Some of His names describe His attributes and characteristics. Others are His titles of position, power and authority. The Bible calls Him "the Ancient of Days" and "the Most High." He is revealed as our Creator, our Father, our Provider, our Lord, our King, our Healer, our Redeemer and our Savior.

To understand the importance of the meaning of a divine name, let's examine the most significant name for God in the Old Testament. In Hebrew it is Yahweh, often translated LORD (in capital letters). This name distinguished Him from the false gods of other nations. It set Him apart as the living, true God to the people of Israel.

Yahweh is derived from a Hebrew root word meaning "to be." God used this word in Exodus 3:14 when Moses asked God His name. God responded that His name is "I AM WHO I AM" or, perhaps even more accurately, "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE."

Consider this illustration: God made His presence known to ancient Israel during the time of the Exodus in a pillar of fire by night and a covering cloud by day. He had already made Himself known to Moses through a bush that burned but was not consumed by the fire. This name makes it clear that the living God, as He relates to us, can be—and can do—whatever He desires. He can reveal His power and presence to us in any manner He chooses.

The Bible tells us that the name Yahweh designates "the Everlasting God" (Genesis 21:33). In meaning it is similar to "Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last" in the Greek language (Revelation 22:13). It can be translated into English as "the Eternal."

These descriptions of God clearly express that our Creator has always existed and will always exist. He not only has everlasting life in Himself, He also has the power to grant immortality as a gift to those who please Him.

In translating God's names from one language to another, preserving the meaning of the name—not its phonetic sound—is important. The Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew, the New Testament in Greek. The names of God are freely translated from the Hebrew into the Greek, setting us a clear example that translating God's names from one language to another is perfectly acceptable.

Just remember, God wants us to recognize and acknowledge Him for what He is. Therefore, it is the meaning, not the sound or spelling, of His names that is of greater importance as the Bible is translated from one language to another.

Catholic World News (CWN)
Vatican directive: "Yahweh" inappropriate for liturgical use

Aug. 13, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has ruled that the Name of God, commonly rendered as "Yahweh," should not be pronounced in the Catholic liturgy.

The Vatican directive will not require any changes in the language of liturgy, since the Name of God is not spelled out in any authorized translation of the Roman Missal. However some hymns may be deemed inappropriate for liturgical use.

The Congregation for Divine Worship, in issuing the new directive, reminds bishops that in the Hebrew tradition, which the early Christians adopted, the faithful avoided pronouncing the Name of God. The Vatican directive explains that "as an expression of the infinite greatness and majesty of God, it was held to be unpronounceable."

In place of the Name of God, pious Hebrews used the four-letter tetragammaton YHWH, or substituted the terms "Adonai" or "the Lord." The first Christians continued this practice, the Vatican notes.

The Congregation for Divine Worship observes that the invocation of "the Lord" in Scriptural text follows this practice. Thus when St. Paul prays that "every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord," the Vatican letter says that his statement "corresponds exactly to a proclamation of [Christ's] divinity."

The Bible reflects the Hebrew tradition, and the Name of God is not spelled out in authorized Catholic translations. The Vatican instruction says that liturgical language should adhere carefully to the Scriptural texts, so that the Word of God is "conserved and transmitted in an integral and faithful manner."

However, the instruction notes, "in recent years the practice has crept in" of using the Name of God and spelling out the tetragrammaton. That practice should be avoided in the Catholic liturgy, the Vatican says.

The effect of the Vatican directive should be evident in the selection of hymns, since some contemporary liturgical music violates the policy by pronouncing the Name of God. The policy will also call for some care in the preparation of variable elements in the liturgy, such as the Prayers of the Faithful.

The letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship, dated June 29, was signed by Cardinal Francis Arinze (bio - news) and Archbishop Malcom Ranjith, the prefect and secretary, respectively of that congregation.

In an August 8 letter to the bishops of the US hierarchy, relaying the Vatican directive, Bishop Arthur Serratelli-- the chairman of the US bishops' liturgy committee-- welcomed the instruction, saying that it "helps to emphasize the theological accuracy of our language and appropriate reverence for the name of God."

1:51 AM

John 17:11-12

^{11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.}

Pasted from <

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=john+17%3A11-12&niv=yes>

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=john+17%3A11-12&niv=yes>

The Image of God

God has a name! and His name is Jesus!

God's name before creation, which He named Him self to reveal His glory, blessing and authority

John 17:3

^{3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.}

Pasted from <

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=John+17%3A3&niv=yes&display_option=columns&v_mode=on&t_mode=on>

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=John+17%3A3&niv=yes&display_option=columns&v_mode=on&t_mode=on>

There is an eternal life, otherwise our spiritual live would be in vain; we are reading and understanding the scripture is in order to received eternal life and resurrection. God intended man to accept the eternal life and become co-heir in the heaven; and it is the definition of Sin if we do not fulfill that purpose.

The Bible was written so man believe in Jesus as the Son of God and through Him, receive eternal life.

The name Jesus is also registered in the history when the Roman empire conducted census on the Jews' land; thus it shows, that Jesus is a man of history, not a fictional person. A fact that no one can deny.

To receive the eternal life, means to know the eternal God. Knowing is not just like superficially knowing someone or familiar with; but the Bible repeatedly draw an example of a marriage; we need to know God well, just like in marriage, when two different people become one and really know each other's heart.

Now can we answer, do we know Jesus? Do we know our God? Have we know Him by experience, and not just vaguely knowing? As people in marriage, they will not in doubt, weather they are in marriage or not; but they know for sure they are in the marriage and know their partner. We must know our God with all of our heart and not parish because lacking of knowledge of our God.

God never gave His image to angels or anyone else; he even commanded not to create any images to represent Him...

Exodus 20: 3

^{4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.}

Pasted from <

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/?q=Exodus 20&niv=yes>

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/?q=Exodus 20&niv=yes>

… because He is the only one that has His own image; Genesis clearly show that God does have image and that we were created in His image...

Genesis 1: 26

^{26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [}

b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Pasted from <

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=genesis+1&niv=yes&display_option=columns&v_mode=on&t_mode=on>

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=genesis+1&niv=yes&display_option=columns&v_mode=on&t_mode=on>

… and Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the image; and His coming to this world, which the history has recorded, is a proof of the living God.

Hebrews 1:2-3

^{2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.}

Pasted from <

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=hebrews+1%3A2-3&niv=yes&display_option=columns&v_mode=on&t_mode=on>

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=hebrews+1%3A2-3&niv=yes&display_option=columns&v_mode=on&t_mode=on>

Jesus is The Son of God

Philippians 2: 8-11

^{8And being found in appearance as a man,}

      he humbled himself

      and became obedient to death—

         even death on a cross!

    9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

      and gave him the name that is above every name,

    10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

      in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

    11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,

      to the glory of God the Father.

Pasted from <

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=Philippians+2%3A8-11&niv=yes&display_option=columns&v_mode=on&t_mode=on>

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=Philippians+2%3A8-11&niv=yes&display_option=columns&v_mode=on&t_mode=on>

Matthew 16: 13-20

Peter's Confession of Christ

    13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

    14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

    15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

    16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[

b] the Son of the living God."

b] the Son of the living God."

    17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[

g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Pasted from <

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/?q=Matthew 16&niv=yes>

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/?q=Matthew 16&niv=yes>

Simon ("pebble"/small rocks) was named "Peter" (big foundation rock) upon confession of Jesus as the Son of God; and on that fundamental confession, God build His church.

It is most important we understand the meaning and consequence of confessing and having faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

John 1: 12

^{12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—}

Pasted from <

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=john+1%3A12&niv=yes&display_option=columns&v_mode=on&t_mode=on>

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=john+1%3A12&niv=yes&display_option=columns&v_mode=on&t_mode=on>

The Value of God's Name

The name Jesus, which had never been revealed to the world, as totally made public and revealed to a lot of people through Christ's death, resurrection and ascension, and now it is indwelling us (we have the relationship with the name).

In Jesus, we are to inherit the name of God; the name of God contains all His glory, authority, power and blessing; which He place in His temple, and our eternal spirit is His temple.

John 17:11-12

^{11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.}

Pasted from <

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=john+17%3A11-12&niv=yes>

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=john+17%3A11-12&niv=yes>

Because of Jesus, by having God's name in us, in our spirit, we all received salvation and can call God our father; and will inherit the Kingdom of God, become co-heir with Jesus Christ.

Acts 4: 12

^{12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."}

Pasted from <

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=act+4%3A12&niv=yes&display_option=columns&v_mode=on&t_mode=on>

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=act+4%3A12&niv=yes&display_option=columns&v_mode=on&t_mode=on>

The Name that indwell in us

How does the name come in us? Through the Holy Spirit, the Counselor that will teach us.

John 14:26

^{26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.}

Pasted from <

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=john+14%3A26&niv=yes&display_option=columns&v_mode=on&t_mode=on>

http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=john+14%3A26&niv=yes&display_option=columns&v_mode=on&t_mode=on>

Therefore, Jesus is the name of the Father in heaven, the name of the Son on the earth and the name of the Holy Spirit in us.

Examine ourselves, if we do not know weather or not Jesus name is in us, we failed the test and need to repent; we are kept safe in our spirit, by holding His name in our spirit.

If we distorted the truth about the name, we will lost His power, authority and blessing; we merely become religious people; not the Children of God. Only Children of God has His name in our spirit.

If we claim to know Jesus, but only know Him as the Son of Man; without having experience the Holy Spirit in us, we would missing a significant part of God's will. Which is to send the Holy Spirit to indwell in us and teach us.

Receiving Grace

We have nothing to boast our selves before God; we can't understand or comprehend God with our own righteousness, nothing to boast for; there are always things that we are lacking and weakness that we have to admit and repent. We have to receive God's grace in the name of Jesus, and receives His testimony in spirit and flesh.

Relevant resource:

• [book] "Let us Know the Holy Spirit" / "Marilah Kita Mengenal Roh Kudus", Chapter 3.

J.L. Sweelengrebel, "Translating the Divine Names," The Bible Translator. Vol 3:4 (October 1952): 171–196.

J.L Sweelengrebel, "Discussion of Translating the Divine Names," The Bible Translator, Vol. 3:4 (October 1952): 196–199.

Noel D. Osborn, "This Is My Name Forever: 'I AM' or 'YAHWEH'? The Bible Translator, Vol. 39:4 (October, 1988): 410-415.

Robert E. Smith, "By My Name YHWH, I Did Not Make Myself Known," Notes on Translation, Vol. 4:4 (1990): 51-52.

Ray Pritz, "The Divine Name in the Hebrew New Testament," Jerusalem Perspective, Vol. 4:2 (March/April, 1991).

David Bivin, "'Jehovah'—A Christian Misunderstanding," Jerusalem Perspective Vol. 4:6 (Nov./Dec., 1991).

David Bivin, "The Fallacy of Sacred Name Bibles," Jerusalem Perspective, Vol. 4:6 (Nov./Dec., 1991).

Euan Fry, "Editorial - A special issue," The Bible Translator. Vol 43:4 (October, 1992): 401-402

Since the above reference introduces many others that follow, I reproduce the text here and below each of the articles he introduces...

This is a special issue of Practical Papers devoted to a single topic. We visit again the topic of translating the names of God, especially in the Old Testament; and all of the articles and other contents of this issue will be on that topic.

Over all the years The Bible Translator has been published (since 1950) there have been many articles written from various perspectives about translating the names of God. Besides articles there have also been some books written about the names of God. One book which was made available to Bible translators for a time was The Lord is God by Hellmut Rosin. A more recent study is the book entitled In Search of God by Tryggve Mattinger.

Translating the names of God is a matter of great concern to many Bible translators. All translators have to deal with it almost as soon as they start translating seriously. It can be both a difficult issue and a divisive issue for a translation team. It is also an issue on which readers and hearers of the Scriptures have strong feelings. In my own experience as a Bible translator it was the hardest issue of all to work through in bringing together two different large churches in a single translation project.

It has become clear in recent years, if it wasn't clear earlier, that no one solution to the problems we face in translating the names of God will meet all situations. There are variations and differences in the way names are used in different languages and cultures around the world; there are also wide differences in the existing names and ways of referring to deity. For this reason different approaches to translating the names of God in the Bible are necessary in different situations. And this is not to mention the variety of church usage and church teaching in different places and different Christian traditions!

It is not my place to go into the topic at length. This is just an introduction to what you will find in reading this issue of Practical Papers. However I must refer in this introduction to an important gathering which was held in May last year, which was an occasion for a number of papers and discussions on the topic of translating the names of God. This was a UBS Translations Workshop at Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe; and the first item in this special issue is a statement entitled "How to Translate the Name" from the group of UBS consultants and advisers meeting there.

Following the important statement from the UBS Workshop are a number of articles, which are mostly papers or parts of papers presented during the meetings. In all cases they have been edited for publication in Practical Papers. My special thanks in this connection go to my colleague Kees de Blois who was responsible for the selection and first editing of the material which makes up this special issue. He also prepared the bibliography which is the final item.
The first of the articles is in fact written by Kees de Blois.

"How To Translate The Name," The Bible Translator, Vol. 43:4 (October, 1992): 403-406.
[Statement by the "Names of God" Study Group, UBS Triennial Translation Workshop, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, 8-21 May 1991]

Kees F. De Blois, "Translating the Names Of God: Tryggve Mettinger's analyses applied to Bible translation," The Bible Translator, Vol. 43:4 (October, 1992): 406-414.

Starting from Tryggve Mattinger's study on the names of God, he discusses its consequences for translation. He underlines the importance of the associated meaning of the "tetragrammaton" yhwh, while still recognising its function as a proper name. He then summarises the three most widely adopted approaches to the translation of yhwh hyh with arguments for and against each.

Noel D. Osborn, "The Name: When Does It Make A Difference?" The Bible Translator, Vol. 43:4 (October, 1992): 415-422.

Noel Osborn writes of his conviction that choosing just one option to deal with all occurrences of yhwh is not the best we can do in translation. He discusses a number of references where understanding yhwh as a name makes a great deal of difference to our understanding of the passage; and he then makes a good case for transliterating yhwh in those passages. An important part of his article is a classification of 129 sample references in twelve different categories, with a recommendation as to how the name yhwh should be handled in each type of context.

Donald J. Slager, "The Use Of Divine Names In Genesis," The Bible Translator, Vol. 43:4 (October, 1992): 423-429.

In the next article Donald Slager studies the occurrence and use of the two terms yhwh and 'élOhîm 'lh in Genesis from a literary perspective. He compares the source critical approach with that of more recent literary analysts; and he presents some explanations from a literary perspective for the name switching that is found in some well-known stories.

Ernst R. Wendland, "yhwh- The Case For Chauta 'Great-[God]-of-the-Bow'," The Bible Translator, Vol. 43:4 (October, 1992): 430-438.

Ernst Wendland gives a very revealing discussion of the translation of the term yhwh in the Chichewa Bible. He refers to the way the name was transliterated in the older translations, and then describes the approach of the most recent Chewa translation team to the problems of rendering it meaningfully.

Nitoy Achumi, "Translation of 'God' and 'Lord' in Some Naga Bibles," The Bible Translator, Vol. 43:4 (October, 1992): 438-443.

The two final articles are both studies of the way the terms yhwh and 'élOhîm have been translated in some of the languages of North India. Nitoy Achumi presents a study of translation in three of the Naga languages. He studies in particular the key terms in those languages for spirits or deities, and discusses how some of those terms have been taken and used in Bible translation. He notes a wide variation between the three languages studied in the way the name yhwh has been treated.

Benjamin Rai, "What Is His Name? Translation of Divine Names in Some Major North Indian Languages," The Bible Translator, Vol. 43:4 (October, 1992): 443-446.

Benjamin Rai focuses on four major languages which are all derived from Sanskrit: Bengali, Hindi, Nepali, and Assamese. At the end of his discussion he concludes "that the last word has not been said on the question of rendering ... yhwh in North Indian (and other) languages."

On that note I will end my comments. We hope that the contents of the statement "How to Translate the Name" and the articles, along with the bibliography of previous TBT articles and other references, will be a useful resource for translators who face the issue of translating the names of God now and in the future.

Howard Hatton, "Notes: Translating yhwh: Experience In Thailand And Micronesia," The Bible Translator, Vol. 43:4 (October, 1992): 446-448.

David Thomas, "A Further Note on YHWH," The Bible Translator, Vol. 44:4 (October, 1993): 444-445.

Jørgen Larsen, "Still More on YHWH," The Bible Translator, Vol. 45:2 (April, 1994): 243-244.

Marcelo Epstein, "On The "Original" Septuagint," The Bible Translator, Vol. 45:3 (July, 1995): 322-329.

Daud H. Soesilo, "Sir, Teacher, Master, Lord," The Bible Translator, Vol. 47:3 (July, 1996): 335-340.

Mary Steele, "Translating the Tetragrammaton YHWH In Konkomba," Notes on Translation, Vol. 11:4 (1997): 28-31.

Katharine Barnwell, "Translating the Tetragrammaton YHWH," Notes on Translation, Vol. 11:4 (1997): 24-27.

David DeGraaf, "Translating ‘God’ and ‘Sacrifice’ into Nyarafolo," Notes on Translation, Vol. 13:3 (1999): 34–49.

Daud Soesilo, "Translating the Names of God: recent experience from Indonesia and Malaysia," The Bible Translator, Vol. 52:4 (October, 2001): 414-423.

Norm Mundhenk, "Who is God in Papua New Guinea?" The Bible Translator, Vol. 55:2 (April, 2004): 215-227.

John David K. Ekem, "The Rendering of the Divine Name YHWH in Some Ghanaian Bible Translation Projects,"
The Bible Translator, Vol. 56:2 (April, 2005): 71-76.

Vitaly Voinov, "Pronominal Apostasy? Or: Whose God Do You Mean?" The Bible Translator, Vol. 56:4 (October, 2005): 239-245.

Nico Daams, "Translating YHWH," Journal of Translation, Vol. 1:1 (2005): 47-55.

Can you see a story here? No, not the one we read as we look at the pages of Scripture, but the one of a mother's agony of decision.  Our story isn't about Moses alone, but about faith possessing people.  Though my times as a mother may have differed from another, the feelings I would have carried at the thought of my child being killed or even being taken away would have been heart wretching and life changing.  You have just experienced the months of carrying your child in your womb, the hours of hard labor, the moment of delivery and the joy of birth, only to realize that the days of joy are numbered and pain lurks around the corner.   Fear reeks your every thought, as you fight to keep this bundle of joy and blessing alive, everyday knowing you have to devise the next step of the plan.  Every day's end, unknown.  All that is for certain, is the current moment in time.  Enjoying and cherishing every moment as though it were you last, you live life to the fullest doing all you can while you can.  Remember, tomorrow is never promised.

The day finally arrives, the day you dreaded the most.  The very thing you nurtured for three months, now is at risk.  Thoughts and ideas flood your mind as you look for a solution, as you fight to keep the child alive.  You have ran these ideas through your mind for months, researched their possibilities for success and studied the surroundings and people, noting the pieces key to your plan.  Now your heart wretches as you have to trust a God you have never seen to carry your plan to success.  Can you imagine the uncertainty and pain this mother must have experienced? Yet, in her faith and trust, she carried the plan to the end.  Now that's FAITH!

God tells us faith moves mountains and yet, everyday we experience mountains that stand in our way, often conquering the very people we are.  Faith varies in degree, according to what we believe and exercise, yet it is the very key to our success or failures in life. God's word shows faith's immediate impact and it is shown to us through our wait. I ask myself, is the timing of the end result indicative of the level of faith we possess? If something happens immediately, does that mean faith is stronger than if we have to endure hardship and have to wait a long time?  Our walk and preparation is a process and it is through these processes we are molded into what we are to be.  Not one of us likes to wait, though we do through no choice of our own.  Not one of us likes to hurt and experience lack, though again we experience them both almost everyday, but it is through the hardships that we learn to adapt to the never ending situations of this life.  It is through these hardships that change of all kinds is brought about. It is through these hardships that our life actually can begin anew.  We don't understand why and we may not like it, but without the pain/hardship of life's moments, we would never open our eyes to what life is or experience the closeness of God.

Our hardships are tools to mold us into what God destined us to be.  As the waters over time erode away the land to bring about the beauty of the world, so too the waters of hardship, pain, disappointment erode the land of our hearts/minds to bring about an instrument for God's glory and purpose. Over time, valleys are formed, mountains appear and life continues.  Each twist, each turn brings about development. By our faith, we are enabled to adapt to the twists, to walk through the valleys and climb the highest mountains.

Know that God walks us through every valley.  Know that He pulls us to the heights of our mountains.  Where we are, He is also and will always be.  He is the Potter and we are the clay. As the Potter's wheel turns, so also the world turns.  Just as He molded each living thing, He also is molding us for His glory and according to His purpose.  Every one of our days were planned before we ever came into existence.  Not one moment was by accident.  All were appointments set by God's hand.  All were purposed. Do not be afraid of what lies ahead for God will always be with you.  Look not at what you have, but look to God's hand to provide your every need and to sustain you until He calls you home.  Your valleys will be many, but none will destroy you.  Your mountains high, but you will climb them all; just open your heart to God.  Come when He calls. Go where He commands you.  Do all He has purposed for you, knowing that He is God.  You are called by God's name.  He has set you aside to serve Him all the days of Your life and know that no one can snatch you from Him for His mark rests upon you. There will always be times of decision and times you will have to plan.  Seek God's face during these times and He will go before you preparing the way. Faith certainly moves mountains and levels valleys.

prayer begins, "Our Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name..." (St. Matt. 6:9)  Now, what is the

Father's name?  Is "God" His name?   I'm sure when Moses recieved the 10 commandments, they did not have

that phase you hear so much today, when we use "God" in a demeaning way. 

     When we pray, and we do not pray in faith, and we end the prayer, "In the name of Jesus..."   Could that be

using the Lord's name in vain?

     There is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)  Paul

wrote, that..."Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under

the earth. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"

(Philippians 2:9-11)

      With a name as great as the name of Jesus, why would we use His name so lightly, and use it in vain

without any purpose.

Today as I passed Mr. Brown’s house I decided I would say hello. “Hi, Mr. Brown,” I said as Rufus stopped to smell the fire hydrant. To my delight, Mr. Brown responded back to me.

“Well hello there! Isn’t that the famous church-dog?”
“Yes, this is Rufus…and I am Jamie.”
“Well you have a nice dog there,” said Mr. Brown. “I have heard all about him from my sister. She said she sees him in church all the time.”
“Rufus actually belongs to Pastor and Mrs. Blue. I live next door and get to take Rufus out for his daily walk.”
“You are very lucky girl. That’s a big responsibility to walk such a famous dog.”
“Rufus is my best friend. I don’t think of him as being famous.”
“Didn’t he save that butcher’s life last month? It was in the newspaper.”
“Yes he did.”
“Well I would say that Rufus is famous. It is not too often that a dog’s picture is on page one of the Gazette.

As we were talking, Jimmy and Johnny Edwards crossed the street and approached us. They had a reputation for causing trouble at school. They liked to bully some of the smaller kids on the playground.

“There’s Jamie and that stupid dog, Ruthless,” said Jimmy.
“He not stupid,” said Jamie, “and he name is Rufus!”
“He must be stupid. How many other dogs would have their picture in the newspaper,” said Johnny.
“His picture was in the paper because he was a hero.”
“Only a dumb dog like Ruthless would run into the street in front of a car!” said Johnny laughing.
“Yeah, Ruthless is a dumb dog! Ruthless is a dumb dog!” chanted Jimmy and Johnny together.
“Don’t you have something better to do than to pick on a nice young girl?” said Mr. Brown.

Jimmy and Johnny Edwards ran off, still chanting their new name for Rufus. Mr. Brown could tell that Jamie was very upset that they would say such things about Rufus. He could tell that Jamie was holding back her tears.

“Don’t let those boys bother you,” said Mr. Brown. We know the truth about Rufus. We know that he was a smart and courageous dog that helped save Mr. Timlin’s life.”
“Thanks, Mr. Brown. Rufus and I have to get back home.”
“Be sure to stop to visit with me again!”

Jamie did not want to admit it, but she was really bothered by what Jimmy and Johnny said about Rufus. She had other kids call her some names when she was younger. She was able to forget that quite easily. But the mean lies about Rufus bothered her much more. She wanted everyone to know what Rufus had done to save Mr. Timlin’s life.

On Sunday, Pastor Blue talked about what it meant to honor God’s name. He said that the very names for God described his love for each of us. God wants all people to live with him in heaven. He loved us so much that he sent his son, Jesus, to be our Savior. In fact, Jesus means “God saves”. When we call God bad names, distort his name or misuse it, we are not just making fun of God—but we are telling lies about God. Not everyone knows that Jesus is their Savior. God wants everyone to know what he has done to bring us eternal life with him in heaven.

Jamie couldn’t help think about what had happened to her and Rufus that week at Mr. Brown’s house. Some people had said bad things about Mr. Brown and she found out how nice he really was! The boys said bad things about Rufus and called him names that told lies about how great a dog Rufus really was! She didn’t know any other dog like Rufus. Rufus was very special to her.

She now understood that when people misuse God’s name they are telling lies about God. They aren’t telling others what wonderful things Jesus has done for them! How could they be so mean! How could anyone want to tell lies about Jesus! He is their Savior! Jamie realized that there was no one at all that was more special to her than Jesus—not even Rufus!

Acts 4:12

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Exodus, on the other hand, has been all about the miracles of God. God curses Egypt with ten plagues, He gives Moses a shape-shifting snake staff, He allows Moses to part the Red Sea, He makes bread rain down from the sky, and He makes a rock leak water. I probably even missed some miracles, and there's probably more to come.

Either way, this chapter shows a personal involvement from God not seen from before, furthermore, God's finally deciding to tell His people what he really wants from them. We no longer need to look to who he finds favor with to try and figure Him out, He's now granting us commandments and rules to follow.

Exodus has been incredibly important in characterizing God. Exodus gives much more credence to the view of God as being an actual deity, rather than just a personification of an idea. It's tough to ascribe all those miracles to chance, so if you take the story of Exodus to be literal and to have actually happened, then it seems you're going to have to posit an active and imminent God.

Which brings me to another important point. God's name. When you speak of a god (no capitalization), it seems to suggest a mythological supernatural deity. A Jupiter or Odin or what have you. But when you speak of God (with a capital G), it seems to suggest a deity that personifies the idea of higher force. God could be synonymous with the logos, or at least a personification of it. But the Bible clearly illustrates it's God to be a very personal and immanent. This contrasts explicitly with the idea of a logos, or overriding order and logic, which might be understood to be the body of existent truth. Now, I'm open to the idea of a higher power being personified in a god, since it may be pragmatically beneficial to think in terms such as that. But if the Bible posits a god which actually interacts in human affairs, then that's far more akin to the type of gods that are traditionally understood as being mythological. The Bible I read refers to God only as God, or the Lord, which suggests that this god is the only god, which in turn suggests that He is representative of truth, absolutes, the logos, etc. A real philosopher's god. However, I understand from doing some readings elsewhere online that the God of Abraham also has His own name. Yahweh, supposedly, or He may be referred to as YHWH, or Jehovah. This would suggest a more mythological god, one that stands next to Jupiter and Odin rather than above them.

I'm not going to make an judgments yet, but I would be interested in knowing why I have yet to see Yahweh in my version of the Bible. If The god of Abraham has an actual name other than the very general and non-descript "God," or "The Lord," then I think that's of some pretty high importance.

 It was the time when Sri Ramachandra decided to leave this earth once and for all. He convened a meeting of all his brothers and Sita. And told them: "Look, now our sport (lila) is going to be over. So we are going to merge into our nature (swarupa)."
As that very moment came Narada. Wherever Narada goes, some disturbance happens. So Lakshmana was very apprehensive on seeing Narada. He said: "Brother, Narada has come."
After seeing Narada, Sri Ram got up and made him seated and worshipped him and then Rama asked: "O! Narada, O! great devotee! What service can I do to you?"
Narada said: "Just now you have been discussing, you want to close your ihalila, that is the lila you have been enacting on this earth. But you should not go away simply like that. You should call a big assembly sabha - call everybody in Ayodhya and all of the world. Invite all the rishis and munis. Invite all the devas, yakshas, gandharvas. Invite everybody and announce your decision.
Sri Rama agreed and duly a sabha was called. It was a big sabha - all were coming and lot of arrangements had to be done for that. So each one of Rama's brothers was given duty. Sita was given duty of looking after the guests - all of them must be fed. So the kitchen was given to her.
Like that, each one was given a responsibility. Shatrughna was to receive at the sabha, all the rishis and munis and give them chandana tilak and then give them a garland - a very good garland has to be put on their shoulders. And then give them proper seat asana - that was his duty.
Everything was arranged on the appointed day. All have started coming.
So Shatrughna was very busy. Suddenly Narada called him and said: "O! Shatrughna! Do you see in the distance? Durvasa is coming - a great danger is coming!"
Shatrughna wondering replied: "Why? He is coming to see my elder brother Rama and Rama is his chosen ideal ista devata - whenever Durvasa sits for meditation, he meditates upon Rama - and from him no danger will come here."
Then Narada advised him: "No, great danger is about to happen to you by Durvasa... I can see this. So what you do is don't disturb Durvasa in any way. When he comes you take him to his asana - but no tilak and no garland is to be given to him because the moment he is seated, he will meditate on Sri Rama and merge in samadhi and when Sri Rama arrives, it is my responsibility to raise Durvasa. So don't worry about it."
So Shatrughna thought a great rishi is telling. He simply took Durvasa, showed his seat and came away. And Durvasa sat and started meditating on Sri Rama.
And when everything was alright, the right propitious time came, Sri Rama, Lakshmana, Bharata and Sita; all four entered. All the people got up to welcome Sri Rama. Only one person was sitting and that was Durvasa.
Narada raised Durvasa slowly telling him in his ear "Sri Rama has come, please get up". So Durvasa came down from his intense samadhi and then opened his eyes. One thing that struck him was that every rishi and muni has got chandan tilak and beautiful garland. But he didn't have. So he asked Narada the reason for his not having been given. And Narada became very serious. He said: "Look Durvasa! It was Shatrughna's duty to give you garland and tilak. He must have something in his mind to dishonour you. I think you should report this to Sri Rama."
So the drama of Narada has started. Durvasa, unhappy with what had happened to him, stood up and said: "O Rama! In your sabha, I have been dishonoured. Why I did not get a proper welcome?"
Sri Rama called Shatrughna but he was not there. Surprised Sri Rama said: "What has happened to him?" Then Rama found that his parama bhakta, Sri Hanuman was also missing. Then Narada asked: "What is you decision regarding Durvasa's dishonouring?"
Rama said: "I will give punishment to Shatrughna for dishonouring him. So first let us find out where Shatrughna is". Then Narada said: "Let us go and visit Hanuman's house because his mother Anjani has come here and he must have been busy with his mother. Let us go and see first Hanuman."
So a chariot was called and Rama took his bow and arrows. When they arrived at Anjani's house Anjani came and made pranams to Sri Rama, and Sri Rama asked: "Is Hanuman here?"
"Yes , Lord! Should I get him?"
"Definitely. Call Hanuman."
Then Hanuman came and stood there - he saw his Master, standing on his chariot with bow and arrows. He left his mace gada and made pranams.
"O Prabhu! I touch your holy feet, please bless me!"
Sri Rama was, as ever very happy to see Hanuman. He said: "Hanuman, where is Shatrughna? Do you know?"
"Yes Prabhu! I do know where he is."
"Where is he?"
"He's inside this house."
"Get him out! Ask him to come out!"
"No Prabhu - I cannot ask him to come out."
Greatly surprised, Sri Rama exclaimed:"What! I am your prabhu Ramachandra speaking! To my parama bhakta Hanuman! I am ordering you to get Shatrughna out."
"No, Master! I cannot bring him out!"
"Do you know the repercussion? Do you know the effect?"
"Yes Prabhu! If you want Shatrughna from my house, you must fight with me first. Defeat me and then take Shatrughna."
Stunned Sri Rama said: "What! I have to fight with you!"
Prabhu and bhakta both are now on the battlefield and the Master has to kill his devotee! All the gandharvas, yakshas, devatas and rishis and munis wondered at the scene that has been enacted there.
Not able to get what he wanted, Sri Rama finally took one of his arrows and aimed at Hanuman. All prayed to Sri Rama: "Please do not use your Ram Baan. If Hanuman is killed will there be any devotee left? No more worshipping of God will be done - because God has killed his own bhakta; this is just not possible. So put down your astra." Ram Baan - a term commonly used in India for anything that does not miss its target, because Ram Baan is always sure - it must aim and reach the target.
But then Sri Rama was determined, "No. I must aim."
And there standing on foot, Hanuman challenges Sri Rama, "Aim, aim your arrow, please!"
 The three lokas were stunned and were worried about what was going to happen. And the arrow went straight to Hanuman. He stood there krita mastaka anjali bowing down with his head, hands together joined and said "Jai Sri Ram, Jai Sri Ram, Jai Sri Ram!"
Surprisingly Rama's arrow went around Hanuman three times and came back to Rama. His arrow failed. Hanuman went on chanting the name of the Lord "Jai Sri Ram."
And then Rama looked at Narada - was he behind all this drama?
Narada smiled, as if to say ‘yes', and then said, "No more aiming, my Lord!. Put down your arrow." Then Narada added: "You see, when I learnt that you are going to finish your sport in this earth, I thought that you will go away, your form will go away, your body will go away. But your name must remain. Today the entire universe has seen that through your name, your devotee is protected, even from your own arrow. Even God is utterly helpless if His name is taken. It is proved that devotee never perishes; always protected." (na me bhakta pranashyati - Bhagawan Krishna in Gita)

“And David and all Israel went up to Baalah, to Kirjath Jearim,

which belonged to Judah, to bring up from there the ark of God the LORD,

who dwells between the cherubim, where His name is proclaimed.”
 

The verse reentered my mind while I was praying tonight.  I read 1 Chronicles 13 without particular insight for my devotions this evening, but was applying the language of verse 14 to pray for someone: “The ark of God remained with the family of Obed-Edom in his house three months. And the LORD blessed the house of Obed-Edom and all that he had.” 
 
Why would God bless a house just because the ark was there?  That sounds like the theology of Raiders of the Lost Ark, not the “no graven image” God of the Bible.  Note that this final verse of chapter 13 tells us that the Lord blessed the house, not “the ark blessed the house.”  Like many things, God did it for His glory.  He showered grace on the house of Obed-Edom for His name’s sake.  Anyone who knew the God of Israel would understand that without His presence dwelling among the cherubim of the mercy seat, the gold-overlaid box would mean nothing. 
 
As I was reflecting that God must have graced Obed-Edom for the glory of His name, I remembered that there was something about God’s name earlier in the chapter, in the description of the ark: “…where His name is proclaimed.”  God’s name is proclaimed through the ark’s presence.  Or is that what it means?  Did I have the wording right?  First I grabbed a book-light to check my Bible again.  Frustrated at the lack of footnote (like any commentary, my study Bible never has notes on hard questions) explaining the phrase in verse 6, I turned on my lamp, pulled out my laptop, and at a weary 12:45 AM, logged on to Blue Letter Bible to check the Hebrew. 
 
It turns out the word for “Proclaimed” is qara.  Different translators have given this verse different, particular meanings through the English word they chose.  I wish I could just keep the Hebrew, because I am not sure the author meant us to choose definitions.  This is why I love studying the original language.  Has it ever occurred to the translators that the original author may have intended all the facets of meaning in one word? 
 
Let’s take them one at a time.  First, my New King James translated qara “proclaimed.”  In this sense the ark could be the banner of God’s presence.  Through God’s power and blessing surrounding the ark, God’s name is proclaimed among the nations.  The ark was central to Israel’s worship, and the Name was central to what was being worshiped. 
 
Another definition is “give name to.”  The ark is where God’s name is given, or imparted unto His people.  Remember Moses’ worry that the people would ask the name of the God who sent him?  When you have the ark, the answer is right there.  The ark also represents the people of Israel bearing God’s name as they bear His presence and the ark (2 Chronicles 7:14).  In the Lord of the Rings, Treebeard the Ent says his name would be long because it is descriptive of his character and experience.  Such is true of the God of the Bible, His name ever expanding as His people come to know Him through His revelation and their experience.  God’s works and nature could be recited, called out (think of the caller for a square dance or bingo game).  
 
 What did the people experience?  Let’s look at more definitions of qara.  The onomatopoetic (a word that describes its sound) word is a cry for help.  In this sense, the ark was a place where the name of the Lord was cried unto.  Atop the ark was the mercy seat, the recognizable portion with the cherubim.  To this the high priest was supposed to yearly bring blood, interceding that the mercy of God would cover their failure to keep the law (which was, as I must credit Francis Schaeffer for pointing out to me) housed in the ark perfectly fitted beneath the mercy seat, the seat of propitiation.  The fact that the rebellious Israelites remained in existence was proof that God had heard their call for mercy. 
 
And finally, perhaps in refutation of the “Raiders” theology, maybe we could read it to mean that where the people proclaim and call upon God’s name, there He dwells between the cherubim. 
 

The LORD is near to all who call upon Him,
To all who call upon Him in truth.
 - Psalm 145:18
 
 

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

The Scriptures regularly identify God’s name with the cultus – God’s name was both blessed and blasphemed in cultic activity, depending on whether the worship took place according to the divinely given pattern or not. Not only do various psalms (7:17; 8:1, 9; 9:10; 18:49; 20:1, 5, 7; 29:2; 30:4; 34:3; 54:6; 68:4; 86:9, 11-12; 92:1; 96:2, 8; 97:12; 99:6; 102:21; 103:1; 105:1, 3; 106:47; 113:1-3; 115:1; 116:4, 13, 17; 118:26; 122:4; 124:8; 129:8; 135:1, 3, 13; 145:21; 148:5, 13) testify that worship happens in the name of the Lord, but Malachi 1:6–8, Ezekiel 20:27–28, and 22:26 reveal how Israel blasphemed God’s name when they abused the cultus. Although far less frequent, the NT (Rom 15:9 [quoting 2 Sam 22:50 and Ps 18:49]; Heb 2:12 [quoting Ps 22:22] and Heb 13:15) also identifies positively worship with God’s name. The NT episode of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 was fundamentally one of blasphemy, as was possibly the disgrace of the wife who prayed or prophesied with her head uncovered (1 Cor 11). Jesus also warned his disciples against those who would put them out of the synagogues under the ironic understanding that they were ‘offering service to God’ (John 16:2).

Blasphemy is taken with the utmost seriousness in the NT. Indeed, and ironically, part of Saul’s blasphemous tirade against the early church was with a view to trying to get Christians to blaspheme God’s name (Acts 26:11; 1 Tim 1:13). Paul tells Timothy that via the rejection of faith and a good conscience, Hymenaeus and Alexander shipwrecked their faith and were subsequently ‘handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme’ (1 Tim 1:20). James teaches that the dishonoring of the poor is to ‘blaspheme (NIV: ‘slander’) the honorable name by which you were called?’ (Jas 2:6–7).

Jude speaks of ungodly people have crept in into the Christian community unnoticed and who ‘pervert the grace of our God into sensuality’ and deny Jesus Christ. They rely on dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and ‘blaspheme the glorious ones’ and ‘all that they do not understand’ (Jude 1:4–10). It seems that blasphemy is shunned so severely by the apostolic band for three related reasons: (i) their love of God, and so of his name; (ii) their concern that God’s name not be ‘blasphemed among the Gentiles’ because of their lawbreaking and immoral behaviour (Rom 2:24, citing Isa 52:5); and (iii) their love for God’s truth (2 Pet 2:2; cf. 2:11–12).

Jesus’ claim to forgive sins (a claim made manifest in his proclamation but hidden in the heart of the Father) led to the charge of blasphemy, and rightly so if he were not God (Matt 9:3; Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21; cf. Matt 26:65; Mark 14:64). But that he is God is precisely the point. Indeed, ‘unless Christ is God, his word of forgiveness is empty of any divine substance’. Brueggemann notes, following Hannah Arendt, that forgiveness was Jesus’ ‘most endangering action because if a society does not have the apparatus for forgiveness, then its members are fated to live forever with the consequences of any violation’.

Jesus’ response to the Jewish leaders’ charge of blasphemy in John 10:33 (a charge that if true he should rightly have been stoned to death for, according to Leviticus 24:10–16) is noted in John 10:35–38: ‘If he called them gods to whom the word of God came … do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father’.

The sanctuary was a place where God’s name was ‘remembered’ (Exod 20:24) and where God caused his name to dwell (Deut 12:11), although Psalm 119:55 seems to suggests that to remember God’s name is no more than to keep his law and Psalms 45:16-17; 83:4 and Isaiah 26:8 may indicate a connection between remembering and posterity (survival), that is to forget the name is to, as it were, cause existence to cease. So Absalom complained, ‘I have no son to keep my name in remembrance’ and so had to name a pillar after himself (2 Sam 18:18; cf. Isa 66:1; Acts 7:45; 17:24-25; 2 Cor 6:16).

The name the Israelites were to remember ‘throughout all generations’ was ‘YHWH (LXX = ku,rioj) the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ (Exod 3:15). But although this was the ‘remembered’ name, what did it actually mean to the ancient to know that Abraham’s and Isaac’s and Jacob’s God had a name? And did that name actually reveal anything?

It is my contention that the revelation of the name ‘YHWH’ in Exodus 3 ties God down neither in his nature or conduct. Rather, the response to Moses’ question maintains the freedom, independence and ‘self-determining existence’ of the Answerer to be who he chooses to be in the future. Everything is left ‘open’. I’ve appreciated Thielicke words here (as elsewhere):

[God] himself will make it plain in the future who he is and will be. I will be – but it is still to be revealed who I will be. There is thus expressed here the freedom of this self-revealing God for the future self-disclosing and self-imparting which will take place in history. If the name were meant as a concept embracing the nature of God, we should have definitive information with this self-declaration. Instead, the name simply denotes the one with whom we have to do or who is under discussion. It leaves it for him to disclose himself. It leaves it for him to interpret his name by what he makes known by word and work in his self-disclosure. The only definitive thing that this name Yahweh lays down is that this self-disclosure and self-impartation will follow, so that Yahweh had at his command an incalculable multiplicity of ways of acting and working … The being in the name of Yahweh is to be construed, not as being in itself, but as being for.

What stands out to me is that the name given in Exodus 3 in the seemingly evasive divine response is perhaps not so much as revealing God’s name (for they already knew his name) as it is a revelation of divine character. As an OT scholar notes:

The term itself, as the J source affirms, is doubtless pre-Mosaic … What emerge as distinctively Mosaic in the name formulas are the qualities and attributes of the Creator God of the Fathers revealed in the unique historical setting of the Sinai covenant, between the past event of the Exodus, and the future prospect of the Conquest. These are grace and mercy, patience, great kindness and devotion, all of which mark the action by which he delivers his afflicted people, creates a new community, - and not least the passionate zeal by which he binds Israel to himself in an exclusive relationship of privilege and obligation, of promise and threat, of judgment and mercy.

Until the next post ...

BTW: Jim Gordon has an exciting and encouraging (not least because he is the principal of the Scottish Baptist College) post here on what it means to do theology as community. And Jim West, in typical tongue-in-check style, has posted here on the evils facing America today.

Although the text of the Hebrew Bible reveals that Israel’s God is referred to by a number of epithets, names and titles, OT scholars are quick to assert that this is an indication of the development in Israelite religion. So just as there was a move to use the divine name (YHWH) at one time in Israel’s history to distinguish YHWH from the other gods, there also came a time when this move was reversed. Rose notes that ‘the loss of this obviousness of a living relationship with God is compensated by an explicit confession of faith’, of which he cites as an example Deuteronomy 6–16. There seems to be two reasons for this: (i) the name as a distinguishing mark was no longer necessary; and (ii) the later Jewish custom of not pronouncing the name at all for fear of violating the Third Commandment. This is evident especially in the postexilic texts (for example, Esther, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes do not use the name ‘YHWH’ at all.) Although YHWH was still considered the only God, the use of ‘Elohim’ became synonymous with, and often replaced, ‘YHWH’.

Furthermore, Baumgarten notes that ‘Among the Essenes the awe surrounding the divine name was apparently extreme. It appears also to have carried over to other sacrosanct names, such as those of the angels and that of the lawgiver, “any blasphemer of whom is punished with death” (Josephus, War 2.142 and 145). This tendency was not, however, confined to the Essenes, as is evidenced by the complaint of a “Galilean heretic” against the Pharisees for permitting the names of pagan rulers to be written in the same document with the name of Moses (mYad 4.8).’

Coffin notes that in the post-exilic prophets and in the later historical books the holiness of the divine nature continues to be emphasised and the sin of profanity to be condemned. Any word or deed that seems to detract from the glory due to God or to manifest a disposition to deprive him of the honor rightly belonging to him, is deprecated. Since Israel is his people, any act that tends to minimise his exalted character as their God is profanity. This was made evident in the growing sanctity of the divine name and the increasing tendency to drop the use of it altogether and replace it with Elohim.

This raises the question, as we shall see, of how Jesus understood the divine name, and whether or not he reinvented it, as did Qumran, to serve Israel’s use and his divine mission. The answer to this question awaits a future post …

The Painting: William Blake's 'Elohim Creating Adam' (1795/circa 1805). For Blake the OT God was a false god. He believed the Fall took place not in the Garden of Eden, but at the time of creation shown here, when Adam was dragged from the spiritual realm and made material.

O be some other name! What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo called, Retain that dear perfection which he owes Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name, And for thy name, which is no part of thee, Take all myself. (Juliet, in William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2)

‘What’s in a name?’ A lot it would seem, particularly if you lived in the ANE where names served as distinguishing markers. Their role is neither to define nor describe, but to identify. They work to differentiate, to structure, and to order. So the naming/designation of the animals by Adam in Genesis 2:19 not only ‘represents something wholesome and salutary’ but also ‘opens up specific human dimensions for communication and for fellowship’. Compare this to Babylonian creation epic in which time preceded the naming of creation: ‘When on high the heaven had not been named … when no gods whatever had been brought into being, uncalled by name.’

The other use for such a distinguishing mark was linked with hope, namely the endurance of one’s family line, and the related securing of family assets (so Deut 25:7; 2 Sam 14:7; 18:18; Ruth 4:5, 10), or the hope of exploitation and abuse (as in Genesis 11:4): ‘let us make a name for ourselves’ (cf. 2 Sam 8:13. In 2 Sam 7:23 God seeks make a name for himself.)

In the OT world, the name also served as an expression of being itself. ‘The name is the soul’. So Origen noted, ‘A name is a term which summarizes and manifests the personal character of him who is named’.

Whereas in modern practice the meaning of a name functions as little more than ‘mere tags’ which pick out an object that ‘by any other name would smell as sweet’ and is generally unknown and irrelevant to its choice, Hebrew names ‘are readily “readable” by those who hear or see them.’ In so far as it does this, naming ‘assumes, rather than justifies, the existence of an object to be named.’ So, for example, we read of Dan in Genesis 30:6, ‘Then Rachel said, “God has judged (or ‘vindicated’, NIV) me, and has also heard my voice and given me a son.” Therefore she called his name Dan’, where Dan sounds like the Hebrew word for ‘judged’. Another example is Nabal (‘foolish’, ‘senseless’) in 1 Sam 25:25 where his character is reflected in his name.

But this is not always the case, even in the Hebrew Bible. So, for example, ‘Absalom (2 Sam. 13) means ‘my father is peace’, when neither he nor David seemed to know much peace, though they offered it to others (1 Sam 25:6, 35; 2 Sam 3:21-23; 15:9, 27; cf. 2 Chron 14:6).

A person’s name not only expresses their identity, but also defies definition by an abstract concept. As Thielicke notes, ‘Any attempt to identify a man with his role or subsume him under a concept leads necessarily to the falsifying of his uniqueness. This uniqueness always contains a transcendent element, a free possibility which cannot be pinned down. The name expresses this transcendent content. It eludes any concept.’

In itself, it seems, one’s name tells us nothing. In itself, it is only an invitation to know more of what might be revealed. The name-bearer is never defined, only introduced, presented. The name can be filled out and interpreted but only by its bearer. But this naming is only ever done with a view to relationship, i.e. for the sake of others; I tell you my name that you and I may enter into discussion. An example of this is when God says to Moses, ‘I know you by name’ (Exod 33:17). As Shults has noted, the point here is ‘not the prepositional content of the divine intellect but the faithful intentionality of the divine promise’. This promise relates to being known by God. In this case, to God’s intention to know Moses. ‘Being known by God’, Shults says, ‘is an experience of the intensive Infinity of divine faithfulness, and the unspeakability of the divine name came to signify this infinite qualitative difference between Creator and creature.’

When we come to the NT, there is little unusual about most of the references to a person or place’s name, especially in Luke-Acts. This does not mean that there is not, as Hartman notes, the widely held belief lurking behind the text that ‘the name communicates something essential or characteristic about the bearer of the name’. Particularly significant is the indication in the name itself of some task given by God, as in the names given to Jesus (Matt 1:21, 23, 25; Luke 1:31-33; 2:21), the Baptist (Luke 1:13, 59-63), Peter and Boanerges (Mark 3:16-17), or something essential about their bearer, as for Legion (Mark 5:9; Luke 8:30), Elymas (Acts 13:8) and various characters in the Book of the Revelation (6:8; 8:11; 9:11; 13:1, 17; 14:11; 15:2; 17:3, 5; 19:11-13, 16).

Connected to knowing the name of a person is the ability to control them, as in Legion (Mark 5:9; Luke 8:30) or those marked with the name of the beast, who are subsequently shaped by its nature (Rev 13:17; 14:11; this becomes particularly significant when we think about God making his own name known). In the case of Jesus giving his followers new names, this amounts to them being given new identities, status and character (Mark 3:16-17; John 10:3; Rev 2:17), identities which are then written in the Lamb’s book of life (Luke 10:20; Phil 4:3; Rev 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:15; 21:27).

Also, in the NT, one’s name is also linked to one’s reputation (Mark 6:14; Luke 6:22; 1 Tim 5:14; Titus 2:8). This is true even for God (1 Tim 6:1; Titus 2:5).

A final thought: No one introduces themselves to themselves. Hence God’s giving of his name to humanity is only ever with a view to fellowship with us. Hence God's hallowing of his name is with a view to securing the same.

Another final thought: Perhaps this is why I feel odd whenever I read a posted comment from 'Anonymous'. I recognise, of course, that Mrs or Mr Anonymous must be either (i) a very important person or (ii) meant to be doing something else at the time and so wanting to allude detection, or (iii) not a person at all.

Rev Joel Edwards

Here's the letter, as reproduced on the Christian Today News site.

Dear Mr Duncan,

I watched this week’s (May 19) Channel 4 Dispatches programme, In God’s Name, with a strong sense of disappointment.

Dispatches has a reputation for being selective and sensationalist, so perhaps I shouldn’t have been shocked. But as someone at the heart of the Christian community, I simply didn’t recognise the claims it made – echoed in the Sunday Telegraph – about a growing band of Christian fundamentalists trying to impose their will on society.

Stephen Green, a key example given of this fundamentalist movement, is an extremist. The vast majority of Christians who watched last night would, like me, have recoiled in horror at some of the statements he made.

The kind of fundamentalism shown by Stephen is not growing in the UK. Unfortunately, the oxygen of publicity provided by the media has exaggerated his influence. What is increasing is a movement of evangelicals, which currently numbers around two million.

This group of people is hugely diverse, with a spectrum of political and theological leanings. Some, including Andrea Minichiello Williams, are active political citizens who lobby passionately on issues they believe are important for the public good. Christians are active on issues of poverty, debt, freedom of speech, the environment and more.

This is how a healthy democracy operates, and while Andrea may have been naïve and controversial in Dispatches, her actions were a legitimate and transparent part of the political process.

Dispatches is a hugely influential programme, so next time it tries to tackle modern Christianity, I would invite its producers to take an honest look at the full story rather than predicting a burgeoning trend on the actions of the eccentric fringe.

Rev Joel Edwards
General Director, Evangelical Alliance

How do you answer the question, asked of us daily; 'How are you?'.

If you are like most everyone, usually the answer is ' I am" fine.

We answer this beginning with the Name of God!  'I AM'. What a revelation! The answer is accurate as well. We know that God is in us, that we were made in His image.

Genesis 1:26, 27:  26  Then God said "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule ove the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27  God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them.

 Jesus lives in us. Would you say that Jesus is sick or broke. No, we wouldn't. When answering the question of how you are today consider that we are also describing how Jesus us in us today. We can substitute the ' I AM' for our answer! The Word in us everyday is our strength ~ the Truth of the Word.

Other scriptural proof that God resides in us:

Exodus 3: 14:  God said to Moses, " I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, " Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ' I AM has sent me to you.'"

 Luke 17:21:  nor will they say ' Look, here it is !' or, ' There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

John 14: 16,17:  I will askt the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot recieve, because it does not see Him or know Him,  but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

Isaiah 61:1-3:  The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, Because the Lord has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And freedom to prisoners; to proclaim the favorable year to the Lord And the day of vengance of our God; to comfort all who mourn in Zion, Giving them  beauty instead of ashes, The oil of gladness instead of mourning, The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting. So they will be called oaks of righteousness, The planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified.

Psalm 119:11: Your Word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against You.

So, when someone asks me How I AM tomorrow, I will remember who I AM in Christ. I am blessed, healed and favored of God! I will nolonger take this question lightly, because I will be answering it with His name!

Be Blessed.                                                                                               

Okay. You're wondering what in God's name this thing is. Well, it's one of the crab babies, at least my rough sketch rendition of one. (If  you want to see real photos of the zoeae and later larval stages of fiddler crabs, click here ).

It's the best I can do. I'm spoiled because I am used to working in labs with good equipment.

In the lab I would have put an aliquot of liquid from the aquarium in a test tube, spun it down in the centrifuge, poured off the supernatant, and made a slide out of the sediment, which would be concentrated crab larvae, instead of chasing one unlucky soul all around the microscope slide trying to catch him long enough to see him.

I would have had nice stains to chose from to make the larvae show up better. Today I had McCormick's yellow food coloring from Harris Teeter.

I would have had a nice Zeiss microscope with oil immersion lenses and fine optics. Instead, I have a Milben kids' microscope, circa 1965, in a wooden case, with an EverReady 5 volt flashlight shining in the mirror to light the stage. (And if you want a kick, click here to see a similar setup to my microscope and wooden case. It even has the dissecting kit tool indentations in the styrafoam. I had those dissecting tools a long time ago. It says something when you search Google for Milben microscope and it's listed under "antique sites.")

I would have had a nice Zeiss microscope with a camera attached to photograph what I saw. Instead, I had to sketch it. I don't have one of those neat electronic tablets to draw with. All I had is the "pencil" tool on my son's Photoshop program that I barely know how to use.

So, I know, stop whining. I'm not in the lab anymore. Given all this, I still managed to catch one crab baby, watch him through my very "SUB-OPTIMAL" microscope, in food coloring stain, and draw you a WAY suboptimal sketch.

But still, what the sketch shows is the head part on the right, with two little "?claws" moving back and forth rapidly. It stretches out with the tail on the left. We could even see "material" moving through the crab from the head, out the tail. Yes, out the tail. My husband caught that one. So I guess we can assume the crab baby has been eating the food I served. :)

In any event, minus all the fancy equipment, it's the best I can give you, but still it's something. I should note that this was a 100x magnification.

We have noted that Days 1 and 2 there was a fair reduction in numbers of larvae and my husband noted the blackened area that looked like a mass murder in one corner of the tank deep down in the gravel where many babies perished. Still, there are LOTS of babies swimming in the tank AND they are bigger than yesterday. If you hold a magnifying glass up to the tank, you can see tiny tails. So some are thriving after all.

If many many thrive, at least the guys at Fish Pros said they'd be happy to buy some from me for cash or store credit. That would be great. I'm always in need of new supplies. :)

Salinity is almost "ocean" at 1.017. Should reach 1.020 later today.

Anyway, now you've "sort of" met the babies.

....about that centrifuge - it occurred to me I could take a small, capped plastic tube and tie a rope around it and spin it around my head. Then I thought, maybe even better - tape the tube to the inside of my washing machine and run it on the spin cycle. But leave it to my engineer husband: find a way to attached two capped tubes on a rod opposite each other, connect them to a power drill, and turn the drill on....THAT'S the best RPMs for the money. :)