHOVAH-ELYON = Jehovah most high. Ps. 7:17; 47:2; 97:9.
10. JEHOVAH-RO'I = Jehovah my Shepherd. Ps. 23:1.

We have seven of these, experimentally referred to, in Ps. 23, inasmuch as Jehovah, the "Good," "Great," and "Chief Shepherd," is engaged, in all the perfection of His attributes, on behalf of His sheep:--

In verse 1, we have No. 1 above.
In verse 2, we have No. 5.
In verse 3, we have Nos. 2 and 7.
In verse 4, we have No. 8.
In verse 5, we have Nos. 3 and 4.
[my note: verses 1 and 6 reference No. 10]

1. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
3. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
4. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
6. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

If you look at a transliteration of the Hebrew Canon, you will in fact see the actual Jehovah Titles. In the process of translating the Hebrew text to English, the following "mapping" has been employed and so all of the Divine Names and Jehovah Titles are rendered accordingly.

• God = Elohim.
• GOD = Jehovah (in combination with Adonai, "Lord").
• GOD* = Jehovah in the Primitive Texts, altered by Sopherim to Elohim as the Printed Text. (See Ap. 32.)
• GOD = El.
• GOD (Old English font) = Eloah.
• LORD = Jehovah.
• THE LORD = Jah.
• LORD* = Jehovah in the Primitive Texts, altered by Sopherim to Adonai as in the Printed Text. (See Ap. 32.)
• Lord = Adonai.
• LORD = Adonim.
• ALMIGHTY = Shaddai.
• MOST HIGH = Elyon.

This practice leads to a totally unacceptable, unnecessary, and unfortunate loss of information especially when all ten Jehova Titles are rendered simply as LORD. It's a shame that this has been done as it hides from the reader information about the Personality of Him whom they are reading and the greater concern is that the practice has never been corrected.

Isn't it odd that scholars would spend their lives tediously studying the earliest manuscripts and scrolls to discover what the Word of God has to say to us only to turn around and obfuscate something as fundamentally significant as His Name?

Fortunately The Companion Bible provides the Divine Names and Jehovah Titles in the margin.

Brownshirts at Columbia

This story in the Columbia Spectator suggests to us that freedom of speech at Columbia University takes peculiar forms. Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist was invited to give a speech on the matter of illegal immigration last Wednesday night but was prevented from doing so by the usual suspects on the Left. These thugs know they can't win a debate on the merits of their arguments so they seek to prevail by stifling the opposition. Here's how one protestor defended the action:

"We were aware that there was going to be a sign and we were going to occupy the stage," said a protestor who was on stage and asked to remain anonymous. "I don't feel like we need to apologize or anything. It was fundamentally a part of free speech.... The Minutemen are not a legitimate part of the debate on immigration."

So, a legal organization which has done more to bring the issue of illegal immigration to the nation's attention than perhaps anyone else in the nation, certainly more than the Bush administration whose job it is to secure our borders, is not a "legitimate" part of the debate. Thus these dopes feel justified in silencing their spokesmen. Sounds just like the tactics used by the Nazi brownshirts to pave the way for Adolf Hitler in the early '30s.

See also Powerline's detailed reports on the incident here and here.

Nancy and Harry

Yahoo reports that Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi appears to be very concerned with protecting congressional pages from the likes of Mark Foley:

Not long before sitting down for a lunchtime interview, she turned down a suggestion from Speaker Dennis Hastert that they jointly appoint former FBI Director Louie Freeh to recommend improvements in the page program. "That was about protecting their majority" rather than the pages, she said dismissively.

Instead, she wants to put Hastert and other Republicans under oath and make them say what they knew of Foley's actions, when they learned it and what they did to stop him.

Nancy Pelosi is very concerned about protecting young people from sexual predation by older men, or so she would have us believe. Her concern for young boys, however, doesn't rise to the level of refusing to have anything at all to do with people who promote legalizing sex between men and boys.

For instance, Ms. Pelosi's piety on the issue, one might have thought, would have prevented her from marching in the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade in 2001 almost right next to Harry Hay, an outspoken advocate of man/boy "love".

Hay is the gentleman who once wrote this: "Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."

Lest you think I'm attaching too much significance to Ms Pelosi choosing to march within conversation distance of such a person in the parade, let's imagine some conservative, say, Dick Cheney, who, it is discovered, marched in a "white-pride" parade alongside an outspoken member of the KKK. What do you suppose the media reaction would be? And how credible would the Vice-President, or anyone in an administration of which he was a member, be when it spoke on matters bearing on race relations in America?