IN DEFENSE OF THE FAITH

WHO IS JEHOVAH?

By Adolph E. Knoch

THE SON of His love is the Image of the invisible God (Col.1:15). This simple statement solves some of the deepest difficulties connected with the relationship between the Two. An Image, especially a living Image, is, in every possible way, an exact representation of its original. We speak of a picture or a statue as if it were the man himself. No one objects if we say, "This is Christopher Columbus," when we might be more literal and say, "This is a statue of him." When we see Christ we see God.

In Him alone can we see the Father. Many today are like Philip. Our Lord had said, "If you had known Me you would have known my Father also." Yet he said, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficing us." But He replied, "I am so much time with you and you do not know Me, Philip! He who has seen Me has seen the Father, and how are you saying, `Show us the Father?' Are you not believing that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The declarations which I am speaking to you, I am not speaking from Myself. Now the Father remaining in Me, He is doing the works" (John 14:7-10).

It is very evident that the unity between the Two is so close that, for purposes of observation, there is no difference. All the love, the care, the provision which the Father exhibits toward His children was manifested by Him toward His own. Every act of His life was done, not by Himself, but by His Father. It was impossible to know Him without at the same time becoming acquainted with the Father. He told the unbelieving Jews, "If you were acquainted with Me, you should be acquainted with My Father also" (John 8:19). God is invisible. We can see Him only in His Image.

From this standpoint we can see why God is so opposed to all other images or idols. They misrepresent, caricature, dishonor Him. While they may, in some instances, suggest a few of His attributes, even these are partial and distorted and suggestive of more that He abhors than what He is. They all lack light and life and love, which are the divine essentials. Only in the living, loving, enlightening Image Who is presented to us in the Word, do we find all of the divine essence and attributes displayed. If the worshipers of idols have no hesitancy in calling them gods, though they insist that they merely represent their deities, surely we may call Him God, Who alone, in all the universe, completely unveils Him to our eyes.

The same relationship between the Two, especially in the Hebrew Scriptures, is brought before us in the opening sentence of the epistle to the Hebrews. Of all people, these Hebrews would be most interested in knowing just what relationship the Son, Who had lived and died in their midst, sustained to the deity revealed in their sacred writings. So He is presented as the Effulgence of His glory and the Emblem of His assumption. There is a marked similarity between these figures and that of an Image. In all of these figures the Son brings the deity within the reach of our perceptions. The sun is invisible to human sight, but the surrounding photosphere, the effulgent radiation, is apparent to our eyes. Such is the Son in the Hebrew Scriptures.

A vast realm of truth lies in the rendering "assumption." God assumes a variety of characters in order to reveal Himself. To burst upon His creatures in the full complement of His glory would only blind them, especially in the early revelations of Himself in the Scriptures, before the Son came in flesh. He must reveal one side at a time. Just as our Lord is presented to us in four different accounts, as a King in Matthew, as a Servant in Mark, as a Man in Luke, and as the Word in John, so, in the previous revelation of Himself God assumed a variety of characters. Of these the Son was the Emblem. The invisible attributes of deity became apparent to His people through Him.

When we read the Hebrew Scriptures let us not be like Philip, and seek to find in the Father an entirely divergent Being from the Son. Both are repeatedly mentioned. All is out of God and all is through His Emblem. When it is necessary to distinguish them, titles are used in keeping with the context. We can see Him in Jehovah and Jehovah in Him. We can perceive Him in Elohim and Elohim in Him. So also He appears in Adonai and Adonai in Him.

We have been asked to believe that Jehovah refers only to "the Father," and Adonai only to the Son. Even a superficial acquaintance with the Hebrew titles of deity will prevent our making any such admission, for all of these titles are used of one God and are so inextricably interwoven that no one, without an ulterior motive, could even think of apportioning them in this manner. In this case it is particularly unfortunate, for the Jews, in their public reading, would not pronounce the name Jehovah, but continually substituted Adonai for it. We may be sure that they never substituted the name of one God, Adonai, for another, Jehovah! They assuredly believed that both of these titles belong to the One God Whom they worshiped.

Many, many times the two titles, Adonai and Jehovah, are combined. Ezekiel alone uses this combination about two hundred times. It is unfortunate that the versions translate both Jehovah Elohim and Adonai Jehovah by "Lord God." They can be distinguished by the fact that SMALL CAPITALS are always used of Jehovah, whether it is translated LORD or GOD. Thus Lord GOD always denotes Adonai Jehovah. It is never GOD except in combination. The first occurrence alone ought to be sufficient to show that only One is intended. Abraham called Jehovah "Lord GOD"--Adonai Jehovah (Gen.15:2,8). Read the passage. Are there two distinct personalities dealing with Abraham, one called Jehovah and the other Adonai?

An instructive fact comes out in Moses' address to Jehovah at the burning thorn bush (Exodus 4:10). Current Hebrew texts read that Moses said to Jehovah "O my Adonai." It is said that this should read "O Jehovah," for in about one hundred thirty-four places the preservers of the text deliberately changed the reading to avoid what was deemed irreverence. We hardly dare to charge them with altering the Personage. All they did was to use another of His titles. Those who wish the proof of these "emendations of the Sopherim" are referred to Dr. Ginsburg's Massoretico-Critical Hebrew Bible, especially the Introduction, and his voluminous Massorah. All of the passages are noted in the Companion Bible.

When Gideon perceived that his visitant was the Messenger of Jehovah, he addressed Him as Adonai Jehovah (Judges 6:22), for he had seen Jehovah face to face. Samson also addressed Him so (Judges 16:28). His example was followed by David (2 Sam.7:18, 19,20,28,29). Throughout this beautiful scene we have other titles freely used. David sat before Jehovah (18). He called Him Elohim (God, 22,23,27,28). Again he calls Him Jehovah Tsebaoth (Lord of hosts, 26,27). No one can read this passage and fail to see that Jehovah is Adonai. But why multiply witnesses? One sentence here should be enough. David said "O Adonai Jehovah Thou art that God."

THE SON AS GOD

The divine titles are full of significance. In preparation for a concordant version of the Hebrew Scriptures, l have made a thorough investigation of the meaning of some of them with the most gratifying results. A full exposition must await some other occasion. I have found that Elohim, usually rendered "God," belongs to a family of words having the general sense of DISPOSE. El means the DISPOSER. Elohim has the special sense of Arbiter. I now wish to show that the Scriptures speak of the Son as Arbiter, or God. In other words, He is Elohim.

The logical place to look for such evidence is the introduction to the epistle to the Hebrews. Its purpose is to inform them as to the relation of the Son to the deity and to messengers and to men. There we have a quotation from the psalms:

"Yet to the Son:
'Thy throne, O God, is for the eon of the eon,
And a scepter of rectitude is the scepter of Thy kingdom.
Thou lovest righteousness and hatest injustice,
Therefore God, Thy God, anoints Thee with the oil of exultation
            beyond Thy partners.’ "

Turning to Psalm 45:6, we find that the title Elohim is used for God in each case. This associates Him with every occurrence of the title. When we read "In the beginning Elohim creates" (Gen. 1:1), we are not only reminded that the universe was created in Him (Col.1:16), but that He, as the Emblem of Elohim, is the One immediately in view.

THE SON AS JEHOVAH

The, name JESUS, like many another Hebrew name, is a compound containing the title Jehovah. Joshua and Isaiah are practically the same in meaning. It may be rendered JEHOVAH-SAVIOUR. We are asked to believe that this must be rendered Jehovah is salvation, and has no reference whatever to Himself. But the Scriptures tell us plainly that He was called this because "He shall be saving His people from their sins" (Matt.1:21). So, in His case, it speaks not merely of a salvation wrought by another, but of a SAVIOUR whose name is JEHOVAH. No mere juggling with words can escape the fact that He does the saving, and takes the sacred name as His on that account.

After quoting a part of the sixth of Isaiah, John, in his account of our Lord's life, says, "These things Isaiah said, seeing that he perceived His glory, and speaks concerning Him" (John 12:41). There could be no stronger proof that the One of Whom John spoke is the same One of Whom Isaiah wrote. But we are asked to believe that Isaiah spoke of Him only when using the title Adonai in Isaiah 6:1,8, and 11. But the word glory in Isaiah is specifically attached to the title Jehovah (Isa.6:3), and not to Adonai. Moreover, the ancient Hebrew text had the title Jehovah throughout. Each occurrence of Adonai is to be replaced by Jehovah, according to the emendations of the Sopherim. See Ginsburg's Massorah, section 115.

I find that many Hebrew manuscripts have Jehovah for Adonai in this passage. I have a list of fifty-two which read Jehovah in verse one, forty-five have it in verse eight, and thirty-four in verse eleven. The fact that Jehovah was never substituted for any other title, but was almost invariably pointed with the vowels for Adonai, and frequently displaced by it, confirms the massoretic emendation of the Sopherim. This takes Adonai out of the sixth of Isaiah entirely. Hence there is not even an opportunity to quibble about the matter. Isaiah saw the glory of Jehovah and John insists that this was Christ.

There is no need to distort any passage of the Scriptures to prove that our Lord is known as Jehovah. This has been done in most versions in Jeremiah 23:6, where the simple Hebrew reading, "And this is His name which Jehovah is calling Him: Our Righteousness," is usually altered to "and this is His name whereby He shall be called, the Lord our Righteousness." The name, Jehovah Tsidkenu, has strong sentimental attractions, but the precious truth it contains does not depend on the mistranslation. Whatever the title, Christ is our Righteousness.

Sufficient has been said to show that the Son is Adonai, as well as Elohim and Jehovah. In fact, He is entitled to use all of the divine names, and is even called Father (Isa.9:6). In passing, it is worthy of note that the word here rendered "everlasting" is not the Hebrew word usually so translated. In the phrase "for ever and ever." the last ever is this word. It is usually rendered still. Its root meaning is FURTHER. Used absolutely, as here, it has the sense of futurity. He is Father of futurity. Ordinarily there is no distinction between Him and His God, for They are One. He is not an Adonai while the Father is Jehovah. Both of these titles are full of meaning. Each is a divine assumption. If He were not Jehovah, we would know absolutely nothing about Jehovah. If He, as Adonai, had an entirely distinct office from Jehovah, then He would misrepresent Him. He, as Adonai Jehovah, is the Emblem, the effulgence, the Image of the invisible deity. We see Both when we see Him.

HOW DISTINGUISHED

There are times when it is necessary to distinguish them. This is not done by restricting Him to one of the divine titles, as Adonai. In Hebrews and Psalm forty-five, He is called God, and immediately afterward we read of "God, Thy God." The distinction is made by ascribing to Him the possession of a God, even though He is called by the same title. Had He been Adonai in a special exclusive sense, He would have been so called here instead of receiving the same appellation as His God.

Usually some descriptive term is used which cannot apply to absolute deity, such as "Son." "Jehovah is saying to Me, `Thou art My Son'" (Psa.2:7).

Adonai is the Adjudger. That is the significance of this name. Hence, when it is a question of judging David's enemies, he speaks of Him as his Adonai. The throne was promised to David by Jehovah, the covenant God of Israel. Hence, when the work of judgment is to be delayed,

"Jehovah avers to my Lord [Adonai, Adjudger],
`Sit Thou at My right
Till I am setting Thy enemies
For Thy footstool.'"

Each is given the name that the part calls for. The fact that the Son is called Adonai here does not prove that He cannot be called God (Elohim) elsewhere.

One of the most difficult passages in the Scriptures becomes luminous once we recognize the fact that the invisible deity is outside the sphere of human perception, and must be seen in His Image, and heard by means of His Logos or Word. John's account of our Lord's life begins by placing the Son in His proper relation to the God of the Hebrew Scriptures. Unlike Paul, he does not present Him to our sight, as His linage, but to our hearing, as His Expression. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God, and God was the Word" (John 1:1). If the Word was toward God, we cannot absolutely identify it with God. In the Hebrew Scriptures God speaks. This is especially true of Jehovah. How often do we read of "the Word of the Lord!" John reveals, at the very commencement of his account the stupendous fact that the God of the preceding revelation was the Logos, the Word, the One Who now becomes flesh. He is toward God in the sense that, if we look or listen in His direction we see and hear God. The manifestations of deity in the Hebrew Scriptures came through the Logos, the Word. He spoke to Adam in the garden, He made the promises to Abraham and gave the law to Moses. His coming in flesh was but a nearer and clearer expression of the heart of God than was possible when He was the God of Eden and Sinai.

The most conclusive and abundant evidence that Jehovah is not the exclusive name of absolute deity lies in the titles of the Greek Scriptures. Jehovah is generally translated Lord [Kurios] in the Greek translation and in English versions. Elohim is God [Theos]. Now if Jehovah were the Father, then hroughout the so-called New Testament we would find the title "Lord" used of the Father. It would never be applied to Christ, and especially not in differentiating between Him and His God. Yet the very opposite is true! "God" [Elohim, Theos] is "the Father." The "Lord" Jehovah or Adonai, Kurios is the Son.

I have lately read an article written by a member of the International Bible Students Association, but protesting against some of their teaching. I was struck with the repetition of "Jehovah, the Father." Such a phrase never occurs in the Scriptures, so far as I am aware. But "God Theos, Elohim the Father" occurs often. A hasty glance through a concordance reveals about forty occurrences in the Greek Scriptures: John 6:27; Rom. 1:7, [15:6]; 1 Cor.1:3; 8:6; 2 Cor.1:2; 11:31; Gal.1:3,4; Eph.1:2,3; 4:6; 5:20; 6:23; Phil.1:2; 2:11; 4:20; Col.1:2,3; 3:17; 1 Thess.1:1,1,3; 3:11,13; 2 Thess.1:1,2; 2:16; 1 Tim.1:2; 2 Tim.1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 3; James 1:27; 3:9; 1 Peter 1:2,3; 2 Peter 1:17; 2 John 3; Jude 1; Rev.1:6. Only false conceptions lead us to such divergence from the phraseology of Holy Writ.

It is evident that none of the later writers thought Jehovah always meant the Father. Paul, for instance, in a passage dealing with this very subject, absolutely denies the idea. He says, "there is one God Theos, Elohim, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord Kurios, Jehovah or Adonai, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him. But in all there is not this knowledge" (1 Cor.8:6,7). A hasty deduction from the use of the titles would suggest that Elohim [Theos, God] was the Father exclusively. But no one reading any translation of the Greek Scriptures intelligently can possibly hold that Jehovah is only the Father.

Now we have not said that Jehovah could not be applied to the God of our Lord. It is used of both. David said, "The Lord [Jehovah], said to My Lord" (Matt.22:44). Nor have we said that God [Elohim] is reserved for His God and never used of Him Who is called the Son of God. This is almost always the case, yet He also is called God [Elohim] in Hebrews 1:8. There are hundred of texts which suggest that Elohim is the Father to one which could be used to prove that Jehovah is. Either position is merely the result of a crude revolt against traditional trinitarianism, and an attempt to displace it by an equally unscriptural and unreasonable theory, which has a semblance of proof in a few texts but is contrary to hundreds of others.

The logical result of making Jehovah the Father and Adonai the Son is a dual deity, quite as foreign to revelation and reason as a trinity. Father and Son, God and Lord, or Christ, and the appellations, Effulgence, Emblem, Word, and Image--all these present no real difficulties, for they explain the relationship between the Two in such a way that deity is not destroyed in unity. Jehovah and Adonai are names of equal rank. If they were distinct and exclusive titles, they would have to refer to two divinities. But they are so often used together that it is idle to follow out a mere unfounded inference.

When the apostle wished to inform us of the relation sustained by Christ Jesus to God before He emptied Himself, and became a Man, he tells us that He subsisted in the form of God [Elohim] (Phil.2:5-8). This is the key to the visible theophanies in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is this Form Who appeared as God. If the highest expression of deity is conveyed by the term Jehovah, this was the occasion for its use. As a matter of fact, then, even as it is today in English, the term God [Elohim] came much nearer to indicating absolute deity than Lord [Jehovah]. Taking it thus, our Lord was in the form of God. The invisible, unapproachable divine Spirit manifested Himself through One Who had a tangible form. He is not a different god, but the perceptible representation of the one God.

In the statement, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), the word one is in the neuter gender, which cannot be expressed in English. The unity consists in things, attributes, qualities, not in personality. This is a condensed, yet comprehensive statement of the great truth we have been seeking to unfold. Excepting personality, there is the closest unity between Him and His Father, so that the divine titles and appellations, if applicable to the One, are suited to the Other also.

There is more truth in two short words in the Scriptures than can be found in all that theology has to say on this subject. They are the connectives, of [ek, out of] and through [dia]. All is out of God and through the Lord. This distinction is found everywhere in the Scriptures. God is the great Cause and Source. Christ is the Channel. God works through Christ. Christ reveals God. In honoring the Son we are honoring the Father, because He is His Image. This is the simple and satisfactory solution of the so-called "mystery" of the "godhead."

© Concordant Publishing Concern,
15570 Knochaven Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91350