Chapter III:

CHAPTER III: ON SYNONYMS

§ 20. To the synonyms belong the names of God, in whose explanation the greatest part of the doctrine of God is contained. This is so because our theology in this life is almost completely grammatical. Thus whatever we can know about God is called “the name of God,” and when Dionysius the Areopagite (or whoever else is the author of the book De divinis nominibus) planned to say anything about God, he gathered the names that are given to God in the Scriptures.

First, the divisions of the divine names.

In general we should note: (I) The various divisions of the names of God. (1) The names of God are spoken generally or specifically. In a general and broad sense, whatever is declared about God is said to be a name of God. In this way it is taken by the ancients, who include also His attributes or properties by the giving of names. As a result, they separate them into affirmative names, as when God is said to be good, wise, omnipotent, etc., and negative names, as when He is said to be immense, incorporeal, invisible. In the specific and strict sense, the names by which He calls Himself in Holy Scripture are said to be names of God. That division belongs to this also. There are some names for God by which the subject—God—is signified, such as Jehovah and Jah. There also are some that are predicated of the subject and are called attributes, such as “Merciful” and “Just.” Here, however, we should note two things: First, it is only for the sake of teaching that the subject and the attributes of the subject are distinguished in God because in God they are most really and simply one thing. Second, some names that concern the subject itself are also sometimes predicated of the subject, such as Jehovah El, “Mighty God” (Exod. 20:5).

(2) Some divine names are essential, established to signify His essence, such as Jehovah. Some, on the other hand, are personal and are used about God to indicate the plurality of persons, such as Elohim.

(3) Essential names are either proper or figurative. Proper names are those that are predicated of God without figurative language, such as Jehovah, El, and Adonai. Figurative ones are those that are predicated of God through a figure of speech.

(4) Figurative names are either metonymic, as when God is called “Might,” “Aid,” “Light,” or “our Salvation” because He is the Creator and Preserver of might, aid, light, and our salvation (Ps. 18:[1]; 22:[19]; 27:[1]). He is called “our song,” “our praise,” “our hope” because He is the subject matter of our song and of our praise and is the object of our hope (Exod. 15:2; Jer. 17:14; Ps. 3:[3]; etc.). Or those names are metaphoric, as when He is called “the sun,” “a lamp,” or “a shield” (Ps. 84:[11]; Isa. 10:17; Ps. 3:[3]; etc.). Some of these metaphorical names are taken from man and some from other creatures.

(5) Personal names include either all three persons, such as Elohim, or they express the individual persons, such as “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit.”

Second, observations about the names of God.

§ 21. (II) Observations about the names of God. (1) The variety of the names of God express His divine majesty. You see, because we cannot fully know the divine majesty because of its complete perfection, so many names of God are published for us in the Scriptures that from them we may be drawn only to some knowledge of God’s majesty. (See Augustinus Justinianus, in Octaplo psalterii, at Psalm 118.) Galatino (De arc. Cathol. verit., bk. 2, c. 17) relates that the Kabbalists in some strange way draw seventy-two names for God from Exod. 14:19–21. Because they have accomplished this in ten modes, they consequently produce 720 names. Although an interpretation of the names of God is not contained in the books of the Jews, nevertheless we quite correctly observe in them that each of those names is formed of three letters and consists of three syllables to designate the Trinity of the persons of God. Irenaeus (bk. 2, c. 41, p. 140) uses as a name of God Barneth, perhaps from . Concerning the names Egla and Makom, see our treatise On the Nature of God [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 3], § 25. God is also called (Deut. 32:29; Isa. 42:8); (Isa. 65:16); Baruch, “the Blessed” (Mark 14:61). Aristotle writes that God is called as if , “always being,” because he always keeps his own position [statum] (De mundo, c. 7). The Greeks call God [“life”] because he is the initiator of all life, and [“through”] because all things exist through him. (Cf. Plato, Cratyl., p. 313; Laertius, Vit. Zenon., p. 451; etc.) Jerome (Epistle 136, to Marcellus) mentions ten names for God: El, Elohim, Elohe, Sabaoth, Elyon, Asher Ehieh, Adonai, Yah, Jehovah, Shaddai. We have published an explanation of these in our treatise On the Nature of God [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 3], § 21. Here we warn [the reader] that [Jerome] distinguishes Elohim not so appropriately from Elohe, because it comes from the same [root], namely, from Eloah. The first is absolute, but the latter is construct or placed in governance [in the construct state]. We also warn [the reader] that Sabaoth is never attributed to God absolutely; therefore it is not a name of itself but is connected with the name El or Jehovah. Finally, we warn [the reader] that the name Yah has been contracted from the name Jehovah.

** (Those who say that Sabaoth is a name for God are deceived because it is a plural that means “armies” and denotes all the creatures of God. This is notwithstanding the facts that: (1) The name [“Jehovah”], which is often added, is not put into the construct state, for we must supply the name [“Elohe”], which is expressly added in Hosea 12:[5]. (2) The Hebrew word is retained in the New Testament in the Greek text as (Rom. 9:29). After all, not every word that is preserved for a certain reason in the original language in the New Testament is a proper name, as is evident concerning hosanna, hallelujah, amen, pascha, sabbathum, etc. Conversely, even some proper names are not retained in the Hebrew language, as is evident with reference to the names Jehovah and Adonai, which are rendered in the New Testament as [“Lord”]. **

(2) The names that are properly spoken with reference to God but that nevertheless are not given to Him alone, but also in some respect to His creatures, befit God primarily [per prius, literally] and His creatures secondarily [per posterius, nonliterally]. On the other hand, those that are spoken about God metaphorically befit His creatures primarily and God secondarily. For the primary things [priora] are transferred from God to His creatures but the derivative things [posteriora] from His creatures to God. Thomas makes the following distinction: “As far as the thing signified is concerned, the proper names are said about God primarily [per prius] because perfections of this type filter down from God into His creatures; however, concerning the giving of a name primarily, we impose them on His creatures” ([ST,] p. 1, q. 13, art. 3). It is more correct, however, to say that both the thing and the name in such attributes are attributed to God primarily [per prius] because both are transferred from God to His creatures.

(3) Metaphoric names taken from man and attributed to God designate both the philanthropy of God and the economy of the incarnation.

On the name “Jehovah”: First, the title.

§ 22. We must teach some things in particular about the three names of God: Jehovah, Adonai, and Elohim. Of the name “Jehovah,” we must consider: (I) The title. The rabbinic scholars call it: (1) , “the name, son of four letters,” and the Greeks [“four-lettered”] from the number of letters with which it was written. (2) , “the name” par exellence, because it is to be preferred above all other names. Lyra, on Exodus 8, from Rabbi Moyses: “God is called some names with respect to His creatures, such as ‘Creator’ and ‘Lord.’ Others are indicative of the qualities regarding His divine essence, such as ‘the Wise,’ ‘the Good,’ ‘the Omnipotent’; some with respect to His quantities, such as ‘the Immense,’ ‘the Uncircumscribed.’ The four-lettered name, however, signifies pure, bare essence as He exists in Himself.” (3) , “the great name.” (4) , “the glorious name”; , “the one to be blessed”; , “glorious”; , “great” (Jer. 44:26). (5) , “proper or appropriated name.” (6) , “the name set forth or separated,” for it is taken either from (“he set forth”) or from (“he separated”), as the son of Maimon [Moses ben Maimon or Maimonides] wishes, because it is separated from the knowledge of men. (Cf. Buxtorf, on the root , p. 179; Schindler, Lexicon, p. 430.) We shall say later how this is explained in various ways. (7) , “appropriated,” or, with the addition of , “appropriated to Him,” because it is most properly attributed to God. (8) , which reminds one of the essence of God. (9) [“the name of Him who is, His own name”].

Second, the writing.

§ 23. (II) The Aramaic writers [of the Targumim] write it with three s (forming the vertices of an equilateral triangle pointing downward) with a qamets added beneath, as well as with four points set in order: · · · ·. In the rabbinic commentaries we have , and in some books because the is interpreted as “the beginning.” Moreover, the concept of “beginning” befits the three persons of God in comparison with His creatures. Therefore the three persons of God would be expressed with three s and would be closed up within a circle both to signify the unity of the divine nature in the three persons and to note that there is only one beginning. (Cf. Virg. on Isaiah 12.)

In some Greek Bibles it was once written with a Samaritan character of the sort that comes close to the shape of the Greek letter π. Those who did not understand this used to think that two π’s were placed there and would read it Pipi. Jerome ridicules these in his Prolog. galeatus and in Epistle 136. In his commentary on Isaiah, Procopius wrote in the margin wherever he found (“Lord”) in the Greek text and the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew.

In the Rashe tebot, that is, in the first letters of words or in their abbreviations, or only a is used, and it means [“the name”]. Also used in the same way are [the four letters] , which are the initial letters of the words , “the holy One, blessed is He.” Sometimes throughout the Soph. tebot they write the last letter of the Tetragrammaton, . (Cf. Reuchlin, De arte Cabbalist., bk. 3.) They also change some letters of it, for instead of , they write , as well as . All of these derive their origin from the fact that they were unwilling to publish or speak this name in common use.

Third, its pronunciation.

§ 24. (III) The Jews think that this name cannot and should not be pronounced; for that reason, they call it [“unpronounced”]. Theodoret calls it [“unutterable”]. Wherever it occurs in Holy Writ, they read instead , “Lord.” When it precedes or follows , then they read it as Elohim [“God”], lest they be forced to say Adonai twice. Eusebius, De praeparat. evang., bk. 1, c. 8: “Moses and all the prophets teach that God is an unspeakable thing and is perceptible only to the intellect. As a symbol of this situation, they provide a written symbol of four letters that they cannot mention.” In bk. 9, the last chapter, he cites the comment of Artapan that “when Pharaoh heard the name ‘Jehovah’ spoken to him by Moses, he fell to the ground, stricken dumb. The priests were unable to read the letters of this name that Moses had carved on a tablet. When they laughed at him, they were struck down in a fit and perished.” Pisecius, Resp. ad Camp., p. 18: “None of the ancients before Galatino, not even the Masoretic scholars themselves, read the four-lettered name of God.” They also imagine that the son of the Israelite woman (Leviticus 24) was found guilty of blasphemy and was stoned to death because he expressed or uttered the name “Jehovah,” which he had heard on Mount Sinai “in its own letters” or just as it is written.

We are correct, however, in setting against this superstition: (1) The lack of a divine command. To be sure, we are forbidden to take the name of God in vain, but nowhere are we forbidden simply to pronounce it.

(2) The goal [scopus] of divine revelation. This name was divinely revealed so people would know and praise it, and it was told in Holy Writ so we might read and pronounce it.

(3) The example of the saints, who in their prayers and conversations with God often use this name, unless we are willing to say that the holy patriarchs and prophets used other names than those that have been noted in the Scriptures. That, however, is absurd.

(4) The equality of manner [rationis parietatem]. If it is permitted to write God’s name, why would it not also be allowed to speak it? If we are permitted to say, “The name of God is written with four letters: , , , ,” why would we not also be permitted to say the name? If we are permitted to hear the name, we will also be allowed to speak it.

(5) The faulty origin of the superstition, of which there are two. The first is a corruption of the biblical text. In Exod. 3:15, when God says, “This is My name (‘forever’),” the rabbinic scholars substitute other [vowel] points and read , “to be kept secret.” From this they conclude that we must not pronounce this name. (Cf. the Talmud, Kidduschim, c. 4, p. 71.) The other is an empty conviction, for they believe one cheapens the name of God if one pronounces it, or they think it lacks its own vowel pointing or that miracles or other things of that sort can be performed by that word. The pious ancestors of the Jews—either because of reverence for the divinity or name of God, or because of an inability to comprehend or pronounce the thing noted (namely, the essence of God), or because of the inability to pronounce it in Greek and Latin (the Greek alphabet has none of these four letters, for it does not have the consonant but only the vowel, nor does it have a [rough] breathing mark in the middle or end [of a word], nor the consonant )—call the name “Jehovah” an unpronounced name, something their descendants changed into a superstition. Abba Saul, Sanhedrin, c. Helec: “Whoever pronounces the four-lettered name has no part in the coming age.” Maimonides says that “its pronunciation ceased with Simeon the Just,” who took up the infant Christ in his arms.

(6) The variety of Jewish opinions about this matter. The Jews themselves have many opinions about not uttering the name “Jehovah.” [a] Some make God the initiator of this matter (Exod. 3:15), and to this they also relate the words of Ps. 65:1: “Silence and praise are due to You, O God, in Zion,” as if the prophet prohibits the utterance of the secret name also in our praises to God. [b] There are some who say that the teachers did this voluntarily, lest the name be violated by common usage. Some say they did this necessarily because no one could pronounce it correctly after Simeon the Just. [c] Some add times and places so that they say it was allowed to the priest not always but only in prohibitions and not everywhere but only in the sanctuary. (Cf. Sanfort., De disc., bk. 1, sect. 9. Cf. Benito Arias, Joseph, c. 1; and Pererius, on Exodus 6, p. 168.)

Fourth, its vowel pointing.

§ 25. (IV) The Jews think that the name “Jehovah” lacks its own vowel points and that sometimes it has the points of the word Adonai and at other times of the word Elohim. They think this: (1) Because in 2 Sam. 7:20, it is pointed with this notation: , for which we have in 1 Chron. 17:17. And the chateph-segol does not fit the letter nor is a silent on a hireq. (2) Because, after the four-lettered name, the letters begad kepat do not have the raphe, which nevertheless ought to happen after as a silent letter. (3) Because with prefixes it is not said but . If one of the letters in rachlam or vecaleb is prefixed to it, the patach is always written under it, though the shewa is the rule for those points because a serving letter is happy with a serving point. (See Drusius, Tetragrammato, c. 7ff., and Buxtorf, on the root .)

However, we briefly say the following: The rules of our grammarians cannot prescribe how biblical words should be pointed, but, conversely, biblical pointing forms our grammatical rules. If the name “Jehovah” were not to have its own pointing, the consequence would be that either it was not pointed from the beginning or the pointing was changed as time passed. We can say neither—not the former, because the Jews themselves claim that the priests pronounced this word with its own pointing in their solemn benediction, nor the latter, because by a change in those proper points in the word Jehovah, Bibles would have been corrupted in countless places. Even if were to have the [vowel] points of Elohim, what would this do to the word Jehovah? If it were to have the points of the word Adonai under a , that would not have to be a simple shewa but a chateph-patach.

Fifth, its origin.

§ 26. (V) It ought to be put beyond the shadow of a doubt that God Himself, not man, is the originator of this name and that He revealed it to men. (The converted Jew Weidner, Loca fidei, tr. 1, p. 154, commands that we consider the words of Moses in Exod. 3:13: , “They will say to me: ‘What is His name?’ ” For if we connect the final letters of the Hebrew words, we will have the name “Jehovah,” which God Himself gave to Himself.) We ask, however, whether the patriarchs before Moses knew this. Some deny it, moved as they are by the Lord’s words: “I revealed Myself to your fathers as God El Shaddai, but by the name ‘Jehovah’ I did not make Myself known to them” (Exod. 6:3). But we must prefer the affirmative, as we showed in our treatise On the Nature of God [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 3], § 23, where we also explained the true meaning of that statement.

Sixth, its etymology.

(VI) We have explained the etymology and significance of this name earlier.

Seventh, its explanation.

(VII) The Jews explain it: First, as “the name of twelve letters” and call it

for in that solemn benediction in Numbers 6[:24–26], the name used three times makes twelve letters and was declared in the temple by the priests as they recited this blessing. The Kabbalists explain it as [“Father, Son, and Spirit—the Holy One”] (Galatino, De arc. cath. verit., bk. 2, c. 11). It is called “the name of twelve letters” not because it is some one name that consists of twelve letters but because it is a combination of many names, which combination has twelve letters arranged to explain that one four-lettered name.

Second, as “the name of forty-two letters” in this way (bk. 3, c. 9):

[“The Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God;

but not three Gods—rather, one God.”]

Rabbi Chiskias, on Exodus 3, says that is written twice in v. 14. That contains forty-two letters to indicate that God gave to Moses a name of forty-two letters with the little word (v. 15). makes twelve, by which we are taught that God also taught the name of twelve letters. They say that that name of forty-two letters was spoken by the high priest on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). Others explain it as follows:

[“The Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God

three in one; one in three.”] and Unity in Trinity.

Third, as “the name of seventy-two letters,” which they conclude from Exodus 14, as we have said before. And they joke that that name of seventy-two sounds or letters was engraved on Moses’ staff with which he divided the sea and struck the rock that gushed forth water. They also tell the lie that Christ performed His miracles by uttering this name. They tell the story that in the temple of Solomon there was a stone of unusual power on which Solomon, in his unique wisdom, had engraved the name of God. Anyone was allowed to read it, but absolutely no one was permitted to memorize or transcribe it. You see, at the door of the temple stood two lions whose roaring was so terrible that anyone who had learned the name forgot it because of fear and anyone who had copied it lost half of it. Jesus, son of Mary, however, ignored this dire curse and was contemptuous of the roaring of the lions. He wrote it down and afterward passed through the gates with an absolutely miraculous confidence of heart. And so as not to be caught, He slit open the skin of the calf of His leg and hid the name there. Later, He performed His miracles through its great power. Luther refuted this devilish fabrication in his book Vom Schem Hamphoras, vol. 8, Jena edition.

Eighth, its mystical interpretation.

§ 27. (VIII) In the word “Jehovah” the Kabbalists look for: (1) The mystery of the Trinity, and indeed in many ways: by extraction of its root, by its unique writing, by an explanation of the letters, by the addition of vowel points, by the counting of syllables, by the derivation of names formed from it, and by a kabbalistic interpretation. It is taken from the root , which, like all other perfect roots, has three letters. It is also marked with three vowel points. The Aramaic writers [of the Targumim] write it with three s, with one qamets below, and pronounce it with three syllables.

All of these allude to the Trinity of persons in the one essence of the Godhead. Galatino, De arc. Cath. verit., bk. 2, from Rabbenu HaKadosh, Gale razeia:

There are only three letters in this name: , , and . The three letters of this name designate the three persons, for the first is the , which is interpreted as “the beginning” because it is the beginning of all other things, because each thing of Scripture has its origin from it and takes its beginning from nothing. Correctly it points to the Father who, because He is from no one and because the other persons emanate from Him, is called the beginning without beginning. The second, , which signifies “to be” or “to live,” points readily to the Son in the Godhead, through whom all things that are done began to exist. The third, , which denotes the copulative word “and,” expresses the Holy Spirit who, because He is the love of the Father and the Son with which they love each other, is correctly called the “copula,” or connection, of both.

Afterward he adds that from the letters of this name the ancient Hebrews formed the three names , “Yah”; , “Hu”; and , “Vehu.” He says:

The first name is made up of the first and second letters: from , and in this way, , which is the same as “God” and designates the Father, who is the source of all divinity. The second name consists of the second and third letters, , which is interpreted as “himself” and signifies the Son because He “Himself” indeed is the one whom the prophets foretold for the salvation of the human race and pointed to in those times. Isaiah 35 and 42: “I am God; , this is My name.” The third name is made up of the third and fourth letters—from and —in this way: , which signifies the same thing as “and himself” and indicates the Holy Spirit because “He, too,” had to be sent visibly after the Son …

See more there.

Others go on in this way: The signifies the same thing as “beginning” and, therefore, designates the Father, who is the beginning, source, and origin of the Godhead. The letter signifies the Son because, to the Hebrews, designates the same thing as “Behold!” which pleases Reuchlin (Cabbal., bk. 3, p. 533), or “that one,” as it is interpreted by Jerome (Epistola ad Paulam Urbicam, vol. 4, f. 90, and the introduction to his commentary on the Lamentations of Jeremiah, vol. 5, f. 165) and Pagnini (Gramm., bk. 1, c. 3). It is known particularly as the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. After all, He is the one about whom the prophets prophesy and rouse us with the word “Behold!” He is “that” person of whom all the prophets bear witness. Among the Hebrews, is the copulative conjunction and signifies the Holy Spirit, who is the holy connective between the Father and the Son. In we also have the mystery of the Trinity because the qamets signifies “collection,” and the Holy Spirit makes His ministers vocal. Weidner, the converted Jew, repeats the same things (Loc. fid. Christ. praecip., treatise 2, p. 195). Jansen, Harmon., c. 134, p. 942: “Because the name ‘Jehovah’ is derived from , which means ‘to be,’ it signifies ‘essence.’ The first letter, a —which is adjectival and constitutive of a proper noun—signifies the beginning. The three following root letters—, , and —mean ‘this and that’; these three signify the three persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because the Father and the Son are indicated by the two s. Their connective , ‘love,’ is the Holy Spirit, which is signified by the copulative conjunction .”

(2) The Kabbalists look for the mystery of the incarnation. In the word “Jehovah,” is used twice to signify that the human nature is personally united to the Son, who is indicated by the second , and that that nature is brought into the actual fellowship of the most Holy Trinity, as Ambrose says. As a result some add that that letter was divinely added to the names of Abraham and Sarah because they accepted the promise about the Messiah who would be born of their seed. The ancient Hebrews took off the final and substituted a () to signify that this Jehovah Immanuel was going to take His flesh from Yehudah [Judah] so that there would be one Immanuel from the seed of Jehovah and Judah. Rabbi HaKadosh philosophizes in this way: As the letter is formed of a and joined together, so also the Messiah consists of the divine and human natures. As the two s are made of two s and two s, so there are two nativities, or births, of the Messiah. As the two s in one and the same letter are distinct yet form only one letter, so the natures in the Messiah are distinct, though they are nevertheless one person.

(3) They seek the mystery of eternity. (Cf. Galatino, op. cit.) This name consists of the same letters with which the three tenses of the same verb are composed. They are past, present, and future— (“he was”), (“he is”), and (“he will be”)—that the eternity of the divine persons may be demonstrated: that the Father, Son, and Spirit have always been, are now, and will be. Others trace out the three tenses in this way: The is the mark of the future, for it is one of the characteristic letters of the future ’eythan.⁴ The is an indication of the present, of the benoni kal [“present tense”], which the more frequently indicates, for example, . is the mark and termination of the preterite. (See Georg. Venet. [Francesco Giorgio], Harm. mundi, cant. 1, vol. 8, c. 3.) In the name “Jehovah,” all the letters signify circular numbers. A circular number is one that is drawn of itself and always runs back into itself. Numbers of this sort include multiples of five, multiples of six, multiples of ten. You see, if you take the number five times five, you have twenty-five. If you again multiply by five, you have 125. For if you multiply five by itself to infinity, it always comes back to itself [i.e., it always ends in the number five], and we find the same thing in the multiples of six and of ten. Therefore those three numbers, and only those, are the circular numbers contained in the Tetragrammaton. signifies multiples of ten; , multiples of five; , multiples of six. These indicate that God is like a sphere, and that as a sphere turns, He advances by calling all things into Himself just as they had gone forth from Him. Radii go out from the center to the circumference and from it to the center. In the same way creatures go out from God and come back to Him.

(4) They look for a description of silence. Grammarians call the letters ehevi or yehu,⁵ of which the name “Jehovah” is formed, “letters of the spirit,” which fit God because He alone supplies the Spirit that gives life to all things. They are also called “silent” letters, which most accurately of all befits the divine nature. Although God is utterly pure act [purissimus actus], nevertheless He does all things without difficulty or fatigue, and He governs all things peacefully and quietly. He is also the rest for our soul. In fact, it finds its rest in Him alone. That is why God rested from His work right after He created man (Gen. 2:[2]). Ps. 116:7: “Return, O my soul, to your rest, for the Lord has dealt bountifully with you.”

(5) They seek the mystery of the name “Jesus.” In bk. 3, c. 20, Galatino shows the points of agreement of the name “Jehovah” with the name [“Jesus”]. Osiander thinks that the name was unpronounceable and that the insertion of the letter made it pronounceable (see Harm., Luke 1). (See also Chemnitz, Harm., c. 9, p. 191.)

Whether the name “Jehovah” is proper to God.

§ 28. Here the question arises: Is the name “Jehovah” proper to the one and only true God, or is it also attributed to created things? The Photinians affirm the latter to destroy the argument that we deduce to establish the divinity of Christ from the name “Jehovah,” which is attributed to Him. Ostorodt, Cont. Trad., part 2, c. 2, p. 91: “Even if one could prove from Scripture that Christ was called ‘Jehovah,’ it still would not follow that He is truly the Jehovah. In fact, the angels, who are far lower than Christ, are called ‘Jehovah’ because they represented Jehovah.” Socinus, Cont. Wiekium, c. 6, p. 396: “If the angels, who are much inferior to Christ, are found to have been called by the name ‘Jehovah’ because they represent Jehovah, all the more can it happen that Christ, who represents Jehovah-God in the entire operation of our salvation and who is the eternal substitute in the Church, be called by the name ‘Jehovah.’ Nevertheless He is not actually Jehovah nor is He of the same essence with Him.” Eniedinus, on Genesis 16, p. 25: “The name and title ‘Jehovah’ is attributed not only to God the Creator but also to many created things, as many testimonies show.” Schmalz, Contra Ravensperg., p. 47: “Some passages indeed have been cited in which the name ‘Jehovah’ is attributed to God alone.”

The Photinians are approved by: (1) Calvin (Instit., bk. 1, c. 13, § 9) and Zanchi (De trib. Eloh., bk. 5, c. 5, p. 685). Alsted concedes: “The name ‘Jehovah’ is attributed to creatures by metonymy” (Lexicon, p. 864).

(2) Vorstius, who writes: “The name ‘Jehovah’ is also given to creatures and to angels” (Exeg. apolog., c. 2, p. 270). He calls this a purely rabbinical and grammatical question that is not related to the substance of faith. Vorstius again, De Deo, disp. 11, thesis 9: “Holy Writ sometimes gives the name ‘Jehovah’ to created things.”

(3) Bellarmine, who writes triumphantly: “Someone could say that the angel is called ‘Jehovah,’ not as an angel but as representing Christ” (De Christ., c. 5). Tostado does not depart far from this idea when, in his commentary on Exodus 3, he denies that “in the Old Testament God ever appeared to anyone. It was only an angel in place of God.” If this is true, surely the name “Jehovah” is given to an angel.

** The Papist Vatablus asserts the same thing in his commentary on Deuteronomy 12. **

(4) Some of the rabbinic scholars make the same claim, such as Midrash Tillim on Psalm 20: “In the last chapter of Ezekiel, Jerusalem was called by the name of God.”

The affirmative is proved: First, from the fact that God appropriates [this name] for Himself.

§ 29. We accept the former and approve it on the basis of the following points: (I) From the fact that God appropriates [this name] for Himself. Whatever name God teaches as fitting Himself uniquely and alone, that is the proper name of God. God, however, teaches that “Jehovah” fits Himself uniquely and alone. Therefore.

We prove the minor premise from the following passages of Scripture: (1) Exod. 3:14. When Moses was sent to the Israelites, he said to God as he was being sent:

If I say to the Israelites, “The God of your fathers has sent me to you,” then they will ask, “What is His name?” What shall I tell them? God said to Moses, , “I shall be what I shall be.” And He said, “You will say this to the Israelites: , ‘I shall be, has sent me to you.’ ” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the children of Israel, ‘Jehovah Elohe, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.”

Note here: (a) Moses is inquiring about the proper name of God by which to distinguish Him from Egyptian idols and from all created things and by which to be able to identify Him to the Israelites. Therefore we must also accept God’s response as a reference to such a name. Add to this Exod. 6:3. (b) The name “Jehovah” is derived from the root , thus the names Eheyeh and Jehovah are the same. They are also connected in God’s response. (c) God says emphatically that this name “Jehovah” is His name forever and that He is to be remembered thereby throughout all generations. Yet if this name were shared with another, it could not be His perpetual memorial. (d) Note that David repeats this response of God in just so many words in Ps. 135:13: “Your name, Jehovah, endures (add an understood ) forever; Your renown (or memorial) throughout all ages.” Therefore God did not want to be called by that name only at that time, but this is His name forever. From all this we draw the following conclusion: He who sent Moses to the Israelites gave the name “Jehovah” to Himself uniquely and only to Himself. Therefore it was the true and eternal God who gave the name “Jehovah” uniquely and only to Himself. (Cf. Exod. 6:3.)

(2) Num. 6:23. There the form of the solemn benediction is prescribed as follows: “Thus you will bless the children of Israel, and you will say to them, ‘Jehovah bless you,’ ” etc. One must bless in the proper name of the only true and eternal God. Deut. 21:5: “And the priests will come forward to minister to Jehovah Elohim and to bless in the name of Jehovah.” Therefore “Jehovah” is the proper name of the true and eternal God.

(3) Isa. 42:8: “I am Jehovah. That is My name, and My glory I shall not give to another, .” To this passage we join Isa. 43:11: , “I, I am Jehovah, and besides Me there is no savior.” Jer. 16:21: “They will know that , My name is Jehovah.” Jer. 44:26: “I, I have sworn by My great name, says Jehovah, that My name will no more be invoked by the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying: , As the Lord God lives.”

Whatever name fits the one true God in such a way that He wishes to give it to no one and He is distinguished thereby from all idols and created things, that name fits the true God alone. Such is the name “Jehovah.”

The Photinians make the exception: (1) In general: “There is one manner in the Old Testament and another in the New in which both divine worship as well as a divine name have been given to Christ, though He is not the true and eternal God.” This begs the question, however, for the words cited are general, and the Lord says explicitly: “Jehovah is My name forever.” In fact, concerning the New Testament itself, we read that there will be “one Jehovah and His name will be one” (Zech. 14:9).

(2) Specifically, against Isa. 42:8: “It is not yet evident that that glory which the Lord is going to give to no one is the name ‘Jehovah’ because two things are being said here: that this is the name of the Lord and what the Lord is going to do. The [things said] first merely focus attention on the [things said] following” (Schmalz, Contra D. Schopper., p. 47).

We respond. The contrary is true. Ps. 48:[10]: “As Your name, O God, so also is Your praise.” So that we may be sure that we give divine respect and glory to the one and only God, some proper name of God must be given to us by which to distinguish Him from all created things and from all gods. But such is the name “Jehovah,” as we have proved. As a result we are commanded “to give God the glory of His name” (1 Chron. 16:29; Ps. 29:2; 66:2; [96:7]; Mal. 2:2) and “to give glory to the name Jehovah” (Ps. 115:1). Consequently, God’s name and His glory are connected and considered the same thing (1 Chron. 22:5; Ps. 102:[15], [21]; Isa. 59:19; Jer. 13:11; 33:9). Whatever we know about God in this life is contained in the invocation of His name; therefore as the knowledge of the true God has God alone set before it as its object, so also the name of the true God fits Him and Him alone.

Second, from the words of the saints.

§ 30. (II) In their prayers and conversations with the true God and in their talk about the true God, holy people use the name “Jehovah” as proper for the one and only God. Exod. 15:3: “Jehovah is a man of war; Jehovah is His name.” Ps. 68:[4]: “Lift up a song to Him who rides upon the clouds in Yah, His name.” Isa. 48:2: “Jehovah Sabaoth is His name (the name of the true God of Israel).” Isa. 54:5: “Your husband, your Maker, Jehovah Sabaoth is His name.” (But now the Creator is none other than the one true God.) Add to these Jer. 10:16; 31:35; 32:18; 33:2; 50:34; 51:19; Hosea 12:[5]; [and] Amos 5:8; 9:6. In all these passages “Jehovah,” or “Jehovah” with the adjective Sabaoth, is called the name of the true God. We must especially observe, however, Ps. 83:[18]: , “For You, Your name is Jehovah, alone.” Note here that [in the Hebrew] the pronominal suffix is repeated emphatically and that the added exclusive [word] excludes all other things that are outside of and beyond God from the subject and from sharing in the declared name—Jehovah. You, You, I say, are Jehovah alone. The name “Jehovah” fits You, You, I say, alone. Neh. 9:6: “You Yourself are Jehovah alone. You, You alone, have made heaven.” The Septuagint translators and Ambrose, who followed them (De fid. ad Grat., bk. 3, c. 2), relate the word to the words that follow, namely, that God alone is most high over all the earth. Although this idea fits well with the analogy of faith, in the Hebrew text it is more suitable to relate it to the words that precede it because in the word “Jehovah” there is a serving munach that connects it with the exclusive that follows, and in the exclusive particle itself it is the athnach accent that separates it from the sentence that follows.

Third, from opposition.

§ 31. (III) Whatever name is attributed to the true God in the immediate opposition or antithesis of the true God to His creatures, to idols, and thus to all things that are outside of God, that is the proper name of the true God. The argument is obvious because whatever is asserted affirmatively about one thing in matters that are immediately opposed, that is denied to the other, and through whatever thing one of opposites is distinguished from the rest, that is proper to it. But now the name “Jehovah” is attributed to the true God in the immediate opposition of the true God to all things that are outside of God. Therefore.

The minor premise is evident from 1 Kings 18 where the question is formed between the prophet Elijah and the priests of Baal, between one who worships the true God and idolaters, in this way: “If Jehovah is Elohim, follow Him; but if Baal [is], follow him” (v. 21). But if “Jehovah” were not the proper name of the true God, would the true God have been able to be discerned from Baal by it? Conversely, as “Baal” was the proper name of the idol that those idolatrous priests were worshiping, so “Jehovah” is the proper name of the one, true, and eternal God whom Elijah worshiped. Furthermore, we must worship religiously only Him to whom the name “Jehovah” belongs. If it belongs to others apart from the true God alone, then the prophet would not have formed the question correctly. Finally, He who responds to the invocation of the name “Jehovah” bears witness that the name “Jehovah” fits Him alone. But it is the true and eternal God who responds to the invocation of His name “Jehovah” through fire sent down from heaven. Therefore He is bearing witness that the name “Jehovah” fits Him and Him alone. The major premise is proved because if that name were to fit others as well, it could not have been known as a result of that miraculous fall of fire that this Jehovah was the true Elohim and that He whom Elijah was invoking was to be worshiped religiously.

We have a similar opposition in Mic. 4:5: “For all the peoples will walk each in the name of its god, but we shall walk in the name of Elohenu (our God) forever and ever.” Here the name “Jehovah” is attributed to the one true God in such a way that He is discerned thereby from all the gods of the heathen and that religious worship is taught as being owed to Him alone. Ps. 95:3: , “For the Lord is a great God and a king above all gods.” Ps. 96:5: “All the elohe (‘gods’) of the peoples are elilim [‘idols’], but Jehovah has made the heavens.”

Fourth, from the meaning of this name.

§ 32. (IV) From the etymology and meaning of this name. If something described by a certain name belongs to only one person, that name, taken literally, also belongs to that one person alone. But that which is denoted by the name “Jehovah” belongs to the true and eternal God alone, as is evident from what we said earlier. Jehovah alone is truly being, the independent essence, the immutable and eternal essence of all essences, etc., the Creator and Preserver of all things, true and unchangeable in His promises, etc. Therefore.

Socinus makes the exception: “Because essence either signifies or at least always indicates something that already exists, how can the word ‘essence’ ⁶ be derived from the word erit, ‘he will be,’ which expressly signifies something that is going to happen?” (Animadv. 2. ad assert. 17. Posnan., p. 68). However, we mentioned earlier that all tenses are included in the word “Jehovah.” According to the common custom among the Hebrews, the future eheyeh can also be translated with the present, as the Septuagint translators rendered it , “he who is.” This translation John approves (Rev. 1:[4]; 11:17). Thus what Socinus wants to infer from the form of the future eheyeh is false—that He is called “Jehovah” only because of His fulfillment of promises, as Schmalz (Contra Ravens., p. 17) explains quite clearly—because we must join together the reasons for the name that Scripture itself shows. Furthermore, even if the true God were to attribute the name “Jehovah” to Himself only because of the fulfillment of the promises, nonetheless it would still be and remain proper to God because God alone can assert and promise with certainty that He is going to fulfill His promises. As all His creatures are made from nothing, so they would also fall back into nothing were they not sustained by God’s power. They are susceptible to constant change, but God alone is unchanging, powerful in His acts, trustworthy in His promises.

Fifth, from the proper nature and manner of this name.

§ 33. (V) It is the nature and manner of a proper name as opposed to an appellative name that it is given to only one thing. But “Jehovah” is a proper name: (1) Because it is formed from through the addition of the letter , which is used to form proper names such as Isaac, Jacob, etc. (2) After the fashion of other proper names, it does not have a plural form. (3) It does not take the haiediah [“definite article”] at the beginning. (4) Nor does it take suffixes. (5) It is not used in the construct state with another substantive (for though occasionally a word may seem to follow, as being explained by the construct—for example, Jehovah Sabaoth—yet by an ellipsis we must add the word Elohe as it is set forth in Ps. 89:[8]; Jer. 15:16; Hosea 12:[5]; Amos 3:13). Jerome says that Sabaoth is a special name for God. All of these prove that the name “Jehovah” is a proper name. Therefore it belongs to someone properly and uniquely, but it belongs properly to neither creatures nor idols, as the derivation and meaning show. Therefore it belongs to the one true God alone.

In his Tetrag., Drusius says that, according to Aben Ezra, in Isa. 63:11, should be constructed with : “He remembered the days of the age of Moses His people.” We respond. The words “He remembered the days of old, Moses and His people” are not connected with conjunctions, and v. 10 is the same: “He turned to be their enemy, He Himself fought against them.” The matter itself bears witness that he is not speaking about the people who lived at the time of Moses, for they were disobedient, but about an older people. No vestige of the construct appears either in or in the entire context. In fact, we would have to change the segol into a tsere if it were to be used in the construct state. (See Buxtorf, Thes., bk. 2, c. 3.)

Sixth, from the constant usage of Scripture.

(VI) Holy Scripture never and nowhere gives this name in the absolute position to anyone except God alone. Surely, then, it is the proper name for God. Later we shall see what our adversaries allege to the contrary.

Seventh, from the testimony of the interpreters of Scripture.

§ 34. (VII) From the testimony of the interpreters of Scripture: (1) From the fathers. Origen, homily 14 on Numbers, p. 225:

In the literature of the Hebrews, the name of God, that is, “God” or “Lord,” is said to be written in different ways. In some places “God” is written as any god at all but elsewhere as God Himself, about whom it is written: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord, your God, God is one.” Therefore that God of Israel, the one God and Creator of all things, is written with a certain mark that they call the Tetragrammaton. Therefore whenever God is written under this mark in Scripture, there is no doubt but that the true God, the Creator of the world, is being mentioned. Whenever it is written in other ways, that is, with ordinary letters, it is uncertain whether or not this is being said about the true God.

Hilary, De Trinit., bk. 1, f. 2:

I chanced upon those books that the tradition of the Hebrews taught were written by Moses and the prophets. In them were contained these words spoken by God the Creator in witness of Himself: “I am what I am” and again “You will say this to the children of Israel, ‘He who is has sent me to you.’ ” I was amazed at so absolute a designation concerning God that expressed in words well-suited to human understanding an incomprehensible insight into the divine nature. For no other thing is understood as more proper to God than being, because that which is cannot be asserted of something that ceases to exist nor of something that began at some time. That which is perpetual by the power of uncorrupted blessedness neither has been nor will be able at any time not to be, because anything divine is liable neither to destruction nor beginning.

Jerome, Epistle 142, which explains Ps. 24:10: “Instead of ‘the Lord,’ which we find in the edition of Aquila, the Hebrew has the name of the four letters that properly belongs to God.” Jerome, Epistle 136, to Marcellinus: “Yah, which is a contraction of Jehovah, is used only for God.” (Cf. Luther, vol. 3, German edition of Jena, p. 469,⁷ and vol. 7, p. 298.⁸)

(2) From the rabbinic scholars. In More Nebuchim, part 1, c. 60, Rabbi Moses Maimon of Egypt [Maimonides] cited by Galatino, De arc. cath. verit., bk. 2, c. 10, the forepart of p. 76: “All the names of the Creator discovered in all the books have been derived from effects save one name, which is ‘Jehovah.’ It is the name appropriated to the Creator Most High, and for this reason it is called the Schemhamphorash, that is, ‘Is itself.’ It designates and shows the substance and essence [quidditatem] of the Creator with a perfect designation and showing.” Ibid.: “There is no doubt but that this glorious name is that name in which there is no sharing between the Creator and anything else,” etc. We find similar things in Rabbi HaKadosh in the book Gale Razia, “The Revealer of Secrets,” etc.

(3) From the confession of our adversaries themselves: First, of the Papists and Calvinists. Sixtus of Sienna, Biblioth.: “Among the Jews, the name of four letters is proper to God alone.” Keckermann, Syst. theol., bk. 1, c. 3, p. 51: “Our adversaries say that the name ‘Jehovah’ does not always imply the eternal essence of God but is also given to His creatures. Because they cite no suitable text to prove this, however, we must not consider what they say as a fact,” etc.

Second, we cite the confession of the Photinians. Socinus, Contra Wieck., c. 6, class. 4, arg. 2, p. 395:

I respond: It is not the case that the Septuagint translators and Jerome, who imitated them, translated the name “Jehovah” as , or “Lord,” because they thought that in this way they were expressing that name. Rather, it was because nothing better occurred to the Seventy that Greek ears would not already have heard, and in this area Jerome did not want to bring in something new. Moreover, the name “Jehovah” is a proper name, while , or “Lord,” is an appellative one and thus is not at all suitable to express the name “Jehovah.”

Antithesis.

§ 35. Pagnini and Drusius want to prove that it is also attributed to idols. Exod. 32:5: “Tomorrow there will be a feast to Jehovah.” Judg. 17:3: “I consecrated it to the Lord.” We respond. The Holy Spirit looks to the intent of those people and recites their words imitatively. They thought that they actually were celebrating a feast and were consecrating that silver to God.

To carry their point that the name “Jehovah” is not the proper name of God, the Photinians cite certain passages of Scripture in which it appears to be attributed: (1) To other persons, to the ambassadors and vicars of God, namely, to the angels and judges. (2) To other things, namely, to the ark of the covenant and to sacred places.

To prove the former they propose: (I) A general theorem of this sort: The name “Jehovah” is given to those who are ambassadors of God, to those, in fact, who take the place of God. Socinus, Contra Wiek., c. 3, p. 59: “By speaking against the angel, they were speaking against Jehovah Himself, not because that angel actually was Jehovah Himself, the one God of Israel, but because he was His ambassador and was representing His person.” Eniedinus, on Genesis 16, p. 24: “We know that a messenger and an ambassador represent not only the name of the one who sends them but even his person in such a way that not the ambassador but the one who sends him is said to say and endure what he says and endures, etc.” He says: “The angels are quite often called ‘Jehovah’ not by reason of their essence but by reason of their function.”

We respond. (1) Even if we would grant that among humans the name of the sender is given to an ambassador, it still would not yet be proved that the same things holds true in divine matters, for we have shown with obvious arguments that the name “Jehovah” belongs to God alone. (2) Christ was the ambassador of the heavenly Father, which the Photinians concede; yet He never calls Himself by the name “Father” with that name taken essentially, but He distinguished Himself from the Father. (3) The prophets were ambassadors of Jehovah; yet none of these calls himself “Jehovah,” but all declare that they were sent by Jehovah, that the word “Jehovah” was made for Himself, that Jehovah appeared to them. Isa. 43:10: “ ‘You are My witnesses,’ said Jehovah.” V. 11: “I, I am Jehovah.” V. 12: “ ‘You are My witnesses,’ said Jehovah, ‘and I am the Lord.’ ” (4) The apostles were Christ’s ambassadors (John 20:21; 2 Cor. 5:20), yet none of them called himself “Christ.” In Luke 24:[48]; Acts 1:[8]; 10:41, they are called “Christ’s witnesses,” and this name distinguishes them from Christ both in name and activity. John the Baptist was the ambassador of the Messiah, the Bridegroom, but when given the name “Christ” and “Bridegroom,” he handled it severely (John 3:28–29). Not even in human situations is the name of the sender given to the ambassador in a direct assertion, only in an oblique one. Baro Ungnadius was sent by Emperor Rudolf into Turkey as an ambassador, but he was not called “Emperor Rudolf.” (5) It is one thing to speak about the actions that an ambassador does in the name of the person who sent him. With respect to these activities, we say correctly that the emperor does that which the ambassador does in his name, if, of course, he was instructed to do that by an express command. But it is another thing to speak about the proper name of the person who sends the ambassador. This name is not given to the ambassador because the person of the ambassador always continues to be distinct from the person who sends him. (6) Although one and the same action is attributed to the one sending and to the ambassador, the manner of attribution is different, for it is attributed to the sender as to a principal cause and to his agent as to a secondary cause. Thus from the community of action we cannot infer the unity and sharing of a proper name. (7) Therefore we invert the argument. The person of the ambassador remains separate from the person of the sender in the actual function [officio] of the embassy. Therefore the name that properly fits the sending person is not shared with the ambassador.

Second, [they say] that the name “Jehovah” is attributed to angels.

§ 36. (II) In particular they produce some passages of Scripture in which the name “Jehovah” is attributed (1) to angels and (2) to judges. Ostorodt (Tradel., part 2, c. 2, p. 91) tries to prove that the name “Jehovah” is attributed to angels (1) from Exod. 3:3–4, where Jehovah is said to have appeared to Moses in a bush. Ostorodt compares this passage with Acts 7:30 where the person who appeared to Moses is called an angel. We respond. To be sure, Augustine claims that “a created angel” appeared to Moses (treatise 3 on John), and Pererius concedes the same thing to the Photinians: “Personally it was an angel, but it was God representatively” (disp. 6 on Exodus 3, p. 89). Some make a distinction between the person who appeared to Moses in the bush and the one who spoke with Moses from the bush. They grant that the former was an angel but the latter was Jehovah. In both instances, however, the text speaks about one and the same subject, as is evident from the haiediah [“definite article”] in v. 4: . Therefore we claim with Justin that the very Son of God appeared in the bush (Apol. 2. pro Christ., p. 74; Dial. cum Tryph., p. 220). Augustine himself inclines toward this opinion (q. 3 on Exodus; De Trinit., bk. 2, c. 13). He says: “This angel can be understood as the Son of God.”

Now, we prove this: (1) From the actual appellation. He is called “Jehovah,” thus He was not a created angel. The Photinians cannot say that we are begging the question because we have proved our hypothesis with firm arguments. It is also clear from v. 14 that the name “Jehovah” is being attributed to this angel in such a way that with it the Israelites acknowledge the true God and distinguish Him from idols.

We do not stand on just this one foundation, however, but add a second argument: (2) From the description of the one who appears. The one who speaks with Moses from the midst of the bush is the one who calls Himself “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (v. 6). This name, however, befits only the true God. He says that He heard the cry of the Israelites (v. 7), but it is the proper characteristic of God alone to hear prayers. He calls the Israelites His people, but having one’s own people befits God alone. He promises to lead them out of Egypt and into the land of Canaan (v. 8), but this benefit certainly is attributed to God as its principal author. Furthermore, it is clear that in this passage the discussion is about the principal author of this benefit. This is clear from the way the Angel speaking from the bush is contrasted with Moses, the one to whom He was speaking and who was going to be the less principal and secondary author of this benefit. He sends Moses to Pharaoh (v. 10). He promises that Moses will worship Him as God on that mountain after leading the people out, according to a comparison of v. 11 and v. 12.

(3) We prove it from a comparison with parallel passages. Deut. 33:16: “Let the favor of Him that dwelt in the bush come upon the head of Joseph.” He from whom someone implores a benediction upon another is the true God, the author of every benediction. But Moses asks a benediction upon the descendants of Joseph from Him who appeared in the bush. Therefore. (“But,” you say, “some ask and receive benedictions from their fathers. Therefore we should not immediately think that [Moses’] benediction is being sought from God.” We respond. There are three kinds of benediction: (1) the simple vow, for example, of Melchizedek or of Jacob before Pharaoh; (2) the vow conjoined with the prophecy of Genesis 27 and [Genesis] 49; [and] (3) divine benediction. It is one thing to speak a benediction, another to implore a benediction from someone for another. Pererius presses the passages Gen. 48:16 and Rev. 1:4, but there we take the angel to be Christ and the seven spirits [to be] the Holy Spirit Himself, not angels.) I also establish the following comparison. The Angel who promised to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt is that Angel who actually fulfilled that promise and led the children of Israel out of Egypt through the wilderness into Canaan. In Acts 7:35, God sent Moses “as both ruler and deliverer by the hand of the Angel who appeared to him in the bush.” V. 38 says that that Angel spoke with Moses on Mount Sinai. Yet this was an uncreated angel, namely, the Son of God, because that Angel is described in this way: that the name is , “in His midst or within Him.” Thus the Israelites are forewarned not to provoke Him because He will not pardon their sin. Nevertheless they did not consider this of any importance and tempted the Angel, that is, Christ Himself, in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10:9). (Some compare Acts 23:11 with Acts 27:23.)

(4) We prove it from His majestic appearance. He appeared in a burning bush, but He was not burned up, something that can be applied suitably to the human nature of Christ in which dwells the full light of His divine majesty without any abolition of it. Holy Writ likens the divine nature to fire because it operates with the strength of fire and easily runs about here and there. Man, formed of earth, it likens to wood and grass, etc. Christ declared that He would render His own naturally corruptible flesh above corruption, as it were, by an enigmatic bush that was not consumed by the fire.

(5) We prove it from the testimony of the fathers and of the rabbinic scholars. Justin, op. cit., proves this in detail and adds: “Indeed, all Jews now also teach that the one without a name who spoke with Moses is God.” Hilary, De Trinit., bk. 4: “He who appeared in the bush speaks from the bush. The place of the vision and that of the voice are one. The one who is heard is no one else but He who was seen because He who is the Angel of God when He is seen, and again the same when He is heard, is the Lord. The Lord who is heard, however, is God.” Ambrose, De fide, bk. 1, c. 5: “It was not the Father in the bush nor in the desert who spoke to Moses but rather the Son, about whom Stephan said: ‘This is He who was in the church in the desert.’ ” Theodoret, q. 5 on Exodus, says: “God appeared in the bush in that way lest the Jews, who were prone to idolatry, take that as an opportunity to sculpt an image.”

(6) We demonstrate it from the concession of our adversaries. Our adversaries have a rule about which we spoke earlier. [They say that] when the noun is in the absolute position and especially with the article, , then it is the proper name of the one true God. But now in Matt. 22:31–32 and Mark 12:26 the one who spoke to Moses from the bush is called , with this noun in the absolute position, with the article, and in the place of the subject. Therefore. Eniedinus, on Exod. 3:6, p. 44: “From the narrative of both Moses and Stephan, one could likely conclude that there was one who appeared to Moses and another who spoke to him and who called Himself ‘Jehovah’ and ‘God, Father.’ This happened in such a way that the fire burning in the bush is called an angel, but the one who spoke from the midst of the fire—or as the Hebrew says, ‘from the heart of the fire’—is called ‘Jehovah’ and ‘the God of the fathers,’ ” etc. If this hypothesis of Eniedinus stands, one cannot prove that the angel here is called “Jehovah.”

§ 37. (2) The second argument they use to try to prove that the name “Jehovah” is given to angels they take from Exod. 19:11 where “Jehovah is said to have come down from Mount Sinai to publish the Law to the Israelites. However, Stephan says that an angel did this. Therefore the name ‘Jehovah’ is given to angels,” according to Ostorodt (op. cit.).

We respond. (1) On the basis of this passage, we are correct in concluding that the true Jehovah, namely, the Son of God, is called “an Angel,” an uncreated one, to be precise. It is evident that this also occurs in other passages of Scripture. (Gen. 32:26; cf. Hosea 12:[4]; Gen. 48:15; cf. Gen. 28:13; 35:1; Mal. 3:1.) By no means is it correct to conclude, however, that a created angel is called “Jehovah.” This clearly is not the usage of Scripture. (2) He who descended upon Mount Sinai to publish the Law and who spoke with Moses is described in this way: that He did the miracles in Egypt (Exod. 19:4), that He chose the children of Israel as His special property (v. 5), that He led His people out of Egypt (Exod. 20:2), that no other god besides Him should be worshiped (v. 4), that He punishes the iniquity of the fathers upon the children (v. 5), that He struck a covenant with the children of Israel (Deut. 5:3), etc. Yet all these befit no one but the one true God. (3) Along with that uncreated angel—the Son of God—undoubtedly a great multitude of angels came down, and for this reason the Law is said to be “appointed by angels” (Gal. 3:19). Acts 7:[53]: “You received the Law as delivered by angels.” Nevertheless the giving of the Law and the conversation with Moses are uniquely attributed to Jehovah.

As the third argument, Schmalz cites Ps. [115]:16: “The heaven of heavens [belongs] to Jehovah, but the earth He has given to the sons of men.” He says, Contra Schopper., p. 8: “Here there is no one who does not see that in the name ‘Jehovah’ are also included the angels as the servants of God.” We respond. On the contrary, the servants of God are distinguished from the actual Lord God both in condition and in name. Heaven is the palace and throne of God (Isa. 66:1); in that royal hall of God the angels serve. Just as they are not Jehovah, however, so also they are not called by the name “Jehovah.”

[They say] that the name “Jehovah” is given to judges.

§ 38. Ostorodt argues that the name “Jehovah” is given to judges and magistrates in Deut. 19:17: “Then both parties to the dispute will stand before the Jehovah, before the priests and the judges who will be in those days.”

We respond. (1) It is common for judges and magistrates to be called elohim in Scripture (Exod. 21:6; 22:[28]; Ps. 82:1; etc.). But on the basis of other passages, it is not evident that they are given the name “Jehovah.”

(2) Ostorodt’s argument cannot be proved from this passage because the name “Jehovah” is certainly not being explained appositionally [] by the subsequent titles of “priests and judges.” Rather, God’s own presence in the judges is being declared. Add to this 2 Chron. 19:6 (“The Lord is with you in giving judgment”) and Ps. 82:1 (“God stands in the congregation of the [“strong”], in the midst of the elohim He holds judgment”).

(3) The principal author of justice and the less principal administrators of justice are therefore connected. Both the judges themselves and those who are prosecutors handle cases in the courts, and the defendants and witnesses are admonished to believe that God is present at the trial and, therefore, that all things are taking place in God’s sight.

(4) Just as from the fact that priests and judges are named separately we correctly conclude that some were priests and others were judges—namely, political persons—so also from the fact that Jehovah and judges are named separately we can conclude that Jehovah is being distinguished from the judges and that His name is not being given to the judges. Others respond that [“before Jehovah”] denotes a place of judgment. Cunaeus, De repub. Judaic., bk. 1, c. 12: “The seat of the great council that they used to call the Sanhedrin was in the actual sanctuary where the seventy senators would become acquainted with divine and human matters,” etc. For that reason it is called [“judgment of the Lord”] (2 Chron. 19:8). “Furthermore, to be in the temple or the sanctuary is to be in the sight of God.”

[They say] that the name is attributed to the ark of the covenant: First, Numbers 10:[35].

§ 39. And these are the passages of Scripture with which they try to prove that the name “Jehovah” is given to persons other than the one true God alone. Following are the ones from which they strive to prove that it is given also to other things, namely, (1) to the ark, (2) to rainbows, and (3) to Jerusalem. They want to prove that the name “Jehovah” is given to the ark of the covenant: (I) from Num. 10:35–36: “Whenever the ark would set out, Moses said: ‘Arise, Jehovah, let your enemies be scattered …’ And whenever the ark rested, Moses would say: ‘Return, O Lord.’ ” Drusius agrees (commentary on Hosea, p. 71).

We respond. He whom Moses addresses is called “Jehovah.” With these words, however, Moses is addressing not the ark but God Himself, who was enthroned on the cherubim of the ark (1 Sam. 4:4; 1 Chron. 13:6), who was speaking with Moses about the mercy seat between the two cherubim upon the ark of the covenant (Exod. 25:22), and who had placed there a memorial to His name (Exod. 20:24; Deut. 12:5).

We prove this: (1) From the actual prayer. Moses is addressing Him who is the object of his adoration. The object of his adoration, however, is not the ark but the one true God. Therefore he is addressing not the ark but God. The Photinians concede the minor premise. We prove the major from the sound of the words because these words contain a prayer.

(2) We prove it from the meaning of the words. Moses is speaking of one who rises up and returns. However, the ark does not literally rise up and return, but both of these quite often are attributed in the Scriptures to God through anthropopathism⁹ (Gen. 18:10; Ps. 82:8; Isa. 2:19; Hosea 5:14; etc.).

(3) We prove it from the added determinations of time: (“in setting out”), or whenever the ark would set out, Moses said, “Rise up.” (“and in resting”), or whenever the ark rested, Moses would say, “Return.” But now it would make no sense to say to the ark as it was setting out, “Rise up,” and as it was resting, “Return.”

(4) We prove it from the expression of the benefit that is being sought. Moses is addressing Him who can scatter His enemies. However, it is not the ark but the Lord who scatters enemies. Ps. 68:[1]: “Let God arise, let His enemies be scattered, and let those who hate Him flee from before His face.” Some have translated as “give rest” because of the words that follow: “… ten thousand thousand of Israel.” Others add an understood .

(5) We prove it from its prophetic interpretation. Ps. 132:7–8: “We shall enter into the dwelling place of the Lord, we shall bow down before His footstool. Rise up, O Lord, and go to Your resting place, You and the ark of Your might.” Therefore Moses prayed as the ark arose that God Himself would also arise (who had promised His special gracious presence to the ark) to secure the way ahead and to scatter the foe. You see, to rise up means to exercise His power and, by doing that, to declare His presence. To return means to be kindly disposed and to exercise care in His own house like the father of a family.

Second, Numbers 32:20.

§ 40. (II) They try to prove it from Num. 32:20, “where the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh are commanded to ‘go before Jehovah for the war,’ that is, before the ark.”

We respond. In those words there is no mention of the ark. Also, at the time of Joshua it is not evident whether the ark was carried down to the army in time of war. Therefore we should take this to refer to the gracious presence of God with the army of the Israelites by which He defended them against the violence of their enemies. In fact, He Himself fought on their behalf (Deut. 20:1).

Third, Deuteronomy 12:7.

§ 41. (III) They try to prove it from Deut. 12:7, “where the offerings are commanded to be eaten before God, or Jehovah, that is, in front of the ark.”

We respond. When the Israelites ate the meat of their sacrifices in a sacred place—namely, in the tabernacle or temple—in accord with God’s command, then they are said to have eaten them “before the Lord,” not because the ark itself was in the inner part of the tabernacle or the entire tabernacle was called “Jehovah” but because the true Jehovah was there, uniquely present according to His promise. The meaning then is: You shall eat before the Lord, that is, in the tabernacle, in the atrium of the temple, which was the seat and home of God. The name “Jehovah” is attributed to Him, and in His sight they are commanded to eat the offerings, [for] from Him the Israelites received the fertility and benediction of their crops, as is clear from that same verse. They had received their benedictions, however, not from the ark but from God. Therefore.

Fourth, Joshua 24:1.

§ 42. (IV) They try to prove it from Josh. 24:1: “Joshua stood with the chiefs of Israel who had gathered before Jehovah,” that is, “before the ark of the covenant.”

We respond. (1) In the text we do not have the word Jehovah but Elohim.

(2) At the time when Joshua was holding those meetings, the ark of the Lord had been placed at Shiloh, where the tabernacle had been built (Josh. 18:1). Therefore it should have first been proved that it had been carried off from that place to Shechem, where those meetings were being held.

(3) “To be gathered before the Lord” is to come together in the true fear of God and, as it were, in the sight of God, as this phrase is used elsewhere. Gen. 17:1: “Walk before Me,” in My sight. It also means to gather by divine authority. Gen. 27:7: “I shall bless you before the Lord,” that is, by the will and authority of God.

(4) Even if they are said to have gathered together before the Lord because they had assembled in front of the ark of the covenant—in which sense that expression seems to be used in Josh. 18:[8] and 19:51 (As some claim, they had left the city of Shechem for the tabernacle of the Lord, which was at Shiloh, a nearby place, where they did all those things. Others think that the general name “Shechem” means “Shiloh,” which belonged to the region of Shechem, as is gathered from v. 26.)—nevertheless it would not yet have been proved that the ark itself was called “Jehovah.” Instead, those who assemble before the ark were said to gather before the Lord because God was present in a special way at the ark of the covenant.

Fifth, 2 Samuel 6:2.

§ 43. (V) They try to prove it from 2 Sam. 6:2: “David arose and went with all the people who were with him of the men of Judah to bring up the ark of the Lord over which the name of the Lord of hosts was invoked.” The Photinians think that here the name “Jehovah” is given to the ark itself; therefore they translate the Hebrew words as follows: “… to bring up the ark of God, which is called by the name Jehovah Sabaoth.’ ”

We respond. The sources of truth read as follows:

(1) Some think we should translate this simply: “… the ark of God whose name is called Jehovah Sabaoth sitting upon the cherubim.” They claim that the relative pronoun “whose” should be related not to the more remote noun “the ark” but to the closer noun, “God.” They argue this: (a) From the construct form. You see, it is given not in the absolute state () but in the construct (), [that is,] “the ark of the Lord” not “the ark, the Lord,” therefore not Jehovah. (b) From the haiediah [“definite article”] prefixed to the name Elohim, which should be translated literally: “… the ark of that Lord whose name is called ….” (c) From the natural order through which is connected with the immediately preceding noun. (d) From the parallel passage 1 Chron. 13:6: “… in order to bring up , the ark of the God Jehovah sitting upon the cherubim whose name is called” (or invoked). Here the words Elohim and Jehovah, which are connected closely with the help of a darga, readily show that the name “Jehovah” is attributed not to the ark but to the true God. (e) From the consistent usage of Scripture, because no passage can be cited in which it is said about anything other than the one true God that His name is Jehovah Sabaoth who sits upon the cherubim.

(2) Some claim a redundancy of the two pronouns [relativi] and think that was used instead of (“with, before, near”) in this sense: “The ark which the name was invoked, the name of the Lord sitting upon the cherubim to it”—that is, to which the name of Jehovah, sitting upon the cherubim, was invoked. So it is with Gen. 1:11: “… in which their seed is in it,” that is, “in which their seed is.” Deut. 4:19: “… which Jehovah has allotted them.” Jer. 1:2: “whom the word of the Lord came to him,” that is, to whom the word of the Lord came. 2 Sam. 6:22: “… with whom he spoke with them,’ that is, with whom he spoke. Buxtorf says: “This redundancy almost always occurs with when the relative pronoun must be given in an oblique case” (Thes., bk. 2, c. 8). But they argue that we must affirm this in this passage on the basis of the singular suffix in , which cannot agree with the immediately preceding plural without change of order, and on the basis of the usual manner of speaking in the Scriptures. For when God’s sitting upon the cherubim is given with the word , it is used without the preposition, as in 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Kings 19:15; 1 Chron. 13:6.

(3) Some supply an understood preposition [to the phrase]: the ark of the Lord (“which”), that is, to which the name of the Lord is called or invoked. For example, Pagnini does this. Examples of this ellipsis occur elsewhere. Therefore they respond that those words “to invoke the name of someone upon another” do not cause that name to be attributed to someone in the nominative case but only in an oblique case: “The name ‘Jehovah’ is invoked upon the ark.” Therefore it is “the ark of Jehovah,” not “the ark Jehovah.” In the same way the name of God is invoked upon the children of Israel (Deut. 28:10; Isa. 63:19; Jer. 34:15), upon Jerusalem (Dan. 9:18), and upon the temple (1 Kings 8:43; 2 Chron. 20:9), but the Israelites or Jerusalem or the temple are not called “Jehovah.”

(4) Some claim that the pronoun should be translated adverbially: “… where the name is invoked.” Traces of this meaning are found in Judg. 17:8; 2 Kings 12:5; etc.

(5) Because at times is used causally for (“because of, on account of”), as in Ps. 31:[7] and 1 Kings 15:13, therefore it could also be translated: “They went away to bring up the ark of the Lord because the name of God who sits upon the cherubim is invoked upon it.” By this explanation, the impulsive cause is expressed because of which David was so concerned to bring back the ark.

(6) Some respond that the name “Jehovah” is given to the ark not in the nominative case but in an oblique case in this way: “The name or glory of the Lord” (for “name” in Scripture often stands for the glory of the Lord) “dwells in the cherubim above it,” namely, above the ark. For this reason the Aramaic adds the mark of the genitive case: , “the name of the Lord,” not “the name ‘Lord.’ ”

(7) Luther translates it in this way: Daß sie die Lade Gottes herauf holeten, welcher Name heißt, der Name des HERRN Zebaoth wohnet darauf über den Cherubim [“That they brought up the ark of God whose name means: the name of the Lord of Sabaoth dwells above the cherubim”]. This translation could be approved from the fact that placed in the first position has the rebia accent. This establishes a greater division and offers the beautiful doctrine that the name of God, that is, God Himself, must be sought at the place where He has promised He would be in His Word.

Of all these explanations, we prefer the second because [it is] a frequent manner of speech in the Hebrew language.

Sixth, Psalm 24:7.

§ 44. (VI) Ps. 24:[7–8]: “Lift up the gates, and the King of glory will enter. Who is this King of glory? Jehovah, strong and mighty.” They also claim that we should take this to mean the ark.

We respond. In the psalm we cannot see even the slightest trace from which it would appear to deal with the ark. Nor do the predicates that are said about the subject here permit this (as, for example, “the King of glory” and “the Lord mighty in battle”). The pronoun expresses emphatically who the royal psalmist is speaking about: “Who is this King of glory? Jehovah Sabaoth, He is the King of glory” (v. 10). But now Jehovah Sabaoth is said to be the name of God alone (Isa. [6:3]; 48:2; 54:5; Jer. 10:16; etc.). Various explanations are offered for this exhortation, which you may see in our treatise On Political Magistracy, c. 6, sect. 5, part 1 [Commonplace XXIV, §§ 165–212]. These words of David are taken very simply in such a way that all people of every rank and condition, and especially magistrates, are being admonished to accept the doctrine of Christ, to open the gates for Him, and to grant hospitality to the Church. For this reason the Septuagint translators have rendered this as: “Open the gates, O you rulers of ours.”

[They say] that the name “Jehovah” is given to sacred places.

§ 45. They argue that the name “Jehovah” is given to sacred places with the following passages: Gen. 22:14: “Abraham called the name of that place (“The Lord will see”).” Exod. 17:15: “Moses built an altar and called its name Jehovah Nissi [“Jehovah is my banner”].” Judg. 6:24: “Gideon built an altar and called it ‘Jehovah [is] peace.’ ” Jer. 33:16: “Jerusalem is called ‘Jehovah [is] our righteousness.’ ” Ezek. 48:35: “The name of the city will be ‘Jehovah [is] there.’ ”

We respond. (I) In general. In these and similar passages, the name “Jehovah” is not being used absolutely but with some addition, for the place is not called “Jehovah” but “Jehovah will see,” the city is not called “Jehovah” but “Jehovah [is] there.” That these are different, however, we demonstrate: (1) From the confession of our adversaries themselves. Eniedinus, on Matt. 1:23, p. 102: “We must note that names often do not express the nature of the thing itself but are only signs and reminders of the things that they signify. In Genesis 22, for example, Abraham calls the mountain where he had been ordered to sacrifice Isaac ‘Jehovah will see.’ Yet no one would declare that that mountain is Jehovah or that it sees.”

(2) From the explanation of those titles. If one were able to prove that the name “Jehovah” was being given absolutely to those sacred places, the consequence would be that the mountain sees, the altar is the banner of Moses and the peace of Gideon, and that Jerusalem is our righteousness. For in whatever manner they claim that the name “Jehovah” is predicated of those things, in the same manner seeing, being a banner, being peace, and being righteousness are predicated of them.

Some respond, then, saying that by making it a compound word, the name “Jehovah,” like all other names, is changed into a completely new and different name. They argue this from the way similar names are compounded. Many names are compounded from the name El [“God”]: Bethel, Israel, Ishmael, Daniel. From the name [“God”] we have Theophilus, Theodotus, Dorotheus, etc. From the German word Gott [“God”] are formed Gottlieb, Gottfried, etc. You see, the names El and used absolutely and without an addition, are not for this reason attributed to those things to which compounds from these names are attributed.

Some think that the name is put in the construct state, but this militates against the nature of proper names such as “Jehovah.” Even if it were in the construct state with an understood word Elohe (“Jehovah, the Lord of peace”) or through the apposition of two substantives (“Jehovah, peace”) or through the insertion of the substantive verb “is” (“Jehovah is peace”), the name “Jehovah” still would be attributed in some manner to creatures.

Some respond, saying that the name of the thing signed is given to the sign, as the statue of Paul is called “Paul.” By this reasoning, however, the conclusion would be that the name “Jehovah” is given to creatures, though improperly and by a sort of metonymy.

Some say that the name “Jehovah” is not being predicated of sacred places because it is instead the subject about which something else is being stated and that such places are honored with that entire saying in which the name “Jehovah” is mentioned.

Finally, Hafenreffer (Templ. Ezech., p. 178) claims that in these substitutions of names there is an ellipsis through which the name placed in the construct or the pronoun has been omitted. Ps. 36:[3]: “The words of his mouth are (words of) mischief and deceit.” Ps. 35:6: “Let their way be darkness,” that is, “a way of darkness.” Ps. 120:7: , “I am peace,” that is, , “a man of peace.” Buxtorf has more examples of this type (see Thesaur., bk. 2, c. 4 and 8). By this explanation the sense must be completed from the preceding words or we must add another understood word. Abraham called the name of that place “the place of the Lord, who will foresee” or “the place where the Lord will provide.” Moses called the name of the altar “the altar of Jehovah, my banner.” Gideon called his altar “the altar of Jehovah, of peace.” From that day on, the name of the city was “the city of the Lord who [is] in that very place” or, which is the same, “the city of Jehovah who is present.”

§ 46. (II) In particular. Concerning Jer. 33:16, we say that it is not the city of Jerusalem but the Messiah and King who is called “Jehovah, our Righteousness,” something which is evident from the entire context, from the analogy of faith, and from many parallel passages. The promise made to Israel is considered to refer to the offspring of David. Therefore the name of Christ rather than of Israel had to be expressed. When you consider the outcome, Israel nowhere is called this.

(1) Therefore some explain the Hebrew words : “And this (with “is the name” understood) by which it will be called (using an active instead of a passive) to it (that is, “from it,” namely, Jerusalem), Jehovah.”

(2) Some explain it in this way: “And that (name) by which he will call him (through an exchange of gender so that the feminine noun modifies the more remote masculine one, as in Exod. 29:4; Isa. 5:14; Ezek. 17:7; Zech. 8:2) will be Jehovah.”

(3) In Templ., Hafenreffer says: “And this is what will be preached”—(By the Hebraism in which verbs of the third person are used impersonally, “he will call” becomes “each will call” or “it will be called” because means not only “he has called” but also “he has preached.” Cf. Josh. 8:34; Lev. 25:10; Isa. 40:2; 61:1; Neh. 6:7.)—“about it: ‘Jehovah our Righteousness.’ ” Thus the meaning is: “This will be preached at Jerusalem: ‘Jehovah our Righteousness.’ ”

(4) Piscator, Schol., says it is: “ ‘This is the name that everyone will call it (namely, Jerusalem or the Church of the New Testament): “Jehovah, our Righteousness” ’ because of the relationship between Christ the head and the mystical body (1 Cor. 12:12).”

(5) In our treatise On God the Father and His Eternal Son [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 5] § 29, we followed the simple explanation that Pagnini, Montanus, Galatino (bk. 3, c. 9), Munsterus Helvicus, and others accept: “And He who will summon her is Jehovah our Righteousness.” He will cry out to her at Jerusalem, namely, that the Church of the New Testament should gather. Buxtorf (Lib. radic., on , p. 187) cites a fine passage from Rabbi Joseph Albo of Spain (Ikkarim, orat. 2, c. 28): “Scripture calls the name of the Messiah ‘Jehovah, our Righteousness’ because He will be God the Mediator at whose hand we are going to receive righteousness from God Himself. Therefore it calls Him by the proper name of God Himself, Jehovah.” Weidner cites similar passages from the rabbinic scholars in his Loca fid., p. 190. Pertinent to this in particular is Ezek. 48:35, where Rabbi Jonathan reads (“her name”) instead of (“there”), contrary to the trustworthiness of all the editions and to the Aramaic version itself. (See Galatino, bk. 3, c. 9.) Also, the situation itself shows that the divinity of Jerusalem is not being described there, but rather its dignity, which depends on the gracious presence of the Lord Himself.

The second question, whether the name “Jehovah” is the Tetragrammaton.

§ 47. (II) The question arises: Is the name “Jehovah” the famous Tetragrammaton? Some of the Papists deny this, such as Genebrard (in his Epistola ad lectorem, which he prefixes to his commentaries on the Psalms) and Bellarmine (Exerc. gram. super Psal. 33). Pererius follows them in disp. 2 on Exodus 6, p. 171, where he writes: “The name ‘Jehovah’ was unknown to almost everyone among both Jews and Christians who lived a hundred years earlier, so it clearly appears to be a newly invented and fabricated word. In fact, they think it was taken from the heathen name ‘Jove.’ ” However, this opinion develops from false suppositions, such as: (1) That the vowel points are a recent invention of the rabbinic scholars. (2) That the name “Jehovah” has the points of the name Adonai. (3) That the name “Jove” is older than “Jehovah.” (4) That we must approve of the superstition of the Jews, who forbid the speaking of that name. (5) That the true pronunciation of that name was lost during the Babylonian captivity.

On the name Adonai. Noting, first, its derivation.

§ 48. (II) Concerning the name Adonai [“Lord”], we must note: (1) Its derivation. Some think it was formed from (“foundation or support”) because God is the support of all things. Col. 1:17: “In Him all things hold together.” More correctly, however, it is derived from (“lord”), “he who is the foundation and pillar of the household,” just as means “he who is the ” (which is the Attic for ), [“the base of the people”]. This name is used with reference to the true God in Exod. 23:17 and Josh. 3:11.

Second, its meaning.

(2) Its meaning. When it is written with a qamets at the end, it is no less sacred than “Jehovah” itself and is the proper name for God. On the other hand, when it is written with a hireq or patach, it is secular [profanum] and given even to men for the sake of honoring them, as in “my lords.” Consequently, the Jews also read it in place of “Jehovah.” (Cf. Galatino, bk. 1, 2.13.) When it is used to refer to God, it is always construed with the singular. Rabbi David, cited by Sixtus of Sienna in Bibl. sanct., bk. 5, note 100: “Every time Adonai is written with a qamets, it is attributed to God for the sake of His honor and excellence.” Even Socinus acknowledges this in his explanation of the words of Ps. [68]:18 in his writing Contra Wiekum. (Cf. Drusius, commentary on Exodus 7, and Först., .)

This proper and genuine meaning of the word Adonai is approved by its consistent use in Scripture. In Gen. 18:27 Abraham calls Him who he claims is “the Judge of all the earth” (v. 25), whom he asks to be willing to spare the Sodomites, and who is called “Jehovah” with the proper name of God. In Gen. 19:2, when the two angels came to Lot, he called them (with a patach), “my lords,” but when Jehovah, who had been speaking with Abraham, joined them (v. 16), he called them (with a qamets) (v. 18). You see, we conclude that the “He” with whom Lot is conversing was the true Jehovah from the fact that He attributes the destruction of Sodom to Himself (v. 22). But that is attributed to Jehovah in v. 24. Gen. 18:33: “Jehovah went His way when He had finished speaking to Abraham.” But where did He go except to Sodom and to Lot because He says: “I shall go down and see …” (v. [21]). In Judg. 6:13, when the Angel of Jehovah had appeared to Gideon in the form of a man, he called Him , but later, when he realized that God had revealed Himself to him, he called Him (v. 15).

[Antithesis, Genesis 18:3.]

§ 49. Galatino (De arcan. cath. verit., bk. 2, first part of c. 10), Buxtorf (Radic.), and Eniedinus claim the opposite. Eniedinus, on Matthew 22, p. 108: “The word Adonai signifies not nature but dignity. By this name people generally call other people who are like them, as far as their nature is concerned.” They argue this: (I) From Genesis 18:3. When the three men came to Abraham, he called them . However, Abraham was as yet unaware that the true Jehovah was a companion of the two angels; instead, he thought they were strangers to whom he wished to prove his hospitality, as we gather from Heb. 13:2: “Some have entertained angels unawares.”

We respond. There are different opinions about this appearance. (1) According to Lyra, the rabbinic scholars mix the two appearances and take the words at the beginning of the chapter—“Jehovah appeared to him”—to refer to the appearance of God. However, the rest—therefore this entire account—refers to the appearance of the angels. But the entire context conflicts with this because at first Moses says in general that Jehovah appeared to Abraham and later explains in particular what kind of an appearance it was and what was said and done therein. Furthermore, one of these three is called “Jehovah,” and He promises Abraham a son by Sarah and foretells the destruction of the inhabitants of Sodom ([Genesis 18:]10, 20). This latter point we must also set against those who think that all three were created angels and symbolically represent the three persons of the Trinity. In his Comment., Cornelius à Lapide cites Augustine (De civ. Dei, bk. 16, c. 29; De Trinit., bk. 2, c. 11) and Cyril (Contra Julian., bk. 1) as being in favor of this opinion.

(2) Some think that they were the three persons of the Trinity themselves who appeared to Abraham in an external guise that they had assumed temporarily. However: [a] They are called angels. But now it has not yet been demonstrated that the Father is called an angel anywhere in all of Scripture nor was He sent in time like the Son was sent into the flesh for the work of redemption and like the Holy Spirit [was sent] in visible form for the work of sanctification. [b] The Epistle to the Hebrews recommends hospitality from the fact that some received angels hospitably. But if they had been the three persons of the Deity, a greater recommendation of this virtue could have been sought. [c] In the entire account one of them is described as more honored, who alone is addressed with the name “Jehovah.” [d] Therefore we claim with Hilary (De Trinit., bk. 4), with Nazianzen (Orat. 2. de theol.), with Eusebius (Demonst. evang., bk. 5, c. 9), with Theodoret (q. 68 on Genesis), and with others that the Son of God was accompanied by two angels when He visited Abraham.

And we conclude that Abraham was not unaware of this fact from the familiar appearance of God: “The Lord (“appeared”) to Abram and said to him: ‘I am El Shaddai [“God Almighty”]’ ” (Gen. 17:1). For this reason he shapes his conversation in such a way that he addresses Him alone with the lofty title Adonai and says in the singular: “If I have found favor in Your eyes, do not pass by Your servant.” Later, he finally says with regard to the other two companions, “Let a little water be brought and wash your [plural] feet,” for he thought that the Son of God, who was appearing to him, had brought along two poor pilgrims and wanted Abraham to show them kindness. (1) Jehovah is said to have appeared ([18:]1), but He was known to Abraham from various appearances. (2) It cannot be elicited from the text that afterward He was revealed to him anew. (3) In all of Scripture, Adonai written with a qamets is the name of God alone, unless the plural is changed because it is in pause. (4) The construction shows that it is not a plural.

Some respond to the passage in Hebrews 13[:2] by saying that we must take this to refer to Lot rather than to Abraham, and they explain the verb as “they hid,” that is, they were preserved from the destruction and slaughter and hid under God’s protection as they were received as angels with hospitality. But this takes nothing away from our opinion, even if we take this passage to refer to Abraham. He knew that the Son of God was present. In fact, He had already appeared to Abraham earlier in visible form and quite often, but Abraham did not think that He had brought the angels along by chance because He knew that angels are incorporeal.

But, you say, why does the Epistle to the Hebrews not recommend hospitality on the basis of the fact that some people received the Son of God with hospitality? We respond. If this argument were to have any force, it would prove that all three were angels, the contrary of which we showed earlier. Therefore we say that the Son of God was not literally received with hospitality by them because the angels were seen to eat but not the actual Son of God. Furthermore, they were not unaware that one of these three was the Son of God, but they did not know that the other two were angels. The person whom these ideas may not satisfy will be able to say that for some mysterious reason Moses happened to call Him Adonai with a qamets whom Abraham (not yet recognizing Him) called Adonai with a patach, because in pronunciation that difference cannot be noticed.

[Antithesis, Genesis 19:18.]

§ 50. (2) They argue that in Gen. 19:18 we read that Lot said , “to them,” namely, to the angels. We respond. We must either establish a change of number, which the relationship of preceding and following words shows, or we must relate the use of the plural number to signifying the mystery of the plurality of persons that is afterward explained in v. 24: “Jehovah rained … from Jehovah.” Or if we must relate this to the angels at all, we shall have to say that it is not a native qamets but was changed from the patach by the stop silluq.

[Antithesis, Judges 6:22.]

(3) They argue that in Judg. 6:22 Gideon finally appears to acknowledge that the angel who was appearing to him was Jehovah Himself, for he says, “Alas, O Lord God, for now I have seen the Angel of the Lord face-to-face!” We respond: On the contrary, Gideon was able to understand this both from God’s promise to free the Israelites from the hands of the Midianites and from the actual sending that was spoken to him, because both [actions] befit no one except God alone. From the fact that he later was frightened, we see that that recognition was coupled with a kind of doubt. Furthermore, when the fire burst forth from the rock and consumed his sacrifice, he knew and understood that the angel was Jehovah.

Third, its mystical explanation.

§ 51. (3) In Mal. 1:6 God is called [“Lords”] in the plural. As a result some claim that Adonai is plural and serves to designate the mystery of the Trinity. Galatino, bk. 2, c. 13:

From the plural Adonim comes Adonai, which is a divine name and which literally means the same thing as “my Lords.” Therefore those early fathers whom Moses taught sanctioned the idea that God is called “Lords” in the plural in order to show clearly that the universal dominion over all things is common to the three divine persons. For the Lord is Father, the Lord is Son, the Lord is Holy Spirit. To signify that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three Lords but one Lord, it was decreed that though the name Adonai is plural, it should be connected only with a singular verb or with a singular adjective.

On the name Elohim.

§ 52. (III) The Jews and Photinians deny that we should look for the mystery of the Trinity in the name Elohim [“Gods”]. Pisecius, Resp. ad rat. 2. Camp., p. 17: “Prior to the Lombard, no one used to conclude a trinity of persons from the word Elohim.” Some of the Papists agree with this, for example, Cajetan, Bellarmine (De Christ., bk. 2, c. 6), Pererius (on Genesis, vol. 1, p. 15, n. 39), Sixtus of Sienna (Bibl., bk. 5, note 1), as do also the Calvinists, for example, Calvin, on Genesis 1: “We must advise our readers to restrain themselves from violent glosses.” Also Chassanion (Loc. comm., bk. 1, c. 10), Drusius (De nomin. Elohim; cent. 2, Miscell., c. 46 and 53), Daneau, Mercier, Paraeus (commentary on Genesis 1), etc.

The theologians of our churches teach the contrary, moved as they are by the following arguments: (1) From the proper meaning of the plural number. Whenever the plural number is used in names that signify a person and that have their own singular from which they were formed, there that plural denotes plurality in its proper and genuine meaning. But the word Elohim as applied to the true God is used in the plural number though it nevertheless does not lack a singular from which it was formed. Therefore. Cajetan denies that Elohim has a singular, but it is clear that the singular Eloah does exist. (See Job 4:9; 12:4; 15:8; 36:2; Ps. 18:[31]; etc.) In our treatise On the Nature of God [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 3], § 27, we have examined the objections of the Jews “that the name in its termination is indeed plural but singular in its meaning, that it designates not plural persons but plural properties in God, that in accord with human custom God speaks about Himself in the plural for the sake of His honor.”

(2) From the special construction of this word. The word Elohim, used to refer to God, is construed not only with a singular verb—as in Gen. 1:1, —but also with a plural verb and adjective as in Gen. 20:13: “When caused [fecerunt] me to wander”; Gen. 35:7: “Elohim were revealed [relevati sunt] to him”; Deut. 5:26: “The living [viventes] Elohim”; and Josh. 24:19: “The holy [sancti] Elohim.” In addition, 2 Sam. 7:23; Job 35:10; Ps. 58:[11]; 149:2; Isa. 44:2; 45:5; Jer. 10:10; 23:36. From this we draw the following conclusion: A plural noun with a plural verb or adjective never signifies only one person but plural persons. But the name Elohim is used with plural verbs and adjectives to refer to God. Therefore as the unity of essence is observed in construction with a singular verb, so the plurality of persons is observed in construction with plural verbs and adjectives.

(3) From the Holy Spirit’s explanation. Elsewhere it is explained clearly enough that plural persons and, in fact, the three persons of the Trinity are understood by Elohim. God Himself gives the explanation for using the plural number. Gen. 3:22: “Behold, Adam has become like one of Us.” In this way in Gen. 1:1 the author of creation is called Elohim. But now the efficient cause of creation is the entire Holy Trinity, as is evident from Ps. 33:6, something of which Moses was by no means ignorant. In fact, in his subsequent words he himself explains what he wants to be understood by the name Elohim when he mentions the Father who speaks, the Word through which all things are made, and the Holy Spirit resting upon the waters. To this are related all the statements of Scripture in which the work of creation is especially attributed to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.

(4) From the approval of many interpreters. Our opinion is confirmed by Justin (Dial. cum Tryph., p. 222), Tertullian (Adv. Prax., c. 12), the Lombard (1. Sent., dist. 2, letter F), Lyra and Burgensis (on Genesis 1), and Galatino (De arcan cath. verit., bk. 2, c. 9). The latter cites the testimonies of the rabbinic scholars and, among others, the statement of Rabbi Hunna: “If this discourse had not been written in this way, no one would be allowed to speak in this way.”

(5) From the confession of some of our adversaries. In this question the following support us: Zanchi (De nat. Dei, bk. 1, c. 4, p. 7; c. 12, p. 37; as well as De trib. Elohim, c. 1, p. 31); Junius (Defens. 2. de s. Trinit., vol. 2, p. 70; Bellarm. controv., bk. 2, c. 6, col. 561); Polanus (Syntagm., bk. 3, c. 3, col. 1278); Jacob Montanus, who discusses this question with Drusius by letter; Pellikanus (on Genesis 1); Alsted (Lex. theol., in great detail on p. 98); and Piscator (Anal. of Genesis 1). Tilenus writes: “The argument drawn from the name Elohim in favor of the distinction of persons perhaps is not so solid but nevertheless has something to it. In fact, the learned deny that such a change of number occurs frequently in the first person in Hebrew” (notes on bk. 2 of Bellarmine’s De Christ., c. 6).

§ 53. Nevertheless we add that: (1) We are not immediately proving from the word Elohim a trinity but rather a plurality of persons in God. Elsewhere this plurality is reduced to the number three. (2) In this word the mystery of the Trinity is concealed in proportion to the dispensation of the times and in the manner of revelation common in the Old Testament—upon which a brighter light was shed in the New Testament. (3) We must connect with this the explanation of the Holy Spirit Himself as set forth in other passages of Scripture, for we are seeking not a primary but a secondary argument from that word. (4) It is one thing to battle against stubborn heretics who deny the Trinity and another to discuss this matter among Christians who believe it.

The arguments of the opposition can be satisfied if we observe the following hypotheses: (1) There is one explanation for the word Elohim but another for the word “God.” Elohim is a personal name; “God” is an essential one. Consequently, because of the plurality of persons, I am correct in saying that there are three Elohim, but I cannot say that there are three Gods because of the most simple unity of essence.

(2) Even if one succeeds in proving that Elohim is spoken in reference to only one person of the Godhead and thus is used as singular [singulariter] (which we nevertheless are still questioning, and rightly so), nothing of the genuine and proper meaning of the plural would cease to be true. For just as “God” is an essential name yet is sometimes used personally, in the same way Elohim is a personal name but at times is used essentially both because of the most simple unity of the three persons by reason of the undivided essence and because of the mutual [“interpenetration”] of the persons. For the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, the Father is not God outside the Son nor is the Son God outside of the Father. The Father is not God in a solitary way but is a person of the Trinity or is God in the Trinity. Thus any person in the divine persons has a permanent relationship with the other two persons. When it is used to refer to one person, it means that that person is one of a number of plural persons.

(3) We must distinguish between the word Elohim placed absolutely and in a construction with a plural word or adjective. Even if we concede that the word Elohim placed absolutely is sometimes attributed to a single person by a change [per enallagen], nevertheless when it is in the construct with a plural adjective or verb, it always indicates plural persons.

(4) We must distinguish between the usage of the sacred language, which has a unique purity and simplicity, and the usage of other languages. Even if a plural number is used instead of a singular in other languages (where nevertheless the name of the person remains singular while only the verbs and pronouns change, such as “We, Ferdinand, order [mandamus],” and where the plural is not used in the third person but in the first), nevertheless this does not prejudge the usage of the sacred language. Theodoret, q. 20 on Genesis: “If God were to speak of Himself in the plural because of His authority and majesty, He would have to have spoken that way always or often, especially when He gave the Law on Sinai.” In referring to people in high office, we use the plural instead of the singular, but we cannot make this concession with reference to God, so that His great dignity may be acknowledged, of what sort it is. God always has the same honor, yet He does not always speak of Himself in the plural. (Cf. Rabbi Aben Ezra, on Genesis 31.) The plural is used to indicate high office only in the second and third persons, not in the first person.

(5) All the examples that are provided that use the plural instead of the singular speak about creatures or idols and can be explained either through a division [] or through some figure of speech, namely, through a syllepsis or a change of number. However, when the word Elohim is used to refer properly to God, such a figure has no place, for there the plural is used to refer to God not because of any civil reverence nor because of some rhetorical figure but for a reason demonstrated elsewhere in the Scriptures themselves.

(6) When Elohim is used distributively, it does not stop being plural, because distribution is an undefined plurality. Exod. 20:[3]: “You shall not have other gods,” that is, none of the other gods. In Exod. 32:4, when that name is given to the calf lifted up in idolatry, it also does not cease being plural, because it was not the actual calf but the true Jehovah who had brought them up out of Egypt whom the Israelites wished to worship in that calf (v. 5). Thus they called it by that name.

On the name : Is it God’s proper name?

§ 54. The Septuagint translators have rendered the names Jehovah and Adonai with [“Lord”], just as they translated Elohim with [“God”]. Regarding the name , we ask whether it is a proper name for the eternal God alone. Socinus denies this. He says, Contra Wiek., c. 6, class. 4, arg. 2, p. 395:

The name “Jehovah” is a proper name, but , or “Lord,” is appellative and commonly attributed to many. For this reason alone it is unfitting for expressing the name “Jehovah.” Nevertheless the Septuagint translators have tried to remedy this evil in this manner, namely, that when the name is used in place of “Jehovah,” it almost always occurs without the article and thus can more conveniently relate as a proper name. You see, in Greek, appellative names generally are expressed without the article when they occupy the place of the subject. When Christ is called subjectively, so to speak, however, the article is almost always set before it.

So much for Socinus. All this tends to weaken the argument drawn from the word for the deity of Christ.

But we respond. We readily grant that in a certain respect and in [its] general meaning the name is also attributed to creatures. Nevertheless first and foremost the name is used to refer to the true God alone in a loftier and proper sense. Accordingly, He who is called in this way is correctly argued to be the true and eternal God. Mark 12:29: “, your God, is one .” Eph. 4:5: “One (“One Lord”).” 1 Cor. 8:[5–6]: “For though there may be many so-called gods in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and ‘lords,’ yet for us there is one (“one Lord”).”

We prove this: (1) From the fact that the Septuagint translators and those apostles who followed them translated the name “Jehovah” with , as we can prove with countless examples. But now “Jehovah” is the proper name for God, as we have shown earlier and as Socinus himself seems to concede. If what Socinus says is generally accepted—that “the name attributed to God lacks the article but when attributed to Christ has the article added”—both are false. The first is clear from Matt. 1:22; 2:15; 22:44; Luke 1:6; Acts 17:27; etc. The latter is clear from Matt. 7:21; 8:2; 22:43; Rom. 1:7; 14:14; etc.

(2) When is attributed to a human either for the sake of a dignified name or for the sake of some particular lordship, the circumstances of the text make it possible for us to understand this readily. For either a restriction is added so that he is understood to be called a lord in some manner, as in Matt. 15:27: “The dogs eat the crumbs of their lords.” (See also Acts 16:19.) Or a description is added that shows the statement is not about the highest and absolute Lord. Col. 3:22: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters.” 1 Cor. 8:5: “There are many gods and so-called lords.” Or there is adjoined a subjection of that lord to the highest Lord, who is Lord of lords. (See 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16.) Or one understands from the context that the highest, absolute Lord is not being discussed there, namely, whenever such predicates are being attributed to him that do not befit the most high Lord, the true and eternal God. Nevertheless in its proper, principal, and prominent meaning, the name continues to be God’s proper name.

(3) The name is asserted about Christ in such a way that one can conclude His divinity with certainty from the very manner of asserting, for He is called absolutely and without the article which Socinus believes is an indication of a proper name. He is called “Lord of lords” (Rev. 17:14; 19:16). “Authority in heaven and earth” is attributed to Him (Matt. 28:[18]). Consequently, He is the Lord of heaven and earth, which is proper to the true God alone (Matt. 11:25). In John 20:28 He is called both and . The passages of the Old Testament that speak about the only true God are adapted in the New Testament, and attributed works and truly divine worship are ascribed to Him. Therefore the Photinians vainly assail the argument drawn from the name because the rule is absolutely firm: He to whom the name is attributed in the manner just now explained is the true and eternal God.

On the name : Is it a name for His office or for His nature?

§ 55. With regard to the name [“God”], we ask whether it is a name for His office, position, and power or, on the other hand, for His nature and essence. The Photinians affirm the former and deny the latter to try to prove that the name , as attributed to Christ, by no means causes Him to be acknowledged as true God by nature but does cause Him to be considered a so-called “God” merely because of a divine power conferred upon Him in time. Eniedinus, on John 1, pp. 159–60: “The word ‘God’ is a name of position and office rather than of nature and essence. It does not follow, then, that if someone is called ‘God,’ therefore we must immediately consider him to be the eternal Creator of heaven and earth, because those are called ‘gods’ to whomever the [“word”] of God comes according to the witness of Christ Himself (John 10:35). Therefore the is God, but one who was made by God and set up as God.” Socinus, Contra Volan., p. 189: “The name ‘God’ ought to be listed as being from those names that grammarians call ambiguous—such as, for example, king, citizen, poet, philosopher, and others of that sort—for these declare a quality of substance rather than the substance itself.” Schmalz, Exam. cent. error., error 3, p. 5: “We say that the word ‘God’ in the Latin and Greek languages does not signify that supreme Deity that is such by nature but rather means His power.” [Smiglecki,] De divina verbi incarnati natura, c. 26, p. 144: “The word ‘God’ is a name of high position, not of essence, and anyone who has true divine power is in his own way ‘true God.’”

We concede that the name “God” at times improperly and secondarily is attributed to creatures because of an office divinely committed to them. In fact, it is even assigned to the “so-called gods.” Used in this way, however, it does not infer a divine nature for that person to whom it is given. At the same time, however, we deny that the name “God,” used in its proper and principal meaning, is only a name of power and of office and that it does not signify the divine nature and essence. This we prove: (1) From the constant usage of Scripture. For wherever the name “God” is predicated in Scripture of the supreme Deity, there it constantly denotes His essence, not only His power. In fact, because the attributes and thus also the power of God are actually the same as His essence, by signifying the divine essence, it also signifies the divine power. Nonetheless it marks not only nor chiefly His divine power but also His divine nature and essence.

(2) From its definition. Wherever the Scriptures or the interpreters of Scripture give the definition of God, there they mention not only the power but also the divine nature and essence. Therefore the name “God” is also a name not of power nor of office but of nature. When God is asked to reveal and explain His name to the Israelites, He responds: “I am who I am. I shall be who I shall be” (Exod. 3:14). Here He is naming Himself from the infinite essence.

(3) From opposition. When the idolatry of the heathen is rebuked, it is rebuked on the basis of the principle that the Gentiles gave religious worship to those who “by nature are not gods” (Gal. 4:8) because “they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles” (Rom. 1:23). In whatever way one of the opposites is taken, in that way the other is taken too. Idols, then, are said not to be the true God because they lack the divine essence and because they are not gods by nature. Therefore Jehovah is said to be true God because He is God by nature and essence.

(4) From the nature of the name itself. The name “God” is not derivative but primitive, signifying (according to the common conception of all people) Him who not only is endowed with supreme power but is also distinct from all creatures and idols by essence and nature. (Nor is it evident that from any derived name it merely signifies His office and power. On the contrary, even those names that are taken from some accident no longer mark the accident but the actual substance when they are applied to the essence and take on the nature of properties [propriorum]. In this way the names of Jacob, Israel, Isaac, etc., had been taken from some accident, but when they were applied to those men and took on the quality [indolem] and nature of proper names, they began to mark no longer the bare accident but the very essence of those men.) Therefore even if the name “God” had been drawn from some divine effect, nonetheless when it is applied to God in its proper meaning, it would no longer denote the effect but the cause of that effect, namely, the divine nature and essence itself. Furthermore, because in God power is the divine essence itself, surely if the name “God” marks divine power—that is, the supreme and infinite power—it will also denote the divine nature and essence because there is no room for supreme and infinite power without the divine essence.

(5) From a comparison with similar names. Just as the name “man” signifies the nature of man, so the name “God” signifies the nature and essence of God. The name “God” cannot be signified by another name in Latin or in Greek.

(6) From a multiple deduction to the absurd. If the name “God” is a name of power alone, not of nature and essence, the consequence will be, first, that those who acknowledge and worship the true God are the ones who attribute to Him supreme power, though they may attribute to Him a physical nature and a finite essence. This is absurd because a finite essence is not and cannot be every good and the highest good [summum bonum], for it is being given something better, namely, an infinite being and infinite good. Second, we will have to define God in terms of power alone, which is also absurd because in God there are also other attributes and perfections, such as wisdom, goodness, and eternity. Third, the name “God” will be the same in every way as the name “Lord,” though Scripture distinguishes them and shows that the name “God” is given to the Deity from His nature and the name “Lord” from His lordship and power. The fourth consequence will be that the name “God” will be relative and ultimately will not befit God except in relation to creatures and hence in time, though God is from eternity and to eternity, etc.

(7) From the testimony of the fathers. Justin, Exposit. fid.: “If you intend to understand the essence of God, you will express it with the name ‘God’.” Tertullian, Adv. Marcion, bk. 3, toward the middle: “The name ‘God’ is, as it were, the natural name for the divinity.” Athanasius, Epist. de synod. Nicen. decret., just past the middle: “When we hear the word ‘God,’ we understand that nothing else is meant but God’s incomprehensible substance itself.”

(8) From the anxious assertion of our adversaries. For sometimes they say that the name “God” is not the name of His nature, but sometimes they say by comparison that it is more the name of His nature than of His power, as we consider their statements in clear controversies about the deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. They themselves are compelled to take the name “God” essentially [].

§ 56. The points that are cited to support the contrary have a simple explanation if one makes a distinction: (1) Between the proper and improper and between the primary and secondary meaning of this name. When it is predicated improperly and secondarily of creatures, it denotes power and office but not nature. But one cannot infer from this that when it is used to refer to the highest Deity it denotes merely His power but not His nature. Thus though the sun, moon, and similar metaphoric titles denote quality in a figurative sense, nevertheless they denote, when taken properly, the essence of the sun, moon, and those things from which they are taken.

(2) Between these expressions: “to be the true God” and “truly to be called God.” To be the true God befits only the one eternal God, who is this by nature and essence, because each and every thing is said to be true from its own nature and essence. Thus gold is said to be true and a man is said to be true from the true essence of gold and of the man. Cyril, Thesaur., bk. 12, c. 13: “If Christ is true God, He is this substantially, not by participation, as a creature is. Moreover, He who is true God is God by nature.” On the other hand, truly to be called God also befits persons who are called by this name improperly because of a likeness to and sharing of the divinity. For here we are discussing merely the truth of words taken metaphorically. In this way the apostles truly are called “the light of the world” and “the salt of the earth” because though they are called “light” improperly and metaphorically, nevertheless they show spiritually that they do what light and salt do physically. Therefore they truly are so called. In the same way, magistrates, judges, and the like are called “gods” and truly are called that because they are so called as a result of sharing in a divine office. Nevertheless they are not the true God, who is such by His nature and essence. (Cf. Dr. Hunnius, Exam. error. Photin., article De Deo; Smiglecki, Contra Schmaltzium; etc.)

The rabbinic names for God.

§ 57. In conclusion, let us note the Hebrew names for God that the rabbinic scholars use. The rabbinic scholars call God: (1) (the “name” par excellence). This they do, according to Elias Levita (in Thesbite), because it was forbidden to mention any of His names. This they observe closely so that they do not use even one of His names in quite unimportant matters. Moreover, they generally add either an emphatic or , “Exalted be He,” or , “Praised be He.”

(2) They call Him , by which they signify His divine power that permeates the entire universe. In the book , they say: , “Shekina is in all places.” Elias Levita (in Thesbite) writes that the rabbinic scholars call the Holy Spirit this, by whose admonishment and leadership the prophets once poured forth the divine oracles. Therefore they derive it from the root , which means “to stay or to dwell,” because the Holy Spirit is said to rest upon the prophets. They say that Shekina dwells only with the man who is endowed with outstanding piety, innocence, and integrity of heart.

(3) They call Him (“place”). Elias gives as the explanation for the name: “Because He is the everywhere of places, yet a place cannot contain Him.” In the talmudic lexicon Baal Aruch, two explanations for this name are listed: [a] “Because place is of the world, but He does not exist in the world as if He were in a place”; [b] “In whatever place the devout gather together, He is in the midst of them.” Philo, : “God is called ‘the Place’ because He encompasses all things and because He is encompassed by absolutely nothing.” Consequently, the Kabbalists say that God is called this because the same numbers that are drawn from the Tetragrammaton “Jehovah” are drawn from the word . Thus the two s indicate eighty; , a hundred; , six; and these add up to 186. They compare the word “Jehovah” with this as follows: taken as ten times ten equals a hundred; , five times five equals twenty-five; , six times six equals thirty-six; , five times five equals twenty-five; and all these add up to 186.

(4) They call Him (“the heavens”), because the face of heaven, the remarkable order of stars, and their different positions and multiple courses reveal the great glory and power of God. Elias Levita (in Thesbite) offers this explanation for the name from the opinion of the Masoretic scholars: “because the heavens are His throne.” Sometimes this is placed in the absolute so that no word is added, as in the talmudic treatise Pirke Aboth, c. 1, aphorism 3. At times, the word is added, as in c. 4 of the same treatise. Sometimes we find “Our Father, who is in the heavens.”

(5) They call Him (that is, “the greatest power”) of God who rules and protects heaven and earth. This they obtain from the root , which signifies fervency, fortitude, and might, as Rabbi Kimchi writes in Lib. radicum.

(6) They call Him or (from “Lord” or “King of the world”). The word is Aramaic, and Aramaic translators use it when the Hebrew reads or . In the Syriac language, the hireq is changed into a patach and is said as rabbon, “He who is the autocrat and has supreme power.” As the talmudic scholars use it, means both this world and that which is to come, as different words are added to it. Therefore it is applied to God because He is the Creator of things and the beginning of the world.

(7) They call Him (“merciful”). This is derived by Aramaic formation from the Hebrew and is used in place of it in Exod. 34:6 by the Aramaic translators.

4 These are the Hebrew consonants prefixed to imperfect verbs.

5 That is, aleph, he, waw, and yod.

6 From the present tense of “to be.”

7 Eine Epistel aus dem Propheten Jeremia, von Christus’ Reich und christlicher Freiheit, WA 20:549–80.

8 Psalm 110, WA 41:79–239; AE 13:225–348.

9 That is, by ascribing human emotions to God.

↑ Back to top