Installment V

Welcome to our fifth installment involving our critique of the article "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles" by Dale George and Silvio Soto. If you’ve been able to follow along with us to this point, we hope you are ready to proceed to our next segment:

Mr. George and Mr. Soto make the following assertion on page 19: "The more one looks into the importance of these Hebrew titles, the greater their significance appears to be."

We do not deny the significance of Yahweh’s titles, yet we nevertheless believe that the authors are overstating the obvious. Let us turn once again to Mr. George Gabler’s commentary in his own critique of the article "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles":

"While there is nothing wrong with choosing Hebrew words and titles over the English, and in many instances I so choose, there are no linguistic principles dictating that all foreign language titles be transliterated into other languages the way proper names are transliterated. Personally, where a change would avoid confusion, I deem it necessary. However, is it significant that we use all Hebrew terms? No. Is there a unique or special category pertaining only to YAHWEH? Not that I’m aware of. Should we call

YAHWEH "melek" instead of "King"? YAHWEH uses terms which are also used of men, angels and even demons which don’t seem to hold any special significance, linguistically."

We comment: Well said, Mr. Gabler!

On this same page of their article, the authors write the following: "There is a unique and obvious association that exists between the title "adonay" and the very person of YAHSHUA ... the "adonayship" of Yahshua is a critical teaching of biblical prophecy."

We reply: They went to a lot of trouble to "prove" the "unique and obvious association that exists between the title "adonay" and the very person of YAHSHUA." Unfortunately, their time was not well spent. We believe that many will agree that the reference in

Zechariah 14 to a returning Yahweh who will stand on the Mount of Olives is in fact a reference to the Messiah. Nevertheless, He is not referred to as our "adonay" in Zechariah 14:5, but as our "eloah." It thus appears that in their quest to demonstrate a unique and obvious relationship between "adonay" and the Messiah proves nothing of the kind. He can indeed be referred to as either an "adonay" or an "eloah."

XI. WERE JEWS PRACTICING SUBSTITUTION OF "ADONAY" FOR YAHWEH’S NAME IN MESSIAH’S DAY?

Authors George and Soto throw in yet another undocumented commentary on page 20 of their article:

"Perhaps the most amazing thing about this verse (John 13:13-14) is the fact that ‘adonay’ had already become an injurious word which the Jews were using to ‘substitute’ for Yahweh’s Name during the lifetime of the Savior."

We reply: Document and PROVE your remark! There is no record of condemnation for the Messiah’s openly declaring Yahweh’s name (John 17:6, 26). Why not? Could it be because at that time the Jews had not yet begun their present custom of not uttering the divine name? We have seen no historical evidence to suggest that this custom was in existence during the Messiah’s lifetime. The common argument is that it was the custom

of the high priest (and only the high priest) to utter the Tetragrammaton, and even then it was only once a year, on the Day of Atonement. But does this argument "hold water"? No, it does not. Nothing in Scripture indicates that this was ever done. In fact, note the

information as given by The New Unger’s Bible dictionary, Moody Press, Chicago, IL, 1988, article "(THE) LORD," page 781:

"According to Jewish tradition, it [the Tetragrammaton] was pronounced but once a year by the high priest on the Day of Atonement when he entered the Holy of Holies; BUT ON THIS POINT THERE IS SOME DOUBT." (Emphasis ours)

Indeed, there is good reason to doubt this "tradition’s" validity. As a tradition of the Jews,

you would expect something outside of the Talmud to authenticate its veracity. Instead, the Jewish "Encyclopedia Judaica" itself serves to cast doubt on this actually having been a custom practiced by the Jews. Because of the fact that many believe the Septuagint never contained the Tetragrammaton, most people attribute the start of this tradition as being in the third century BCE, which is when the Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek. This information comes from the "Encyclopedia Judaica," Vol. 7, article "God, Names of," page 680. This SAME encyclopedia elsewhere portrays their hero, Judah Maccabees, as being one who advocated speaking the divine name! The following is found on page 684 of the same volume:

"The Talmud gives an interesting historical note with regard to one aspect of this. Among the decrees of the Syrians during the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes was one forbidding the mention of the name of God. When the Hasmoneans gained the victory they NOT ONLY NATURALLY REPEALED THE DECREE, but demonstratively ordained that the divine name be entered even in monetary bonds...."

We thus not only learn that the original injunction against speaking the name of Yahweh came from a pagan nation, but also that at least during the 2^nd century BCE and most likely beyond, pious Jews were accustomed to mentioning the name Yahweh.

The fact that no mention is made in the New Testament of any prohibitions against mentioning the Tetragrammaton only serves to further substantiate the extreme likelihood that no changes had been put into effect since the days of Judah Maccabees. Everything was "status quo."

Also on page 20 the authors present the following question: "If divine titles are not essential (as it is usually argued by Sacred-Name believers), then why does the Savior vindicate the use of the same, even when these are words that as proper nouns are guilty of a pagan connection?"

We reply: The Messiah’s acceptance of any person who refers to Him as "adonay" does not make the title "essential." Secondly, as we have repeatedly mentioned, even the authors themselves admit on page 41 of their article that titles (such as "adonay") can be translated. If the authors see fit to make such admission on page 41, then why go to all the bother to chastise those who choose to translate them on page 20? This is confusion, of which Yahweh is not the author.

XII. REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THE SAVIOR’S TRUE TITLES ..

The authors continue with more of the same rhetoric on page 21, insisting that unless we refer to the Messiah as "adonay," we have not only "denied the Savior the very titles that Inspiration has appointed unto him, but we have also developed a doctrinal application that is so inconsistent and contrary to Scripture, that it cannot be labeled anything short of heresy!" It appears that the authors’ definition of "denying the Savior’s titles" means "not calling Him adonay," at least at this point in their article. Thus, the vast majority of people June and I have met in the Yahwist Movement would have to be labeled as "denying the Savior’s inspired title." Furthermore, our practice has been clearly labeled an act of heresy. Yet, once again, these same authors plainly state on page 41 of their article that titles (such as adonay) can be translated.

The authors ask the question, "How then should our Heavenly Father deal with us who likewise refuse to recognize the Savior’s true titles?"

We reply: Again, their definition of "not recognizing the Savior’s true titles" seems to be "not calling Him adonay." Otherwise, I guess we need to identify exactly "who" it is that does not recognize the title "adonay" as being a valid title for the Messiah. Everyone we know (in the Yahwist Movement) would certainly acknowledge the Messiah as being "adonay," although most of us prefer to translate the title as "master" or "ruler." Not that we want to appear overly repetitious, but the authors themselves (page 41) have plainly stated that titles such as adonay can be translated. The question we would pose to the authors, then, is, "Who says we do not recognize the Savior’s true titles, and how do people in the Yahwist Movement display this behavior? We do not reject the title "adonay," but we do reject its use as a substitute for the Father’s name. This is the concept that we personally reject and abhor. Since the custom has been to replace "YHWH" with "adonay," we personally do not use this title out of protest for the way it has been used and abused.

In the same way, the common translation of the word "adonay" is "lord." This word (lord) may in fact be a word that has nothing inherently wrong with it in terms of origin. Some argue that its origin stems from a bonafide pagan connection, though, and they may well be right. Either way, we PERSONALLY choose to avoid use of this word. Why? Because it is this word that the translators of English versions of Scripture chose to substitute in place of Yahweh’s name. Thus, no matter how pure the word "lord" may be, we do not use this word in reference to our Heavenly Father or His Son out of protest for how this is the word that was inauspiciously chosen to replace the Father’s name. Of course, we would love it if all believers would join in our "boycott" of this word, yet we simultaneously recognize that the translators’ misappropriation of "lord" does not of itself make the word "bad" or otherwise wrong to use; thus, we are not willing to be dogmatically insistent that others join in our "crusade." At the same time, we hope others can see how displeased Yahweh must be with how this word was (and is) used! To show Yahweh that we share His displeasure, we choose to boycott the word "lord."

And now, getting back to the word "adonay," we believe Yahweh is also displeased with how this once pure word has been abused, as we mentioned earlier. To show Yahweh that we share His displeasure, we choose to boycott the word "adonay." We hope this explanation suffices to explain why we choose to not use titles such as "baal," "adonay" and "lord." Needless to say, it should also suffice to explain why we do not refer to Yahweh as "our Molech" (Melek).

XIII. "THE SALVATION FORMULA"?

Has the salvation process been reduced to a formula? Such would appear to be the opinion of Mr. George and Mr. Soto, as expressed on page 22 of their article:

"Therefore, the salvation formula involves more than just accepting and invoking the divinely given Name of the Savior. We are compelled to accept and recognize that his divinely appointed titles are also essential for our salvation!"

We reply: The only "salvation formula" we’re aware of is, we recognize our helpless state of affairs (sin) that has separated us from the Father, we repent of our sins, calling on Yahweh for forgiveness, and to openly show our outward sign of the inward commitment we are baptized, symbolically washing our sins away. We then walk in newness of life, living lives worthy of our calling, knowing that no matter how obedient we are, it is only by His mercy, the undeserved pardon that He extends to us, that we will ever enter into His Kingdom. We also know and understand that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb. 9:22), and we thus recognize that Yahweh’s only begotten Son, the Lamb of Yahweh, shed His blood to reconcile us to Yahweh. There is so much we could add to this, but certainly these are the "basics." To reduce this process to a "formula" leaves readers like us with the impression that salvation is "clinical." Bottom line, though: Just knowing and using the Names (and titles) will not get us into the Kingdom.

This having been said, we must also express maintaining the belief that anyone who sincerely worships the Father and His Son, upon learning of their true names, will earnestly call upon those names and refer to both Father and Son with those names. As for the titles, no one can deny the Hebrew origin of "adonay," thus making it pure in origin. Thus, both Yahweh and His Son can rightly be called "Adonay." However, as both authors admit on page 41, this title can be translated, and this is what June and I do.

XIV. CAN A SALVATION ISSUE BE CONSIDERED "MINOR"?

Curiously, it is interesting to note that on page 22 the authors declare this issue to be an issue of salvation. In other words, this issue is VERY IMPORTANT! Yet, on page 46 they tone things down quite a bit, referring to it as a "minor battle." Note what they wrote on page 46:

"Besides, there are far more worthy points of contentions that we would do better in our challenge against Christianity (such as: The Trinity, Yahweh’s Holy Days, The Law, Prophecy, Covenant Living, The Harmony of the New and the Old Testaments, etc.). As a Movement, we must learn to concentrate our efforts on major subjects instead of just trying to win minor battles at the expense of losing the war. We are spending too much precious resources defending and propagating ideas and concepts which unfortunately are not supported by Inspiration. We must end this destructive behavior that has succeeded in keeping our Movement apart, fragmented, and weak."

We reply: We thus see that what was earlier an issue so important that our very salvation hinges on understanding and abiding by its principles later becomes a "minor battle," an issue that apparently pales in comparison to more "weighty issues," such as The Trinity, etc. We must ask the authors to pardon us for vehemently disagreeing with the perspective from which they view this issue. It is "oxymoronic" to on the one hand present a position as being a salvation issue while on the other calling it a "minor battle."

For the record, June and I do not choose to treat this as a "salvation issue," nor do we consider it a "minor battle." It is simply a question of pleasing the Father. We maintain that those whose hearts are intent on pleasing the Father and whose lives reflect that mentality, will by the mercy of Yahweh be saved. Those whose hearts are not inclined towards pleasing the Father ... well, we’ll let Yahweh’s Son be the judge. Thus, June and I do our best to NOT approach these issues from a clinical perspective, weeding out the "non-salvation issues" from the "salvation issues." Instead, let’s simply address whether or not our beliefs and behaviors are pleasing to the Father. As we hope to successfully convey through this critique, we maintain that translating Hebrew titles such as "adonay" to such honorable English titles as "master" or "sovereign ruler" is pleasing to Yahweh. We maintain that translating the Hebrew title "elohim" to "god," which is the name of a false deity condemned by Yahweh, is not pleasing to Yahweh. Certainly, individuals referring to themselves as "true believers" can come up with a much more honorable translation of "elohim."

Also on page 22, the authors provide the following commentary with regard to their interpretation of Romans 10:9:

"In order to be saved, Paul here argues that one must confess (i.e., publicly proclaim) that Yahshua - the only begotten Son of Yahweh - is ‘adonay’! Herein lies a Pandora’s box that challenges the very foundations of the Sacred-Name Movement."

We reply: AGAIN, at the risk of appearing overly repetitious, the authors of this very article elsewhere admit that titles such as "adonay" can be translated, thus making the above comment a "moot point." When an early believer recognized the Messiah as being "adonay," they regarded Him as their Master, their Sovereign Ruler. Any word that effectively conveys the intended meaning of this Hebrew word, so long as it does not originate contaminated with the stains of pagan worship, should be regarded as an acceptable translation. Anything less dishonors our Creator.

XV. WHO SAYS THAT CLAIMING THE MESSIAH IS "ADONAY" CONSTITUTES SIN?

On page 23 the authors make a very rash statement: "In light of this fact, we are most assured that claiming that Yahshua is "adonay" could NEVER constitute sin!!!"

We reply: This is another documentation problem on the part of the authors. The reader needs to know who has ever taught that claiming the Messiah as "adonay" constitutes sin. No one that we have ever met (to the best of our knowledge)!

The authors offer the reader more of the same rhetoric on page 23 as they did on page 22. Again, this issue is here treated as a salvation issue, yet puzzling as it may seem, the authors backpedal towards the end of their treatise, labeling it a "minor battle." Note their commentary as presented on page 23:

"No matter how we turn this one around, the evidence forces us to recognize the linguistic fact that salvation is NOT found in the mere Name of Yahshua, but in the full expression of ‘adonay Yahshua messiah.’"

Further down the page they write the following:

" ... the refusal of Yahshua’s divinely appointed titles is in itself an act of rebellion against Inspiration!"

We reply: Once again, it is truly amazing how this VERY SERIOUS issue, one on which our very salvation hinges, in the words of the authors, becomes a "minor battle" on page 46 of their article. But there is more to be considered here. Exactly what do the authors mean by presenting such a pivotal case supportive of the need for all believers to acknowledge the Messiah "in the full expression of adonay Yahshua messiah," when they subsequently admit that they themselves employ the title "Sovereign" (p. 26)? The insinuation on page 23 is that we MUST USE the Hebrew titles only (no translating allowed). In fact, it appears the authors believe that anyone who chooses to translate "adonay" as "master" is guilty of "refusal of Yahshua’s divinely appointed titles." At least this is what the reader gleans while reading page 23. Later, as we have shown on numerous occasions, the authors seem to posture, admitting that titles such as "adonay" can indeed be translated In our quest to discern the underlying intent of the authors, let us establish that we do recognize the Messiah as Adonay, but we translate it as "Master," "Sovereign Ruler," etc. What have we lost in the translation?

XVI. MORE OF THE SAME RHETORIC REHASHED

Mr. George Gabler, in his critique of the article written by Dale George and Silvio Soto, grew weary of the overstated rhetoric pertaining to the inspired titles and salvation. In fact, even before he arrived at page 24 he wrote, "Frankly, this is getting old ... Scripture is inspired by YAHWEH. YAHWEH uses ‘adonay,’ meaning ‘Sovereign,’ as a descriptive title. Believers acknowledge YAHWEH & Messiah as Sovereign, i.e., ‘adonay.’ So what is the problem?"

However, Dale George and Silvio Soto were not finished with the rhetoric. Note, for example, their commentary as it appears on page 24:

"To a Sunday-keeper, it is absurd to make the ‘divine names’ of Yahweh and Yahshua a salvation issue. On the other hand, to us it is equally absurd to make ‘divine titles’ a salvation issue. However, to Inspiration - ah - that’s a whole different story!! For unless we willfully wish to claim blindness, it is obvious from the many passages of Scripture already quoted that DIVINE NAMES and DIVINE TITLES DO MATTER TO YAHWEH! The question is, ‘WHO ARE WE TO SAY DIFFERENTLY?’" (Emphasis theirs) We reply: Refer to quote from George Gabler above.

XVII. TITLES MORE IMPORTANT THAN NAMES?

We read more of the same rhetoric on page 25, including the authors’ imagining Yahweh’s "holy OBSESSION" towards the titles He has given to His beloved Son. Sorry, but we have a difficult time imagining Yahweh as being "obsessed."

The authors also address Revelation 19:16, which reads,

"And He (the Messiah) hath on His vesture and on His thigh a name written, King of kings and Ruler (kurios/adon) of Rulers (kurios/adon)."

Authors George and Soto comment: "If it were left to OUR manner of thinking, the most important thing would be to immediately restore the Savior’s holy Name at his second coming, right? Yet, Inspiration is more concerned with displaying Yahshua’s titles than with displaying his Name!!! Now, isn’t this contrary to OUR rationale?"

Instead of our responding to the above, let us allow George Gabler to answer on our behalf:

"This is bunk! This puts a title ABOVE His name, thus degrading the importance of His Name, relegating His name to second position! Remember, the scriptures clearly say we are to humble ourselves and bow TO HIS NAME in acknowledgment of His Sovereignty!"

We might add that Yahweh has given His Son a name that is above all names. It is to this name that all people will one day bow and confess that He is Sovereign Ruler (Philippians 2:9-11). See also Acts 4:12.

XVIII. "SOVEREIGN" VERSUS "ADONAY"

As if there was any doubt whether or not the theme of Part I of Dale George and Silvio Soto’s article was designed to influence their readers to dump the translations and stick with the original, transliterated Hebrew titles, that doubt is removed on page 26. Then, in the very next paragraph, the authors do the classic posture. Let’s examine and compare those two paragraphs:

"To add insult to injury, we have developed such animosity against the word ‘adonay,’ that the English word ‘Sovereign’ has become more HOLY to us THAN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW WORD THAT INSPIRATION USES. Again, we ask: When the kingdom of Yahweh is finally established on earth and the ‘pure’ language is restored, WHO WILL BE CALLING YAHSHUA BY THE ENGLISH WORD SOVEREIGN? What other possible Hebrew word could we be using then than ‘adonay’? By Yahweh’s decree, which word will appear engraved in Yahshua’s vest at his Second Coming: ‘Sovereign’ or ‘adonay’?"

We comment: This appears to be a clear-cut stance in favor of ditching the word "Sovereign" in favor of the Hebrew title "adonay." But look at the very next paragraph:

"This is not to imply that the English word ‘Sovereign’ cannot be used, for even the authors of this treatise use it. However, to employ ‘Sovereign,’ while rejecting in our hearts the Hebrew ‘adonay,’ is a slap in the face of Inspiration—as we show by this act our willingness to nullify the word of Yahweh in favor of our man-made traditions! It should be clear and understood that it is illogical to reject the Hebrew word ‘adonay’ and at the same time promote its concept through a translation. If it were true that Inspiration did not want us to use the Hebrew ‘adonay,’ how can we defend using the ‘technicality’ of an English translation as a means of avoiding the biblical command? The consistent thing would be to completely eliminate the concept (a thing we are not willing to do either), as an English translation still implicitly recognizes and acknowledges the existence of the Hebrew word!"

Upon reading the above paragraph, in contrast with the one preceding it, I personally had to stop where I was, and review both paragraphs, scratching my head in the process. As stated earlier, the first paragraph more or less seems to "seal the matter" with regard to the authors’ apparent position that true believers everywhere should be calling upon the Messiah as their "Adonay" instead of their "Sovereign." In the very next paragraph, however, they seem to immediately retract their words!

As if this isn’t confusing enough, the rest of that paragraph adds even more confusion! They wrote, "To employ ‘Sovereign,’ while rejecting in our hearts the Hebrew ‘adonay,’ is a slap in the face of Inspiration ...."

If they could only explain how an individual reverently employing "Sovereign" can simultaneously reject the title "Adonay," this might alleviate a lot of the confusion that June and I feel after reading their commentary. It seems to us that if a person refers to the Messiah (or to Yahweh) as "Sovereign," knowing that "Sovereign" is a valid translation of the Hebrew "Adonay," then such a person is simultaneously recognizing the original Hebrew word as being valid also! Right? I mean, if Scripture identifies Yahweh as "Adonay," then who are we to say Scripture employed the wrong word? Clearly, if "Adonay" is used to identify Yahweh in Scripture, then it must be a valid, legitimate, inspired word. If a person thus employs the title "Sovereign" as a translation of this recognizably valid Hebrew word, then that person would have to discern that this recognizably valid Hebrew word is acceptable and pleasing in the sight of Yahweh to use. Right? And if a person recognizes an underlying Hebrew word as being valid, doesn’t this mean he doesn’t reject that Hebrew word? With this in mind, how could anyone of noble intentions possibly refer to Yahweh or His Son as Sovereign, knowing that "Sovereign" is a translation of the Hebrew "Adonay," and then simultaneously reject "Adonay"? We do not understand this concept.

Furthermore, since it seems the authors think they have a handle on what would constitute a "slap in the face" to Yahweh [Inspiration], and since they believe a spiritual slap in the face is committed just by rejecting the use of "adonay" in favor of the word "sovereign," we are only left to wonder about the following: If this little "offense" is all the authors believe it takes to constitute a slap in the face of Inspiration—then we find it appalling that they then turn around and later express the sentiment that referring to Yahweh as a "God," i.e., a title pronounced exactly the same as the name originally ascribed to the Babylonian deity of fortune, is a "perfectly acceptable English translation" (page 45). We believe we have detected mixed-up priorities on the part of the authors.

End of Installment #5