Sacred Names, What is God's Name: Appendix 7, Validity of "titles" accepted by pro-names groups

Appendix 7: Validity of "titles"

One pro-names group presents proof of the validity of "Lord", "God" and other "titles".
Condensed from full article at: http://www.r-v.net/search-the-scriptures/titles.html

THE TRUTH REGARDING INSPIRED TITLES
By Elders Dale George and Silvio Soto
Box 1303, St. Thomas, VI 00804-1303

INTRODUCTION
The following treatise is being written with the deepest concern over religious zeal - which once cemented - is almost impossible to change or to correct, even when it is manifestly obvious that the same is built on absolute falsehood. The reader should at all times bear in mind that our intentions are not to judge anyone or to promote any more divisions within our already fragile and fragmented movement.

This treatise should not be considered an attack against the Sacred Name Movement, of which the authors are proud to be an integral part and continue to personally promote and defend. On the contrary, this treatise represents an honest attempt to handle truth with intellectual integrity, hoping that when all is said and done, the cause of the Sacred-Name Movement would prove to have been further vindicated by our humble endeavor. We are, nevertheless, aware that this exercise is not without its inherent dangers.

Religious zeal is an unpredictable phenomenon and it is always easier to attack the messenger than to challenge the message, especially when the quality of the evidence presented is overwhelming and irrefutable. As this is often the most common reaction encountered, it would not be surprising to us if we were to lose respect and popularity in the eyes of many. Religious resentment runs deep and most people (including some leaders) are unwilling to publicly admit error. This attitude represents a formidable barrier which truth must somehow overcome.

However, while painfully aware of these possible adverse reactions to the conclusions presented in this essay, and given that the authors have been fully cognizant of these facts for some years, we find it difficult - in fact impossible - to continue to turn our eyes away in order to keep protecting the PRIDE AND PRESTIGE OF THE STATUS QUO within the very Movement we so dearly love! As ministers of the Most High, we are commanded and indeed expected to be willing to sacrifice ourselves, even when doing so means the possible loss of human admiration and support. Given the history of human behavior (and Sacred-Name believers are no exception), the reader should not be surprised to learn that we are therefore somewhat apprehensive in sharing this information. This is due to our acute conscious recognition that even the Sacred-Name Movement has some religious beliefs deeply cemented in its traditions, which when challenged, leaves the challenger condemned and looked upon with disfavor.
...
OUTLINE OF PART I
I. History of rejected words by the Sacred-Name Movement.
...

3. Two principles developed to forbid the use of certain words.

A. Pagan Connection.

B. Perverted Substitution.

...

II. Crucial flaws of the two principles (point 3 above).

1. Inconsistency of application.

2. Poor linguistic research.

3. Failure to observe that Scripture doesn't follow these principles.

III. Refutation of the "principles" as applied.

1. baal.

A. baal used as a common noun in the Scriptures.

B. baal applied to Yahweh in the Scriptures.

2. adonay.

A. adonay often applied to Yahweh in the Scriptures.

B. adonay is used in Feast related passages.

C. adonay applied to Yahweh by Hosea.

D. adonay is used in numerous Messianic prophecies.

E. adon is used by NT writers.

3. el and elohim.

A. used in reference to Yahweh in the Scriptures.

IV. Conclusions from the Scriptural use of titles.

1. Using these words as common nouns is acceptable.

2. Using these same words as proper nouns (names) in idolatrous worship is sinful.

3. Whatever men may have done with a word, Yahweh may still choose to use it.

4. These titles must be granted to Yahweh and Yahshua as shown in the Scriptures.

PART I
THE ISSUE REGARDING HEBREW TITLES
...
...
3. As a result of all these factors, two Principles were developed by which the usage of certain words were forbidden and discontinued:

A. Principle No. 1: Pagan Connection. Any word demonstrated to have been connected or associated with pagan religious practices or to have been the name of a false deity, must be forbidden and its usage discontinued.

B. Principle No. 2: Perverted Substitution. Any word used by a people or culture to substitute for Yahweh's Name - causing the same to become obscured, forgotten, or disregarded - must be forbidden and its usage discontinued. By employing these "principles," several words were initially singled out as unsuitable for true worshippers. Their discontinuation was mandated by the early Sacred-Name pioneers:

C. Adonay: Rejected for being in violation of principles 1 and 2.

D. Baal: Rejected for being in violation of principles 1 and 2.

E. Amen: Rejected for being in violation of principle No. 1.

F. Lord: Rejected for being in violation of principles 1 and 2. At one time, it was disallowed by arguing a linguistic pagan connection, but as the necessary etymological evidence for this is not conclusive, this charge has been modified by many Sacred Name organizations. Currently, most teach that the pagan connection of the English word Lord consists of the fact that it represents the proper name of the idolatrous Trinitarian deity worshiped by Christianity. Furthermore, it is also argued that Lord is essentially the English equivalent of the Hebrew Baal, and that in like manner, it is unsuitable for true worshipers as it has become a perverted substitution in the English language for the Name of Yahweh.

G. God: Rejected for being in violation of principles 1 and 2. As to its pagan connection, it was argued that the English language derived the name God from the Babylonian deity of fortune. Many still teach this, even though no etymologist can be produced to prove the contention. Others, perhaps realizing the lack of linguistic support for this argument, are satisfied with arguing that God is also part of the proper name of the Christian pagan deity the Lord God, and as such, it must be condemned. In addition, it is argued that the term God has become a perverted substitution in the English language for the Name of Yahweh, making it unacceptable to all true worshipers.

4. Finally, these issues were proclaimed to have an essential bearing on an individual's salvation:

A. Coined phrases were developed and introduced in order to further enhance the persuasiveness of the foregoing arguments. "Baal worship" and "Lord worship" became interchangeable terms.
Christianity became "Pagan Christendom," "Mystery Babylon" or "Churchianity". These phrases helped create the current attitudes characteristic of many Sacred-Name organizations and believers.

B. A crusade exclusively emphasizing the original names of Yahweh and Yahshua was launched. An urgent call for the immediate restoration of the Sacred Name was demanded. All titles or words of adoration, however meaningful and well intended, were declared to be unimportant, so that the Sacred Name became the only focus of attention. Choice passages of Scripture where the Name was exclusively used were alluded to as "proof text" (Prov.18:10, Ps.105:1-3, Is.42:8, Prov.30:4).

C. Selected passages of Scripture where the Sacred Name was isolated and directly applied to man's salvation were also extensively cited (Joel 2:32, Acts 4:12, 15:14-18, 1 Jn.2:12, etc.). This, along with the designation of Christianity as "Mystery Babylon," led to all Christian believers being pronounced hopelessly lost if they did not abandon their religious affiliations (Rev.18:1-4).
II. Crucial flaws regarding the two Sacred-Name principles:

The pagan connection and the perverted substitution principles represent the real issue to be dealt with in this treatise. If a genuine fault can be found with these "principles" (and it is so demonstrated), it would logically follow that any biblical interpretation based on either or both of them would likewise be suspect. Therefore, as truth seekers we are obligated to put these "principles" to a real test. Before beginning to test their validity in a responsible manner, several initial observations are necessary:

1. Inconsistency of application:

The first observation we can make is that the various Sacred-Name organizations have failed to CONSISTENTLY apply the very "principles" that form the foundation of their entire doctrinal position against certain words and titles. It is this inconsistency which make others view our linguistic statements and teachings as unreliable.

We have some organizations that reject only a handful of words (anywhere from 6 to 20 in total). Then you have other organizations whose list of forbidden words actually number in the hundreds. In every organization, leaders employing the two Sacred-Name "principles" pick and choose from the vast pool of corrupted words the ones that they will reject and the ones they will learn to live with. The whole process is based on the personal preference of the leader making the selections (see endnote 1).
The truth of the matter is that it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to fully practice the two "principles"
promoted by the Sacred-Name Movement against certain words and titles. Were we to identify and eliminate EVERY word with an alleged "pagan connection," we would not be left with much of a language, NOR WOULD WE BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE! We can't even solve this problem by suggesting that every believer ought to learn to speak Hebrew, as the very language in which much of the Bible was written has been corrupted and perverted by paganism, idolatry, and humanism (more on this later)! If we are honest and consistent with linguistics facts, WE WILL BE FORCED TO RECOGNIZE THAT AT PRESENT THERE ISN'T A PURE LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD THAT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF THE SACRED NAME MOVEMENT, NOT EVEN HEBREW!

This being the case, we find that there is no real consensus as to how to consistently apply these two "principles," making the process by which some organizations argue against certain words an arbitrary and subjective exercise at best.

2. Poor Linguistic Research:

Sacred-Name linguistic arguments are usually developed and designed to appeal to the individual's conscience and reasoning ability. Admittedly, at first glance they are quite impressive and challenging. What is not immediately noted is that most of these consist primarily of half-truths and are often based on unsubstantiated concepts. We are forced to make this statement because only PARTIAL linguistic facts are ever alluded to by Sacred-Name advocates. The traditional Sacred-Name arguments fail to comply with the burden of proof whenever they are fully explored and tested. Although the manner by which these various linguistic claims were developed was indeed clever, we shall soon demonstrate that the same are in error. When a careful and complete investigation is undertaken, the fallacies of these arguments at once become apparent.

3. Uninspired approach to Scripture:

Perhaps the most amazing irony in this ordeal is the fact that Yahweh and the inspired writers of the Bible do NOT follow these two "principles". Even when Inspiration is zealously contending against idolatry and paganism, the Bible writers do NOT exhibit the disdain against certain words that Sacred-Name believers are known to reject!

III. Refutation of the two Sacred-Name linguistic principles:

The "principles" we have thus far alluded to are characterized as being based on LINGUISTIC facts. They are presented as "evidence" by advocates of the Sacred-Name Movement. They are NOT intended to be the subjective opinions of some. We are on record as proclaiming that these principles are based on "hard facts which no one acquainted with truth can dare deny or challenge!" All this being the case, it follows that a LINGUISTIC REVIEW should be all that is needed in order to test the validity of these two linguistic "principles" and the arguments that led to their formulation.

However, when we apply an ACID TEST to the "unquestionable" and supposedly "factual" evidence cited on behalf of these "principles," we quickly find out that what the Sacred-Name Movement has been stating for several decades regarding certain words - which to date has gone basically unchallenged - is actually false! Consider the following:

1. The truth about BAAL:

The classical Sacred-Name argument against the word baal is based on the assumed premise that baal has NEVER been used by Inspiration in a direct reference to Yahweh. This concept is intended to be a linguistic fact (that is, no matter how much we search the Bible, we would never find a passage of scripture where the word baal is attributed by Inspiration to Yahweh).

To TEST this line of reasoning, all one has to do is conduct a word-study review of the Hebrew Scriptures with the intention of verifying if it is true that the Bible under Inspiration avoids applying the word baal to Yahweh.

When a proper linguistic research is undertaken to determine how Inspiration dealt with the Israelites within their culture and language, we find that while Baal was indeed the name (i.e. a PROPER NOUN) of a false deity whose worship did anger Yahweh, it is ALSO a fact that baal (as a COMMON NOUN) is applied by Yahweh in the Hebrew Scripture!

A. The very first instance in dialogue that baal is utilized in the Hebrew Scriptures, is by Yahweh himself:

(1) Genesis 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, "Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife (baal)."

One of the rules governing biblical interpretation is what scholars term the "Law of First Mention." From a linguistic point of view, this means that the first mention or usage of a word in the Bible usually determines its "primary" meaning. Therefore, all Hebrew lexicons and scholars render the PRIMARY meaning of the common noun BAAL as "owner or possessor," with an extended logical SECONDARY meaning being "husband or married (i.e. one who owns or possesses a wife)." These meanings represent the actual linguistic definition of this HEBREW WORD in its common noun usage! As we are about to see, the way the Old Testament employs the word baal clearly validates these definitions.

B. While most Sacred Name advocates would like to believe that baal was applied in the Bible only to men and to a false Canaanite deity, the Hebrew Scriptures actually disprove this notion. When a full scale investigation is launched, the Hebrew scrolls reveal that Inspiration acknowledged the fact that baal was both a common noun and a proper noun. As a result, the common noun baal IS APPLIED to Yahweh in the following passages:

(1) Nahum 1:2 God is jealous, and Yahweh revengeth; Yahweh revengeth, and is furious (lit.: the baal of fury); Yahweh will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.

It is not always easy to spot the uses of the word baal in the Hebrew Scriptures when reading an English translation. Naturally, Israel would not have experienced this problem since they read the Scripture in their own Hebrew language. We, on the other hand, are quite a different story. Because we depend on an English translation of the Bible, we have failed to realize when the word baal is not transliterated phonetically into English as we would expect. Yet, the reason for this is understandable. Linguistically, a scholar should ONLY TRANSLITERATE PROPER NOUNS, while COMMON NOUNS are always TRANSLATED (except in cases where the receiving language does not have any words that are equivalent or close enough to the idea being conveyed)! The word baal (as is the case for hundreds of other terms) is BOTH a COMMON NOUN and a PROPER NOUN in Hebrew! For this reason, baal as a Hebrew common noun is usually rendered by English Versions as "husband" or "married" (see the other examples cited in this section) or it is left un-translated (as in the above verse where the Hebrew literally reads "Yahweh ... is the baal of fury ...")!

Admittedly, rendering this verse as "Yahweh ... is the husband or possessor of fury" would have been somewhat unnatural. Thus, the King James Version opted to render the TWO Hebrew words as ONE English word: "furious." We find that this rendering has been maintained by all other popular English translations of the Bible we have consulted. And, while some may argue that it is not essential to translate baal into English in this verse, the LINGUISTIC FACT STILL REMAINS that the prophet Nahum under Inspiration DID APPLY to Yahweh the term baal, an act not easily explained by Sacred-Name believers today! Furthermore, if chronologists are right, the book of Nahum was written AFTER the prophetic admonition against Baal recorded by Hosea 2:16-17!

If this was the only instance, perhaps one could argue "foul play." However, we are about to see that there are many more verses which show us that Inspiration didn't hesitate to apply baal as a common noun in connection with Yahweh.

(2) Is. 62:4 Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah and thy land Beulah (baal): for Yahweh delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married (baal).

Another oddity involving the Hebrew word baal is the choice of rendering it as "Beulah" in this passage. This is a total fabrication by the KJV translators, as the Hebrew text does not contain the word "Beulah." There is NO Hebrew word in this text that phonetically comes close to being pronounced "Beulah," even though one gets the impression that the KJV was attempting to transliterate an actual Hebrew word! Furthermore, by translating that the land "will be called Beulah" the intended inspired message is lost to the English reader who could not possibly have a clue as to what Isaiah really meant with Beulah, unless some scholarly work is consulted. Also notice the translator's inconsistency, as this verse employs the term baal twice and the KJV in the first instance employ a unique English fabricated rendering and in the second it chooses to translates baal as "married." The correct thing would have been for the King James Version to have TRANSLATED both instances of baal into English as married, for it is obvious that in this Scripture the common noun baal is intended.

Notwithstanding this clever manipulation by the KJV, the significance of this verse lies in the fact that it is a prophecy of the future! The time will come (during the millennium) when the land of Israel (under Yahshua's supreme rule) WILL BE CALLED in the Hebrew language: BAAL LAND!

(3) Jer. 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith Yahweh; for I am married (baal) unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion. (4) Jer. 31:31-32 Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband (baal) unto them, saith Yahweh.

... What is NOT perceived by Sacred-Name believers is that in MANY of these instances, the Hebrew Scriptures employs the common noun baal in order to describe this HOLY relationship that existed between Yahweh and Israel!
... How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart; Which think to cause My People to forget My name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbor, as their fathers have forgotten My name for BAAL. (Jer.23:26-27)

The impact of this linguistic uncovering is the realization that Jeremiah did NOT know NOR did he ever practice the rejection of words that the Sacred-Name Movement has attributed to him!! Jeremiah's concern about baal's "pagan connection" (principle #1) was not such as to prevent him from employing the word in a POSITIVE sense to Yahweh. Neither did the fact that baal had been used by Israel as a "perverted substitution" (principle #2) of Yahweh's Name prevent the prophet from applying the word to Yahweh when addressing the very Israelites who were practicing idolatry. As far as Jeremiah was concerned (and Inspiration for that matter), Yahweh is the ONE and TRUE BAAL (husband) of Israel.
.... Jeremiah did NOT reject the idolatry of Baal linguistically, but he did so theologically! It was the CONCEPT of a false deity by the name (proper noun) of Baal that Jeremiah spoke against and condemned. He did NOT intend to condemn the mere articulation of the word when it was used as a common noun.

(5) Isaiah 1:3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's (baal) crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.

(6) Is. 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband (baal); Yahweh of Hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; the God of the whole earth shall he be called.

... Certainly Isaiah was very much aware of these linguistic facts, but as he intended a common noun application, it did not prevent him from using the word baal to Yahweh!
...
(1) Is. 54:1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married (baal) wife, saith Yahweh.

(2) Gal. 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry aloud, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband (baal).

It is most significant to observe that ALL of these inspired and sanctioned uses of the word baal took place DESPITE the prevalent pagan worship of the time and of Israel's historical idolatry involving a deity by this very name!!

Therefore, although baal as a PROPER NOUN had already become a word with a notorious pagan connection and a history of injury to Yahweh's personal Name by perverted substitution, these facts did not prevent Inspiration from publicly applying the term as a COMMON NOUN directly to Yahweh, while at the same time condemning the use of the PROPER NOUN Baal!

... Scholars and English translators of the Bible also understand this, which is why as a proper noun Baal is ALWAYS transliterated for us while as a common noun it is ONLY translated.

This is NOT a mere opinion, but a linguistic fact! There is nothing inherently wrong or sinful about the word baal standing by itself. The taboo that we Sacred-Name believers attribute to it is simply NOT biblical.

2. The truth about ADONAY:
...
A. ADONAY is used in reference to Yahweh on numerous occasions:

(1) Neh. 10:29 They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of Yahweh our Lord (adon), and his judgment and his statutes.

(2) Ps. 8:1 O Yahweh our Lord (adon), how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.

(3) Ps. 97:5 The hills melted like wax at the presence of Yahweh, at the presence of the Lord (adon) of the whole earth.

(4) Ps. 114:7 Tremble, thou earth, at the presence of the Lord (adon), at the presence of the Elohim of Jacob.

(5) Is. 1:24 Therefore saith the Lord (adon), Yahweh of Host, the mighty One of Israel, "Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies."

(6) Eze.38:14 Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say unto Gog, "Thus saith the Lord (adonay) Yahweh; 'In the that day when my people of Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it?'"

(7) Zech. 4:14, 6:5 Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord (adon) of the whole earth.
And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord (adon) of all the earth. [Observe that in this verse an angel is the one that refers to Yahweh by the title ADON!]

(8) Gen. 15:2,8 And Abram said, Lord (Adonay) Yahweh, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this E-li-e-zer of Da-mas'cus? And he said, Lord (Adonay) Yahweh, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?

The prevailing general belief has been that it was rebellious Israel who adapted the "heathen" word adonay as a perverted substitution of the Divine Name. With so much emphasis in this area, it is understandable why so many in the Movement are under the impression that the word adonay does not actually appear in the Bible. Therefore, it is disturbing to many to see it demonstrated that on numerous occasions (about 400 times) adonay is used in connection with Yahweh (and more especially, in connection with prophecies involving Yahshua).

The early Sacred-Name pioneers were so adamant in their sentiments against this word, that when Elder A. B. Traina's revision of the King James Bible was published, it literally removed adonay wherever it appeared in the Old Testament manuscript, substituting it with "King," "Savior," and in some instances with the expression "Yah-Yahweh." In doing so, they bestowed upon themselves an authority _ that no man has ever been given _ and proceeded to CHANGE Scripture and to REMOVE from the Bible those words that in "their personal, subjective judgment" should not be there.

Despite the genuine and sincere motives for these changes, in reality no justification could ever be given for what can only be characterized as sacrilege. Not only was the inspired word of Yahweh altered, but in so doing it helped to perpetuate a fallacy that would see Yahweh and Yahshua destitute of some of the most significant titles Inspiration ascribes to them. After all, the whole Bible _ titles and all _ is inspired, not just the name of Yahweh.

In light of the fact that we in the Sacred-Name Movement take a hard-party line approach against those scholars who have removed the Name of Yahweh from the Bible, by what rationale can we now justify incurring in the same deplorable act? We have charged others for being the "Lying pens of the scribes" who have "falsified the word of Yahweh!" Yet, we act as if it is acceptable to Inspiration if WE remove words from Scripture, but NOT if ANYONE ELSE does so.

We have NOT been granted any special privileges that we should dare to take it upon ourselves to alter and change the actual Hebrew words which Inspiration employed! The only way we could ever justify doing so would be if we were to definitely prove that the Hebrew scrolls contain textual corruption. And, although modern liberal scholars (with their obvious humanistic prejudices) have stated and taught that the Hebrew scrolls are full of historical and textual inaccuracies (and tampering), these claims are based on theories and presuppositions designed to deny the Inspiration of Scripture.Therefore, it is understandable when linguists and scholars continuously claim that Israel borrowed or adopted much of their religious beliefs, terminology, and practices from other ancient cultures, as these scholars ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt to the Egyptian, Babylonian, and Canaanite cultures and languages than to Israel or the Hebrew language!! What else could we then expect them to say?

As we continue with this review, we shall demonstrate that the title adonay (in its common noun usage) is not only an ACCEPTABLE term to Inspiration, it is in fact a MANDATED term that Scripture commanded Israel to use!! We shall also see that the theological concept conveyed by the manner Inspiration used the word adonay is as VITAL to our salvation as the Name of Yahshua!

B. The title adonay plays a role in Yahweh's Feast Days:

(1) Ex. 23:17 Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord (adon) Yahweh.

(2) Neh. 8:10 Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord (adon): neither be ye sorry; for the joy of Yahweh is your strength.

... We have failed to see the inspired connection that exists between the Hebrew title adon and Yahweh's appointed Festivals.

Inspiration explicitly commands that all men are to appear before "adon Yahweh" three times a year (during the Festivals of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost and Tabernacles). These prophetic Festivals are linguistically associated NOT merely to the name of Yahweh, but to the Hebrew title AS WELL: hence, adon Yahweh! This means that these Festivals are intended to remind us of the fact that Yahweh is the ONLY true adon - a common noun meaning Sovereign Ruler - of mankind and earth!

This explains why in Nehemiah 10:29 (cited earlier), the children of Israel - who are returning from captivity and PAGANISM - are led into pledging a vow of loyalty to Yahweh, "the adon of the earth!" We see that in the first Feast of Tabernacles that Nehemiah celebrated with Israel (8:10), the association between Tabernacles and adon is preserved for us by Inspiration. It also serves to accentuate the fact that the men of Yahweh in antiquity understood the relevance of preserving Yahweh's holy titles. This is NO mere coincidence! During these Festivals, Yahweh was not interested in Israel appearing before him while merely recognizing that his Name is Yahweh. He commanded that his people appear before him recognizing him as adon Yahweh! His divine desire was for Israel to show that they were aware of both the Creator's Name and his SOVEREIGNTY over their lives!

Therefore, the THEOLOGICAL CONCEPT conveyed by the Hebrew title adon is essential to Inspiration and faithful Israel certainly understood this to be true. When Inspiration consistently associates a title to Yahweh's Name, we cannot argue that Yahweh's Name is all we need! ... we must guard ourselves never to take a more puritan approach than Yahweh himself requires. Titles are used for divine purposes and no amount of perversion by men or Satan will ever change this fact! We are not at liberty to rewrite the Bible. Neither are men or devils invested with the power or the authority to rob the Almighty of his language.

Names Index / Next