They are nouns by which entities are identified. The
Bible is the main source for the proper names of ancient Israel. Biblical
narratives preserve a wide variety of personal and geographical names (pns and gns, respectively). These are augmented by geographical and
genealogical lists in early and late sources which, when handled critically,
can provide much accurate information.
Another valuable
source of Israelite proper names is the corpus of ancient Israelite
inscriptions, preserving hundreds of names, some not attested in the Bible.
Most important for the ot period
are the ostraca and stamp seals. An increasing number of names from the
intertestamental and nt periods
are being discovered in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek inscriptions on seals,
tombs, ossuaries, ostraca, and papyrus documents. These augment the names
attested in the nt and
contemporary Jewish writings. Israelite pns
and gns are also sporadically
attested in non-Israelite ancient Near Eastern inscriptions.
Productive
comparative study is possible due to the large quantity of proper names
available in ancient Semitic languages related to Hebrew, such as Eblaite,
Amorite, Ugaritic, Phoenician, Ammonite, Moabite, Edomite, Aramaic, and later
Arabian dialects. Akkadian (Semitic) and Egyptian names, although preserved in
great numbers, are less similar in style and form, but along with names in
Hurrian, Hittite, Persian, and later Greek and Latin sources, they have proven
beneficial in understanding difficult and foreign names in the Bible.
Personal Names: The majority of Israelite names, and ancient
Semitic names in general, had a readily understandable meaning. That parents
consciously chose a child’s name is implied by the content of these names, many
of which are translatable sentences.
Compound names,
usually consisting of two elements, are attested in a variety of grammatical
constructions, especially statements, which occur in nominal, adjectival, and
verbal forms. Interrogative and imperative constructions are infrequent. Most
compound pns are theophoric,
containing a divine name (dn) or
title. The most common dn in
Israelite pns was Yahweh (Jehovah
is an anglicized, hybrid form of this), appearing as Jo-/Jehoor -iah/-jah. The
next most attested element was the generic el, meaning ‘god’ (El was
also the dn of the head of the
Canaanite pantheon). Titles such as adon (‘lord’), baal
(‘master,’ also a Canaanite dn), melek
(‘king’), zur (‘rock’) as well as kinship terms like ab
(‘father’), ah (‘brother’), and am (‘kinsman/[paternal] uncle’)
were sometimes used instead of a dn.
Confusion can arise, however, regarding elements used both generically and as dns, such as baal, el, and
several others; or with kinship terms, which might be associated with a
deceased relative rather than a deity.
Different types of
compound pns include: names
expressing parents’ recognition of divine assistance, such as Mattaniah (‘gift of Yahweh’), Elnathan/Nathanael
(‘God has given [this child]’), and Shemaiah (‘Yahweh has heard [the parents’ prayer]’);
names expressing parental desires for the child, such as Jeberechiah (‘may
Yahweh bless [this child]’), Ezekiel (‘may God strengthen [this child]’), and
Jehiel (‘may God preserve [this child]’); names expressing parents’
convictions, such as Elijah/Joel (‘Yahweh is [my] God’), Uzziel (‘God is my
strength’), Adoniram (‘my lord is exalted’), and Ahimelek (‘my [divine] brother
is king’); and names reflecting circumstances at the child’s birth, such as
Ben-oni (‘son of my sorrow,’ Gen. 35:16-20), and Ichabod (‘where is the glory?’
1 Sam. 4:19-22). Names like Menachem (‘comforter’) and Eliashub (‘God
restores’) may suggest that a newborn was regarded as a substitute for a
deceased family member.
The elements of a
compound name could also be employed singly, making a shortened, or
hypocoristic form, as in Mattan, Nathan, Uzzi, and so on. There were other
types of simple or one-element pns
too. Some were originally animal or plant names like Caleb (‘dog’), Deborah
(‘bee’), Jonah (‘dove’), Tamar (‘palm tree’), and Allon (‘oak’). Others
reflected circumstances at birth, such as Haggai (‘[born on] a festival day’)
and Becorath (‘firstborn’); physical characteristics, like Zuar (‘little one’)
and Laban (‘white [fair-skinned]’); or qualities hoped for, as in Amon
(‘reliable’). Evidence available from the nt
and contemporary Jewish writings indicates that these types of simple and
compound pns continued in use,
but with a trend towards hypocoristic forms of the latter. There was also a
greater tendency toward adopting a foreign name or a name showing foreign
influence.
Geographical
Names: Although many of the
features discussed in relation to pns
apply to gns as well, gns are in certain ways more difficult
to treat. Some are very old and their meanings are obscure (true of a few pns too). Also, many of the names of
cities, rivers, and mountains preserved in the Bible, Semitic for the most
part, were in existence before the Israelites entered Canaan and were merely
adopted by them, as with Jerusalem, Megiddo, Mt. Hermon, and the Jordan River.
Other gns were changed by the
Israelites, as in the case of Laish becoming Dan (Judg. 18:29), while new sites
received new gns. Inferences from
biblical gns concerning Israelite
religion are limited since Israelite gns
follow the basic typology of pre-Israelite Caananite gns, making it impossible to discern whether many names were
Israelite creations or merely adoptions. The nt
similarly reflects the continuation of many gns,
the replacement of others, such as Herod’s renaming of Samaria as Sebaste, and
the formation of new ones. It is possible to trace many of these ancient gns into Arabic forms today.
As with pns, gns
of both simple and compound form existed. However ‘sentence’ gns are attested in the Bible
infrequently, as are theophoric gns.
Examples of the latter include Beth-el (‘house/temple of God/El’), Beth-dagon
(‘house/temple of Dagon’), and Baal Hazor (‘lord/Baal of Hazor’; this latter
type was usually short for a fuller form with ‘beth’ in the first position).
‘Beth,’ with the meaning ‘house/place,’ also occurred in nontheophoric gns, as in Beth-marcaboth (‘house/place
of chariots’) and Bethlehem (‘house/place of bread/food’). Other compound gns contain an element referring to the
environment, such as beer (‘well’), as in Beer-sheba; en
(‘spring’) as in En-gedi; abel (‘meadow’) as in Abel-meholah; and emeq
(‘valley’) as in Beth-emeq.
Many simple gns also referred to natural features,
including Ramah and Ramoth (‘height[s]’), Gibeah and Gibeon (‘hill’), Horeb and
Negeb (‘dry’). Names based on structures include Mizpah (‘watchtower’), Succoth
(‘booths’), Geder (‘wall/enclosure’), and Gath (‘wine press’).
gns were also named
after people, as with Nobah (Num. 32:42) and Dan (Judg. 18:29), or in relation
to an event, as with Bochim (‘weepers,’ Judg. 2:4-5) and Ebenezer (‘stone of
help,’ 1 Sam. 7:12). Plant and animal names were employed as gns too, such as Tamar (‘palm tree’),
Shimir (‘thorn’), En-rimmon (‘spring of the pomegranate’), Ephron (‘gazelle’),
Akrabbim (‘scorpions’), and En-gedi (‘spring of the goat’).
Value of Names: The value of these ancient names for
biblical studies is found in the variety of cultural clues they provide. For
example, theophoric pns indicate
which deities were important to various societies in the polytheistic ancient
Near East. The majority of Israelite theophoric pns contained either a form of the dn Yahweh, or to a somewhat lesser extent, the generic term el.
Names of Israelites in the Bible living between the Exodus and the Babylonian
exile (thirteenth through early sixth centuries b.c., excluding those whose sole attestation occurs in
Chronicles, Ezra, or Nehemiah), reveal that only a small percentage of the
population of ancient Israel had pns
containing a foreign dn, even
during times of proclaimed apostasy. pns
in Israelite epigraphic sources corroborate this point with similar evidence.
Theophoric pns are also a valuable guide to
qualities associated with a given deity. pns
containing the dn Yahweh depict
him as: strong, glorious, noble, righteous, gracious; king, father, brother,
light; someone who creates, gives, strengthens, remembers, knows, blesses,
protects, saves, judges, restores, and so on.
Name studies help
chart various cultural trends, such as: preferred grammatical forms of names in
different periods; similar categories of gns
used by pre-Israelite Canaanites and Israelites; the small number of theophoric
pns attested for women in the
Bible; more frequent use of kinship terms and certain divine titles in pns through the time of the United
Monarchy (ca. 1004-926 b.c.);
fads in the popularity of some pns;
the increased foreign influence on names by the nt period; and the increased practice of papponymy, naming a
child after its grandfather. Papponymy was part of a growing tendency evident
from the Persian period (late sixth century b.c.)
onward, to select pns previously
borne by relatives or well-known biblical characters, rather than ones that
‘meant’ something.
The use of
patronyms, common among ancient Semites, is amply attested in the Bible and in
Israelite inscriptions. Well-known biblical examples include Joshua the son of
Nun and Simon Bar-Jona (‘son of Jonah’). Other forms of identification included
gns, as in Goliath of Gath and
Jesus of Nazareth, and professions, as in Simon the tanner and Shimshai the
scribe.
The Bible also
illustrates the significance and power associated with certain names and with
the act of naming. Obedient Israelites would be ‘called by the name of the
Lord’ (Deut. 28:10). God’s messengers spoke in God’s name (2 Sam. 12:7; Acts
4:18). Representatives of a human authority similarly spoke in his name (1 Sam.
25:5; Esther 3:12). Changing another’s name displayed the power of the changer
and the allegiance owed by the one whose name was changed. Names changed by God
include Abram, changed to Abraham (Gen. 17:5); Sarai, to Sarah (Gen. 17:15);
and Jacob, to Israel (Gen. 32:28). According to Mark 3:16 Jesus gave the name
Peter (Gk., ‘rock-like’) to Simon. pns
changed by a human authority include Eliakim, to Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34);
Mattaniah, to Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17); and Daniel, to Belteshazzar (Dan. 1:6,
7).
Names
of God in the Old Testament.
The names, titles, and metaphors for God in
the ot reflect Israel’s setting in
the ancient Near East, the theological richness of ot traditions, and the social contexts that shaped religious
life. What unites the many appellations, which are a central feature of
Israel’s dynamic religion, is not monotheism in a strict sense. While there
were pre-exilic trajectories such as the emerging wisdom tradition in which
monotheistic tendencies were present, the articulation of the existence of one
God found clear expression for the first time in Second Isaiah during the
crisis of the exile (sixth century b.c.).
Yet even before the exile, Israelites believed that the God who had encountered
them and shaped their destiny demanded their undivided devotion and loyalty. It
was this conviction that led ot
theologians (priests, prophets, court historians, and sages) to transform the
variety of appellations and their religious traditions into descriptions of the
God of Israel.
The
Personal Name for God:
In the ancient
Near East, great significance was attached to personal names, for they revealed
character and identity and signified existence. The revelation of a divine name
and its continued use were of substantial importance for a people.
Yahweh. The most important name for God in the ot is the tetragrammaton YHWH (occurs
about 6,800 times), usually pronounced ‘Yahweh,’ though the known pronunciation
was lost in the postexilic period. Due to the increasing sanctity attached to
the name and the consequent desire to avoid misuse, the title ¯Adonai
(Heb., ‘My Great Lord’) was pronounced in place of the tetragrammaton. In
written texts the vowels of ¯Adonai were combined with the consonants
YHWH to remind readers to pronounce ¯Adonai instead of Yahweh. The
incorrect hybrid, ‘Jehovah,’ arose from Christian misunderstanding in the late
Middle Ages. The respect for the sanctity of the personal name of God is
reflected in modern Judaism.
The origin of the
name Yahweh (usually translated ‘Lord’
in English Bibles) remains uncertain. Even the biblical sources are divided at
this point. The Yahwist (J) traces the revelation of the name Yahweh to
the primeval period (Gen. 4:26), while the Priestly Source (P) honors
Moses as the first to know this name (Exod. 6:2-3). The meaning of the name
most probably derives from the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb ‘to be.’ In
Exod. 3:14 (the Elohist Source, E,), God responds to Moses’question
about his identity with the ambiguous statement, ‘I am who [what] I am,’ or ‘I
will be who [what] I will be.’ In E’s connection of the name with the
Hebrew Qal (simple) stem of the ‘to be’ verb, the meaning appears to connote
divine mystery (cf. Gen. 32:22-32) and freedom. A variation of this same
interpretation understood the name to signify God’s presence. Another
interpretation connects Yahweh with the Hebrew Hiphil (causative) verbal stem
and thus understands God’s name to mean: ‘He causes to be what exists
[happens]’; i.e., Yahweh is creator and ruler of history. It is this latter
meaning that is more likely. Through Israel’s encounter with God in nature and
history, faith in God as the one who created the world, shaped human destiny,
and elected Israel to be the covenant people was actualized. Each pronouncement
of the name Yahweh was a succinct expression of this faith.
Yahweh Sabaoth. This compound name, ‘Lord of Hosts,’ which
occurs 279 times in the ot,
depicts God as the commander of armies. Originating in holy war, the expression
became a polemic against astral cults: Yahweh rules the heavenly armies. The
name was eventually understood as a plural of intensity, ‘Lord Almighty,’ thus
neutralizing the existence of the celestial gods. The Septuagint (lxx) translates this name ‘Lord
Almighty.’
Generic
Names for God :
Elohim. Occurring about twenty-five hundred times in
the ot, Elohim is one of three
common generic names for deity in the ot.
The term is plural and on occasion means ‘gods’ (e.g., Exod. 20:3), but most
often it is a plural of majesty for Israel’s ‘God’ (e.g., Gen. 1:1). Unlike the
term El, Elohim is not found in other Semitic languages. While originally
possessing polytheistic associations, Israelite theologians transformed the
meaning of the term and used it to refer to God. While the name was used in
most traditions, periods, and regions, it was especially favored in Northern
Israel.
Eloah. The second generic name for deity in the ot is Eloah (Heb., ‘God’), though it is
found only fifty-seven times, the great majority of which occur in Job. The
poet of Job may have used this generic word for God to avoid the specific
Israelite conceptions of covenant and salvation history associated with the
name Yahweh. Job, a part of wisdom literature, prefers to speak of the
universal dominion of creation theology.
El. Occurring more than two hundred times in the
ot (including compounds), El
(Heb., ‘god’) is the common Semitic name for deity in ancient Near Eastern
cultures. Every divine being was properly designated by this generic name. El
is also the name of the head of the pantheon of Ugarit, however. As creator and
father of the gods, El possessed the authority of the divine decree that
ordered the world of gods and humans. Polytheism and the worship of El were
major components of both Canaanite and Israel’s ancestral religions. In the
settlement of Canaan, the tribes of Israel began to assimilate Canaanite
religious centers and associate those religious traditions with Yahweh, the one
who liberated them from Egypt.
El Shaddai. According to P (Exod. 6:3), El
Shaddai (Heb., ‘God, the One of the Mountain[s]’) was worshiped by the
patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In the mythologies of the ancient Near
East, gods often resided on a cosmic mountain that was the center of the earth.
Shaddai came to be identified with El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, and
then with Yahweh (Exod. 6:3; Ezek. 1:24). The lxx
translated Shaddai ‘Almighty.’ Thus many English Bibles translate El Shaddai as
‘God Almighty.’
El Elyon. El Elyon (Heb., ‘God Most High’), originally
a compound for the high god El, was worshiped in Jerusalem before David’s
conquest (ca. 1000 b.c.). In
Genesis 14, Melchizedek is the priest-king of Jerusalem who blesses Abraham in
the name of ‘God Most High, Maker of Heaven and Earth,’ the ‘God who gave
Abraham’s enemies into his power. In J’s rendition of this story, El
Elyon is identified with Yahweh. After the Israelite takeover of Jerusalem, the
El Elyon tradition is associated with Yahweh (Ps. 47:2-3).
El Olam. El Olam (Heb., ‘God of Eternity’) was the
Canaanite god of Beersheba. After this religious center was incorporated into
Israelite religion, the title came to designate Yahweh (Gen. 21:33).
El Berith. El Berith (Heb., ‘God of the Covenant’) was
the Canaanite god of Shechem (Judg. 9:46). In Joshua 24 the Deuteronomic
historians placed the covenant renewal ceremony at Shechem following the conquest
of Canaan. In the D history the covenant became the basis for the tribal
league during the period of the Judges (eleventh century b.c.).
El Roi. El Roi (Heb., ‘The God of
Seeing/Divination’) was a localized deity of a sacred spring (Beer-la-hai-roi)
whose water sustained Hagar in the desert and inspired her to see a divine
vision (Gen. 16:13-14). J connects this story with Yahweh, who promises
Hagar a son (Ishmael) who will have many descendants.
In summary, the
local Canaanite gods and El, the head of the pantheon, were worshiped in
sanctuaries eventually taken over by Israel. Canaanite religious traditions
were eventually applied to Yahweh. In this theological process, Yahweh, the God
of liberation from Egyptian slavery, merged with Canaanite gods, including the
high god El, who legitimated a stratified social system of city-states ruled by
local dynasts. This combination provided the critical tension that
characterized Israelite religious expression throughout the ot.
Social
Titles for God:
The changing
social constructions of Israel also provided important titles for God.
¯Adonai.
¯Adonai (Heb., ‘My Great Lord’) is a plural of majesty derived from the
singular Adon (Heb., ‘lord’), a title of respect used to address a social
superior (e.g., king, husband, slave owner). In the postexilic period, ¯Adonai
came to replace the name Yahweh in common worship because of the increasing
sanctity associated with the latter name (e.g., Job 28:28).
Baal. Baal (Heb., ‘lord’) is a title designating a
social superior (e.g., leader, owner, husband). In Canaanite religion, Baal is
the name of the storm god of fertility who brought rain and military victory.
This god rivaled Yahweh for Israel’s devotion, as especially noted in prophetic
literature (e.g., Hosea). While certain theomorphic names may indicate that
some Israelites identified Baal with Yahweh (e.g., Meribbaal, the son of
Jonathan), the term was generally avoided because of strong pagan associations
(cf. Hos. 2:16-17).
Royal Titles. The political matrix of Israel and other
ancient Near Eastern cultures provided a host of titles and images for God.
Among the more important are royal titles: king (Ps. 95:3), judge (Gen. 18:25),
and shepherd (Ps. 23). These titles signified God’s position and function as ruler
over Israel.
Family Titles. Other important titles derived from the
Israelite family, including father (Deut. 32:6), brother (Ahijah: Heb.,
‘brother of Yahweh,’ 1 Sam. 14:3), kinsman (‘kinsman [fear] of Isaac,’ Gen.
31:42), and redeemer (Ps. 19:14). These titles may have originated in
patriarchal religion where the personal deity of the head of the clan became
the protector of the group (‘The God of My Father,’ Exod. 3:6). The ‘redeemer’
was the next of kin responsible for delivering the relative from hard times
(Lev. 25:25). While God is not explicitly called ‘mother’ or ‘sister,’ the ot does use female images to speak of
God. God is depicted as mother who conceives, bears, and gives birth to Israel
(Num. 11:12; Deut. 32:18) and as midwife (Ps. 22:9-10). These images
demonstrate that the ot does not
limit and confine God to the masculine gender.
Names
of God in the New Testament.
The names used by nt authors to refer to God reflect the fact that the nt was written in a Greek-speaking
culture primarily on the basis of a tradition and terminology inherited from
the ot and Judaism as mediated by
the Septuagint (lxx). This
tradition was significantly modified both by the early church’s understanding
of the teaching of Jesus and by its understanding of the person of Jesus as the
definitive expression of God.
God: The most common word for God in the nt (1,318 times) is the Greek word theos
(‘god’), used often by the lxx
(more than 4,000 times) primarily as the translation of the usual Hebrew word
for God, elohim. This word was also used by the lxx for the pagan gods, just as it was the standard word for
the gods of the Greeks and Romans of nt
times. Although the nt writers
sometimes use ‘god’ for the pagan gods (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:5) and on rare occasions
apparently apply it theologically to the glorified Christ (e.g., John 20:28),
the vast majority of cases refers to the God revealed in the history of Israel
and in the person of Jesus. Thus, ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’
is a frequent designation (e.g., Rom. 15:6).
Lord: In the ot,
the chief title and representative name for God was the individual and personal
name ‘Yahweh,’ translated kyrios (Gk., ‘Lord’) in the lxx and ‘the Lord‘ by several English versions. This name was used by ot authors more than 6,000 times,
compared to about 2,500 times for elohim, ‘God.’ The nt continues to use ‘Lord’ for God
(about 100 times), primarily in quotations from the lxx (e.g., Mark 1:3; 12:11; Acts 2:34) and in set phrases
such as ‘hand of the Lord’ (Luke 1:66). The vast majority of the 719
occurrences of kyrios (‘Lord’) in the nt
refers to Jesus, however, usually as the exalted Christ (e.g., Acts 2:36; John
20:28). Thus, the two most common ot
names for deity, ‘God’ and ‘Lord,’ are used in the nt not only for God but also (though rarely in the case of
the word ‘God’) for Jesus as the exalted Lord of the church’s faith. A much
less common word for ‘Lord’ in the lxx,
despoteµs (Gk., ‘lord,’ ‘sovereign,’ ‘master’) is also
used in the nt both for God (Luke
2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10) and for Christ (Jude 4; 2 Pet. 2:1).
Father: The common ancient Near Eastern idea that
the deity is the father of the clan or nation was appropriated sparingly by
Israel, which understood it in an adoptive, not biological, sense (Exod.
4:22-23; Hos. 11:1-4). Although ‘Father’ never became a common name for God in
the ot, it was used more freely
in the later ot period (e.g.,
Isa. 63:16) and especially in post-ot
Judaism. ‘Father’ was also a common name for deity among the Greeks, being
applied to Zeus, for example, not only because of his rulership among the gods,
but because of his love and care. This general designation of God as ‘Father’
is found only rarely in the nt:
e.g., Heb. 12:9 (‘Father of spirits’) and James 1:17 (‘Father of lights,’ i.e.,
the heavenly bodies).
It was the person
and teaching of Jesus that played the formative role in the nt’s language about God as ‘Father.’
For Jesus, ‘Father’ was the principal and most frequent designation for God. He
used not only the common Jewish ‘our [or your] Father’ (e.g., Matt. 5:45; 6:9)
but also the intimate family word for ‘father’ in his native Aramaic language, abba,
which was also appropriated in the later liturgical practice of the church
(Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Not only did the concept of God as ‘Father’
express the personal relationship to God affirmed by Jesus and the church
(e.g., Matt. 11:25-27), but in that cultural setting the term included
especially the connotations of obedience, agency, and inheritance. Those who
address God as ‘Father’ acknowledge God as the one to whom absolute obedience
is due (Matt. 7:21; 26:42) and themselves as the agents who represent God and
through whom God works (Matt. 11:25-27; John 10:32) and as God’s heirs (Rom.
8:16-17).
‘The God of the
Fathers’: This significant ot title for God, as well as the more
particular phrase of the same meaning, ‘the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,’
is found in the nt only in two
Gospels (Mark 12:26; Matt. 22:32) and in the book of Acts. As in the ot, it emphasizes the continuity of
Israel and the church’s faith, that the God of present experience is the same
as the God revealed to the ancient patriarchs. Luke-Acts, which is especially
interested in pointing out this continuity, thus uses the title four times
(Acts 3:13; 5:30; 7:32; 22:14). In Paul and the literature dependent upon him,
this title is replaced by ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Rom.
15:6; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3, 17; Col. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3).
The
Almighty: The lxx had translated two of the Hebrew
expressions for God in the ot,
which probably meant ‘God, the one of the mountains’ (rsv: ‘God Almighty’) and ‘Yahweh of Hosts,’ with the more
philosophical and formal
(Gk., ‘Almighty’), which the Greeks had
also used for their gods. Jesus and the nt
authors seem to avoid this appellation, which is found only in 2 Cor. 6:18 and
nine times in Revelation, mostly in self-designations of God or in ascriptions
of praise in a liturgical context.
Alpha
and Omega: These are the first
and last letters of the Greek alphabet and thus represent God as the Beginning
and the End, the source and goal of all creation, and thus the only God.
The phrase itself is not found in the ot,
but the basic formula from which it is derived is found in Isa. 44:6 and 48:12.
In the nt, only the author of
Revelation uses this name for God (1:8; 21:6); he also applies it explicitly to
Jesus Christ (22:13; cf. 1:17; 2:8).
The
Holy One: This ot title for God, especially in Isaiah,
explicitly refers to God only once in the nt
(Rev. 16:5). It is used of Jesus in Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; and John 6:69. In 1
John 2:20, the reference may be either to God or to the exalted Christ.
General
Terms: The common impersonal
words for ‘deity’ in Greek are absent from those lxx books that are derived from the Hebrew canon of the ot and appear only once in the
remainder of the lxx (Wisd. of
Sol. 18:9). Correspondingly, ‘Deity’ as a term for God is found in the nt only in Paul’s address to the
Athenians in Acts 17:29, and in Col. 2:9.
The line between
explicit names for God and more general designations is sometimes difficult to
draw. Among the more common general designations used in the ot that are adopted in significant ways
by nt authors are ‘King’ (e.g.,
Matt. 5:35; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15), ‘Judge’ (e.g., John 8:50; Heb. 12:23), and
‘Savior’ (e.g., Luke 1:47; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10), all of which are applied
more frequently to Jesus Christ than to God.
In the nt period, many Jews expressed their
reverence for the explicit names for God by substituting periphrastic ways of
speaking of God. This practice is reflected to some extent in the nt, especially in the sayings of Jesus
(though Jesus did not hesitate to make use of explicit names for God). Among
such periphrastic and reverential terms for God are ‘the Blessed’ (Mark 14:61),
‘Power’ (Mark 14:62), ‘Heaven’ (Luke 15:18 and often in the Matthean phrase
‘Kingdom of Heaven’ as a substitute for ‘Kingdom of God’), and the ‘Majestic
Glory’ (2 Pet. 1:17). In addition, God is sometimes referred to by using the
passive voice (the so-called ‘divine passive,’ e.g.,
e.g., Matt. 5:4, 6,
7, 9) and the impersonal ‘they’ (e.g., Luke 16:9; also Luke 6:38; 12:20; and
12:48 are such in Greek but not in the English translation).
NAME
The Bible is no stranger to the custom, now
virtually normative, of giving a name simply because it appeals to the parents.
What else is likely to lie behind calling a little girl Deborah (meaning ‘bee’,
Jdg. 4:4) or Esther (Heb. =
‘myrtle’)? Even in cases where it offers some high-sounding, moralistic or
religious sentiment, it would run beyond the evidence to assume without
question that the name was conferred with that thought in mind rather than that
the parents were indulging a preference for that rather than any other label.
One can, for example, weave sad fancies round a name like Ahikam (‘my brother
has risen’) as indicating a tragic earlier bereavement in the family which the
subsequent birth of another son was seen to rectify, but Ahikam is a pleasant-sounding
name and in default of evidence to the contrary may well have been chosen for
no better reason.
Nevertheless,
while we can be too high-minded in our approach to names and naming in the
Bible, there is no question but that there is, throughout, a conceptual
background which was often given full play in the conferring of a name and
which, even if it seemed to have no part (or none that we know) in the original
naming yet in later life asserted its claim on the person concerned. Thus, for
example, whereas Isaiah named his two sons with deliberation so that they would
embody certain aspects of the word of God to his people (Is. 7:4; 8:1-4) his
own name (‘Yahweh saves’), as we should have to say, ‘by coincidence’, could
not have been bettered as the name for this prophet above all. The Bible’s view
of names and naming would be offended by the idea of a mere coincidence or
accident of parental choice: the link it sees between name and person is both
too close and also too dynamic for that.
The general
evidence dispersed throughout the Bible would insist that it is no coincidence
that the great prophet of salvation is called by a theophoric name on the
salvation theme. It would see the directive providence of God determining
beforehand the whole course of the life; it would probably more typically see
the name as embodying a word of God which would henceforth mould its recipient
into the man whose life would express what the word declared. This, at any
rate, is the dynamic view of names and naming which runs throughout Scripture
and which differs so dramatically from our static view of a name as a
differentiating label.
The following
seven categories cover most of the dynamic name-giving situations: a. The
status-name. Of his new-found wife, the man said that she would be called
‘Woman’, thus according to her a co-equal (or, better, counterpart) status with
her husband: In general in the Bible name-giving is an authority function: the
imposition of the name ‘Man’ on the couple by their Creator (Gn. 5:2), the
giving of animal names by the man, in his capacity as creation’s lord (Gn.
2:19f.), the naming of children by parents (by the mother on 28 and by the
father on 18 occasions), the naming of a conquered king (2 Ki. 23:34), etc.
But in Gn. 2:23 the ‘man’ acknowledges his complementary equal, the one who,
with him, shares the God-given dominion of the world (Gn. 1:28ff.).
b. The
occasion-name. The birth of
her first-born is to Eve the significant moment of the fulfilling of the
promise of a victorious seed; therefore ‘along with Yahweh’ as she said (Gn.
4:1)—he, fulfilling his promise, she bringing forth a child—she ‘gained
possession’ (verb) of a child whom she therefore called ‘Cain’.
c. The
event-name. Sometimes names
encapsulate a whole situation: e.g. Babel (Gn. 11:9) or Peleg (Gn.
10:25). Both these namings have the same quality, but we can see what was afoot
more clearly in the fully-documented case of Babel: the name was in effect a
word of God. Men had already discerned in themselves a tendency to separate or
scatter (11:4) and they purposed by their technological advance (v. 3) to be
their own saviours in this regard. The divine edict goes forth against man’s
confidence that his own cleverness can save him, and the word which imposes
judicially on the human race the disability which it feared (v. 8) is
succinctly built into the fabric of earthly things by the place-name ‘Babel’
(‘confusion’) which is to be henceforth the evil genius of the Bible story
until the end (cf., e.g., Is. 13:1; 21:1-10; 24:10; Rev. 18:2; etc.;
*Babylon).
d. The
circumstance-name. Isaac was
named because of the attendant laughter of his parents (Gn. 17:17; 18:12;
21:3-7); Samuel, because of the prayer of his mother (1 Sa. 1:20); Moses,
because his princess-mother drew him from the water (Ex. 2:10); Ichabod,
because of the loss of the ark, seen as significant of the withdrawal of divine
favour (1 Sa. 4:21); Jacob, because of the position of the twins at birth (Gn.
25:26). In many of such cases the Bible provides the evidence to show that such
‘accidents’ were truly symbolic: the victory at the Red Sea makes Moses
pre-eminently the man who came up out of the water; the story of Samuel is
precisely the story of the man who knew that prayer is answered, and so on. In
other words, there is a continuing link between the idea of giving a name and
the dynamism of the ever-potent word of God effecting that which it declares.
e. The
transformation- or alteration-name.
Names were bestowed in order to show that something new had entered the life of
the person concerned, one chapter was complete and a new chapter was opening.
Though this giving of a new name is usually hopeful and promissory, the
category opens with the sad re-naming in (Gn. 2:23) as Eve (Gn. 3:20), the name
expressive of co-equality of status and complementariness of relationship
becoming the name of function; the former name expressed what her husband saw
in her (and was glad), the latter expressed what he would use her for, giving
her domination in return for her longing (Gn. 3:16). But to the same category
belongs the re-naming of Abram as Abraham, signifying the beginning of the new
man with new powers: the childless Abram (whose name ‘high father’ was only a
sour joke) becoming Abraham, which, though it does not grammatically mean
‘father of many nations’, has sufficient assonance with the words which would
(at greater length) express that thought. Many significant names operate on
just such a basis of assonance. Thus also on one and the same day Benoni became
Benjamin (Gn. 35:18), the circumstance-name of pain and loss becoming the
status-name of ‘right-hand man’. The dominical bestowal of the name Peter (Jn.
1:42) has the same significance, cf. Mt. 16:18; as indeed does the
(presumably) self-chosen change from Saul to Paul (Acts 13:9).
f. The
predictive/admonitory-name.
Isaiah’s two sons are pre-eminent in this class. It is significant of the
prophet’s certainty of the word of God through him that he was willing to
embody it in his sons who thus were, within their own time, ‘the word become
flesh’, the greatest of the acted oracles (*Prophecy) of the OT. Cf. Is.
7:3; 8:1-4, 18. See also 2 Ki. 24:17, where the name Zedekiah embodies the
righteousness element which Pharaoh thus warns the new king to practise. The
Lord’s naming of James and John as ‘Boanerges’ was equally a warning against
the unacceptable element of fire in their zeal (Mk. 3:17; cf. Lk. 9:54)
and once again the name proved itself to be an effective word of God.
g. Precative-
and theophoric-names. A name
like Nabal (‘fool’) (1 Sa. 25:25) can only have been given on the basis of a
mother’s prayer—‘Let him not grow up to be a fool’—a prayer for which a cogent
background could be provided without too much stretch of the imagination. It is
likely that many theophoric names had this same element of prayer in them—or at
the very least, most of those which are based on an imperfect tense of the
verb: thus Ezekiel (‘May God strengthen!‘); Isaiah (‘May Yah[weh] save!‘). Even
those which in direct translation make an affirmation (e.g. Jehoahaz,
‘Yahweh has grasped’) are most likely the product of pious parental
aspirations—not always realized, as the sad case of Nabal (1 Sa. 25) may show,
or the case of King Ahaz whose name is probably an abbreviation of ‘Jehoahaz’:
it is fully in accord with the story of that politically astute, spiritually
inept king to think that he deliberately dropped the theophoric element in his
name.
The naming of the
Lord Jesus Christ does not fit any single one of the foregoing categories. In
its relation to OT prophecies (Mt. 1:23 with Is. 7:14; Lk. 1:31-33 with Is.
9:6f.) the name Jesus is a status-name, declaring the recipient to be God, born
of a virgin and the promised king of David’s line. It is a significant thing
that the first person named in the NT receives (not a prediction-name but) a
fulfilment-name: the purposes of God are being rounded out to completion. The
name Jesus itself is a prediction-name looking forward to what he will himself
do, and this is itself significant, for the prediction-names of the OT looked
forward to what Yahweh would do and stood in relation to that act as external
heralds or pointers. But Jesus is himself the fulfillment of what his name
declares.
Any and all
evidence which helps to show that on the human level a name is a significant
and indeed potent thing, not only labelling but moulding its recipient, finds
its focus in the concept of the ‘name of God’ (*God, Names of) which lies at
the centre of the Bible. A ‘divine name’ is not, of course, a distinctively
biblical notion. Amongst the ancient Greeks, for instance, Hesiod tried to
enter more deeply into an understanding of the gods by a study of their names,
an exercise which, mutatis mutandis, might well be seen as central to
biblical theology.
There is a real
sense in which the Bible is poised upon the revelation of the divine name. In
the OT, the Patriarchs knew their God by titles (e.g. Gn. 14:22; 16:13;
17:1), among which was the so far unexplained ‘Yahweh’. The significance of
Moses and the Exodus is that at that point what had hitherto been no more than
a label was revealed to be not a title, however exalted, but a personal name.
The revelation enshrined in the name was opened up and confirmed in the Exodus
events, the redemption of the people of God, the Passover and the Red Sea. In
the NT the balancing event was the ministry and redemptive work of Jesus: the
definitive ‘name’ of God as the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
coinciding with the public commencement of Jesus’ ministry when at his baptism
he began deliberately to be numbered with the transgressors (cf. Mk.
1:9-11). John sees the significance of this in his deliberate association of
Jesus at baptism with the Lamb of God (Jn. 1:29ff.). This comparison should
warn against identifying the God of the OT (‘Yahweh’) with the NT revelation of
God the Father. Yahweh is rather the Holy Trinity incognito.
In form the divine
name Yahweh is either a simple indicative or a causative indicative of
the verb ‘to be’, meaning ‘he is (alive, present, active)‘ or ‘he brings into
being’, and the formula in which the name is disclosed (Ex. 3:14, I am who I
am) means either ‘I reveal my active presence as and when I will’ or ‘I
bring to pass what I choose to bring to pass’. In the setting of Ex. 3-20 this
refers both to the events of the Exodus as those in which Yahweh is actively
present (and which indeed he has deliberately brought to pass) and also to the
preceding theological interpretation (Ex. 3:1-4:17; 5:22-6:8) of those events
vouchsafed to Moses. Yahweh is thus the God of revelation and history and in
particular reveals himself as the God who saves his people (according to
covenant promise) and overthrows those who oppose his word.
Abundant though
this revealed knowledge of God is, yet in the divine name there is a clear
element of secrecy. The formula I am who I am in itself expresses no
more than that God knows his own nature: it is a formula of the sovereignty of
God in the revelation of himself. If anything is to be told, he must tell it;
he will tell only what he pleases. Cf. Gn. 32:29; Jdg. 13:17. This is
not in any way to be related to the concepts of magic. In the surrounding pagan
world to know a god’s name was supposed to confer some power over that god—a logical
extension (as so much false religion is a logical embroidering upon a truth) of
the idea that ‘naming’ is the act of a superior. Yahweh did not withhold any
revelation of himself in fear lest man should gain power over him. Rather the
revelation of himself belongs in a programme of privilege which he has designed
for his people, whereby the somewhat ‘external’ relationship expressed in
titles becomes the highly personal relationship to a God who has given his
people the liberty to call him by name, and what is at that point held back is
concealed only because the moment of supreme revelation is yet to come.
Nevertheless what is already known is not a falsehood later to be set aside nor
a partial truth (for this is my name for ever, Ex. 3:15) awaiting completion,
but one way of expressing the whole truth which will yet achieve greater and
fuller expression. The ‘name’ of God lies at the heart of progressive
revelation.
But though the
name does not confer ‘power’ in any magical sense (cf. Acts 19:13ff.),
the knowledge of the name brings people into a wholly new relationship with
God. They are his intimates, for this is the significance of ‘knowing by name’
(cf. Ex. 33:12, 18-19; Jn. 17:6). The initiation of the relationship
thus described lies on the divine side: collectively and individually the
people of God are ‘called by his name’ (cf. 2 Ch. 7:14; Is. 43:7; Je.
14:9; 15:16; Am. 9:12). Furthermore the motive which lies behind this divine
outreach is often described as the Lord acting ‘for the sake of his name’ (cf.
especially Ezk. 20:9, 14, 22, 44) by means of works through which he ‘made for
himself a name’ (e.g. 2 Sa. 7:23; Ne. 9:10). The name is thus a summary
way of stating what God is in himself (his name is all that is known to be true
about him and his motives of action) and also what God is to others, allowing
them to know his name (letting them into his truth) as sharing his name with
them (letting them into his fellowship).
There are five
aspects of this basic situation strongly enough attested in Scripture to
warrant a brief statement of each, even though not all are evenly spread
through the Bible.
a. It is a particularly Johannine emphasis to
express the human side of the experience of God as ‘believing in the name’ (e.g.
Jn. 3:18; 1 Jn. 3:23), i.e. personal commitment to the Lord Jesus as
thus revealed in the essence of his Person and work.
b. Those who are of the people of God are
‘kept’ in his name (e.g. Jn. 17:11), taking up the distinctive OT
picture of the name as a strong tower (e.g. Pr. 18:10) to which they may
run for safety, and also the name given as a husband’s name to a wife whereby
provision and protection are guaranteed (cf. ‘called by the name’
above). When Christians are said to be ‘justified in the name’ (1 Cor. 6:11)
the implication is the same: the name, as the unchangeable nature of Jesus and
as the summary of all that he is and has done, is the ground of secure
possession of all the implied blessings.
c. God’s presence among his people is secured
by ‘making his name dwell’ among them. Cf. Dt. 12:5, 11, 21; 14:23f.;
16:2, 6; 2 Sa. 7:13; etc. It has sometimes been foolishly pressed that
there is a distinction if not a rift between a ‘name-theology’ and a
‘glory-theology’ in the OT, but these are two ways of expressing the same
thing: e.g. when Moses sought to see Yahweh’s glory, he found that the
glory had to be verbalized by means of the name (Ex. 33:18-34:8). There is no
sense in which the Deuteronomist is replacing a crude notion of indwelling
glory by a refined notion of the indwelling name: it is rather that the ‘glory’
tends to express the ‘sense’ of God’s real presence, including much that is
rightly unapproachable and ineffable; ‘name’ explains why this is so,
verbalizes the numinous, for nowhere does the God of the Bible deal in dumb
sacraments but always with intelligible declarations.
d. The name of God is described as his ‘holy
name’ more often than all other adjectival qualifications taken together. It
was this sense of the sacredness of the name that finally led to the obtuse
refusal to use ‘Yahweh’, leading as it has done to a deep loss of the sense of
the divine name in evv (with the
notable exception of jb). The
‘holiness’ of the name, however, does not remove it from use but from abuse:
this is the reason why the revelation of the divine name must never be confused
with any thought of magical ‘power with the divine’. Far from man being able to
use the name to control God, it is the name which controls man, both in worship
Godward (e.g. Lv. 18:21) and in service manward (e.g. Rom. 1:5).
The ‘name’ is thus the motive of service; it is also the message (e.g.
Acts 9:15) and the means of power (e.g. Acts 3:16; 4:12).
e. Throughout the Bible the name of God is the
ground of prayer: e.g. Ps. 25:11; Jn. 16:23-24.
Distinctively the
NT associates baptism with the name, either of the Holy Trinity (Mt. 28:19) or
of the Lord Jesus (e.g. Acts 2:38): the distinction is that the former
stresses the total reality of the divine nature and purpose and the totality of
blessedness designed for the recipient, whereas the latter stresses the
effective means of entry into these things through the sole mediation of Jesus.
Matthew 18:19 - 20
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you
shall agree ( Gk.
symphonize ) on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it
shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or
three are gathered together in my name,
there am I in the midst of them.
John 14:12-16
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do
also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my
Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my
name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. 15 If ye love me, keep
my commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another
Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
John 15:16
16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen
you, and ordained you, that ye should go and
bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should
remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may
give it you.
John 16:22-23
22 And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I
will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh
from you. 23 And in that day ye shall
ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask
the Father in my name, he will give
it you.